RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/16
20 September 2000
(00-3744)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 4 & 5 MAY 2000
Chairman:  Mr.  Milan Hovorka (Czech Republic)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
4 and 5 May 2000.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS – REQUEST
FOR OBSERVER STATUS BY COMESA………………………… ..........................2
B. REVIEW OF NATI ONAL LEGISLA TIONS ...............................................................3
- Notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously
reviewed by th e Committee............................................................................................3
(i) India - G/ADP/N/1/I ND/2/Suppl.2-G/SC M/N/1/IND/2/ Suppl.2 ........................4
(ii) Thailand – G/ADP/N/1/T HA/4-G/SCM/N/ 1/THA/4...........................................4
(iii) Argentina - G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppls. 3 & 4
- G/SCM/N/1/ ARG/1/Suppls. 3 & 4 ....................................................................4
(iv) Australia – G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/S uppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.1................4
(v) Estonia – G/ADP/N/1/EST/1 & G/SCM/N/1/EST/1 ...........................................4
(vi) Kyrgyz Republic –G/ADP/N/1/KGZ/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KGZ/1.............................4
- Notifications of legislation that have previously been reviewed by the Committee ......5
European Communities -
(G/ADP/Q1/EEC/19 – G/ SCM/Q1/EEC/19) .................................................................5
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/59 and Addenda)..........................................................................................5
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/57-58 and G/ADP/N/60-61).........................................................................6
E. APPARENT FAILURE OF MEMBERS TO NOTIFY ALL PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(Item requested by the European Communities) ............................................................7G/ADP/M/16
Page 2
Page
F. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP
ON ANTI-CIRCUMV ENTION.....................................................................................8
G. ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS BY ARGENTINA ON KOREAN
TEXTILE PRODUCTS (Item requested by Korea).......................................................9
H. OTHER BU SINESS.....................................................................................................11
- Canada - Anti-dumping duties measures on steel bars from Cuba ....................11
I. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................13
J. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ..........................................................14
K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.........................................................................................14
A. INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS - REQUEST FOR
OBSERVER STATUS BY COMESA
3. The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda was to consider the request of
COMESA for observer status in the Committee.   By letter dated 29 October 1999, the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) ha d requested observer status in various Councils
and Committees of the WTO, including this Committee.  Members would recall that the GeneralCouncil adopted procedures for observer status for international intergovernmental organizations in
July 1996.   Those guidelines appeared at Annex 3 of document WT/L/161.  According to those
procedures, requests for observer status were to be considered on a case-by-case basis by each WTO
body to which a request had been addressed, taking into account such criteria as the nature of the
work of the organization concerned, the nature of  its membership, the number of WTO Members in
the organization, reciprocity with respect to access to proceedings, documents and other aspects of
observership, and whether the organization had been in volved in the past with the work of the GATT.
4. The Chairman pointed out that at its meeting on 7 February 1997, the General Council had
agreed, with regard to international intergovernmental organizations,  (a)  that the organizations which
already had observer status in the General Council on an ad hoc  basis be granted observer status
immediately;  (b) that for international intergovernmental organizations whose requests had not yet been
considered the Chairman would conduct consultations;  (c)  to invite the other WTO bodies to proceed ina similar way.
5. The Chairman noted that COMESA had not previously attended meetings of this Committee as
an observer and reiterated that COMESA had also requested observer status in several WTO bodies, and
the Chairmen of those bodies, including the General Council and the CTG, were consulting with
Members concerning the request.
6. The Chairman proposed that the Chairman be directed to conduct consultations on the request for
observer status of COMESA, and report back to the Committee at the appropriate time.
7. The Committee so decided.G/ADP/M/16
Page 3
B. REVIEW OF NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS
8. The Chairman stated that the next item on the agenda today was the review of notifications of
anti-dumping legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the
Committee at it special meeting in April 1996 (document G/ADP/W/284).  As had been indicated inthe agenda, the Committee would consider the notifications of new or amended legislation, in the
order indicated in the airgram convening this m eeting.  The Committee would then consider the one
question concerning the previously reviewed notification of the EC's legislation, which had been
received too late to be considered at the Committee's meeting last October, and had therefore been put
over to the agenda of this meeting.
9. The Chairman congratulated Members on the timely submission of questions for the
legislation review.  For the first time since the Committee began the process, back in 1995, all
questions relating to new notifications to be considered had been received by the deadline,
13 April 2000.  Members who would be responding to questions today appreciated receiving timely
submissions, which facilitated their ability to answer.  The Secretariat would, as it did last November,
prepare and circulate a document setting forth deadlines for submissions in connection with next fall's
meetings of the Committee, as well as the Committees on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures andSafeguards.
1  Members were strongly urged to make every effort to comply with the applicable
deadlines for submissions.  The Chairman expres sed his hope that at the Committee's next meeting,
Members would again be in the happy situation of questions having been received on time.  This
enabled Members to prepare for the complex and often technical discussions in these meetings.
10. Turning to the substantive discussion, the Chairman noted 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 the meeting, that was, no later than 13 April 2000.  As provided for in
the agreed procedures, Members receiving written questions would be asked to respond orally to those
questions in the meeting, and would also be requested, in accordance with the procedures adopted by
the Committee, to answer all questions submitted in writing.  The Chairman reminded Members thatfollow up questions might be asked in the meeting.  Such follow up questions were to be submitted in
writing no later than 29 May 2000 if the Member posing the question wished to receive a written
answer.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing were to be submitted to the Secretariat
no later than 10 July 2000.
11. Before turning to the notifications on the agenda for review, the Chairman drew the
Committee's attention to document G/ADP/W/413, circulated on 17 April 2000.  This document listed
all documents containing the written questions and answers concerning legislation notificationsconsidered by the Committee since it started the process of review of notifications in July 1995, and
indicated those questions which had not yet been answered in writing.  Some of these questions might
simply have been overlooked, some were directed to Members who have not participated actively in
the Committee.  The document provided Members wi th a complete summary of the questions and
answers concerning notifications of legislati on and regulations concerning anti-dumping and
countervailing measures presented in the review process.  The Chairman hoped that it would prove
useful to Members in furthering their knowledge of each others' legislation and practice.  The
Chairman expressed his gratitude to the Secretariat for preparing this paper.
12. The Chairman noted that he and the Chairman of the Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures had written directly to the representatives of Members with outstandingquestions in February of this year, and some responses to questions had subsequently been submitted
to the Secretariat, which were reflected in document G/ADP/W/413.  The Chairman stated that it was
really a matter for the Members who had not yet received answers to the questions they had posed to
                                                     
1 This document was subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/W/414, dated 15 May 2000.G/ADP/M/16
Page 4
pursue the matter with other Members.  He then tu rned to the substantive review for this meeting,
noting that the order had been changed at the request of India and Thailand.
13. The questions regarding the notification of India can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/IND/8 – G/SCM/Q1/IND/8 Submitted by Argentina
G/ADP/Q1/IND/9-G/SCM/Q1/IND/9 To Argentina
14. The questions regarding the notification of Thailand can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/THA/12 – G/SCM/Q1/THA/12 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/THA/13 – G/SCM/Q1/THA/13 Submitted by Canada
G/ADP/Q1/THA/14 – G/SCM/Q1/THA/14 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/THA/15 – G/SCM/Q1/THA/15 Submitted by the European CommunitiesG/ADP/Q1/THA/15 – G/SCM/Q1/THA/15 Submitted by Argentina
The answers provided by Thailand to thos e questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/THA/16 – G/SCM/Q1/THA/16 To All
15. The questions regarding the notification of Argentina can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/9 – G/SCM/Q1/ARG/9 Submitted by Korea
The answers provided by Argentina to thos e questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/10 – G/SCM/Q1/ARG/10 To Korea
16. The delegate of China, speaking as an Observer, requested the delegate of Argentina and the
Secretariat to change the reference to "Taiwan" on pages 3 to 5 of document G/ADP/N/59/ARG to
"Chinese Taipei".
17. The Chairman pointed out that the Committee had not yet reached the discussion of the semi-
annual reports of anti-dumping actions, but that the Committee would take note of the comments of
the delegate of China.
18. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Australia.  The Committee took note
of the notification.
19. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Estonia.  The Committee took note  of
the notification.
20. The questions regarding the notification of Kyrgyz Republic can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/1 – G/SCM/Q1/KGZ/1 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/2- G/SCM/Q1/KGZ/2 Submitted by CanadaG/ADP/M/16
Page 5
The answers provided by Kyrgyz Republic to those questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/3- G/SCM/Q1/KGZ/3 To Canada
G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/4- G/SCM/Q1/KGZ/4 To the United States
21. The Chairman thanked the Members whose notifications had been discussed for their
answers, and the Members who undertook to put questions.  As usual, the exercise had been positive,
and of benefit to all.
22. The Chairman reminded Members that follow up questions asked at this meeting must be
submitted in writing no later than 29 May 2000 if the Member posing the question wished to receive a
written answer.  Written answers to all written  questions received by a Members whose new
notification had been reviewed today should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than
10 July 2000.
23. The Chairman informed the Committee that the new notifications of Chile, document
G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2, and Turkey, document G/ADP/N /1/TUR/3 would be on the agenda of the
meeting next Autumn.  The Secretariat would inform Members of additional new notifications to beconsidered at that meeting in mid-September 2000.  The deadline for submission of questions
regarding new notifications of legislation for next Autumn's meeting would be 12 October 2000.
24. The final aspect of legislation reviewed involved questions regarding legislation notifications
that had already been reviewed.  Questions concerning the legislation of the European Communities
had been received from Brazil.  These questions concerned the EC's notification of countervailingduty legislation, but had been submitted too late to be considered at the SCM Committee's meeting
last October, and therefore appeared on the agenda today.  The Chairman stated that he understood
that the EC had not yet filed written answers to th ese questions, but was prepared to respond to these
questions at the meeting of the SCM Committee next week.
25. The delegate of the EC confirmed the Chairman's understanding.
26. Finally, the Chairman noted that in order for a previously reviewed notification of legislation
to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in Autumn 2000, questions had to be
submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose notification was in question, no later than
21 September 2000.  The Chairman hoped that this advance warning would help Members in
scheduling their internal work programmes.
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
27. The Chairman recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the second half of 1999, to
be submitted by 29 February 2000 had been circulated to the Members in G/ADP/N/59, dated
6 January 2000.  The Chairman noted that there had been some improvement in the submission of
semi-annual reports.  While a number of semi-annual reports had been received late, the degree of
lateness had been less than in the past.  As noted before, Members were well aware of the applicabledeadlines for submission of semi-annual reports – semi-annual reports were always due at the end of
February for the period July through December of the previous year, and at the end of August for the
period January through June of the current year.  There was simply no reason that this routine task
could not be routinely attended to by Members, and their semi-annual reports submitted in a timely
fashion.
28. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified in paragraph 1 of document
G/ADP/N/59 Addendum 1, dated 19 April 2000.  To the extent possible, the semi-annual reports hadG/ADP/M/16
Page 6
been translated and circulated to the Committee, an d were included in the documents made available
for the meeting.
29. In addition to the 24 Members who had submitted semi-annual reports, 30 Members, listed in
paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/59 Addendum 1, had notified the Committee that they did not
take any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  Cyprus, Haiti, Latvia and Pakistan hadsubmitted such reports too late to be included in that document.  With respect to notifications of no
actions, there was no good explanation for some Members' failure to make this notification in a timely
fashion.  All that was required if a Member took no action during a given period was a one sentence
letter stating that fact sent to the Chairman or the Secretary of the Committee before the end of
February, and another such letter before the end of August.  Particularly for Members who did not
conduct anti-dumping investigations, it seemed that this should be a relatively simple task.
30. While there had been some improvement in compliance, the Chairman noted that 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 th is important requirement set forth in Article 16.4 of
the Agreement.  These Members were identified in document G/ADP/N/59 Addendum 1 at
paragraph 3.
31. Regarding the semi-annual report of India, the delegate of the EC asked the delegate of India
whether he was correct in understanding that since there were more than 50 measures mentioned as
being under investigation during the period July to December, it followed that there had been no
definitive or final measure taken.
32. The delegate of India stated that he would reply to the EC's question at the next meeting of
the Committee next Autumn.
33. The Committee took note of the comments made by the EC and India in this respect.
34. The delegate of China, speaking as an Observer, requested that the reference in the semi-
annual report of Peru to "Taiwan" be changed to "Chinese Taipei" instead.
35. The delegate of Peru took note of the point raised by China.
36. The Committee took note of the statements made by China and Peru.
37. No comments were made with respect to the semi-annual reports of any other Member.  The
Committee took note of the reports.
D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
38. The Chairman noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received by the Committee had been circul ated to Members in documents G/ADP/N/57, 58,
60, 61, and 62.  Preliminary and final anti-dumping actions had been notified by Argentina, Australia,Canada, Egypt, the European Communities, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Turkey and the
United States.
39. As with other notification requirements, the Chairman noted that there appeared to be a 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.  The Chairmanreminded Members 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 seriouslyG/ADP/M/16
Page 7
and comply, the Committee would be prevented from accomplishing its goal of considering Members'
compliance with the requirements of the Agreement.
E. APPARENT FAILURE OF MEMBERS TO NOTIFY ALL PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (item requested by the European Communities)
40. The delegate of the European Communities stated that he had asked for the introduction of
this item on the agenda because of a recent experience he had had trying to obtain some information
through the Secretariat.  In a different context, he had wanted to read a number of Indian decisions on
anti- dumping which had been listed in India's semi-annual reports as measures in force.  However,
when he contacted the Secretariat he was surprised to learn that these measures had not been notified
as preliminary and final actions, and that there was no further information concerning these measures
available in the Secretariat.  As a matter of fact, the last Indian semi-annual report reported more than60 measures in force and more than 50 cases currently under investigation.  Under normal rules, this
would amount to more than 100 notifications of preliminary or final actions taken, or even more if
provisional and final measures were notified separately.  Further research into the matter showed that
India had only once notified a preliminary or final action, in 1997, out of more than 100 that
apparently had been taken.  The delegate of the EC observed that this was difficult to understand, as itwas not burdensome to notify these actions.
41. The content of the notifications of preliminary and final actions had been discussed in the
Committee, and guidelines for minimum information to be provided in those notifications were set
forth in document G/ADP/2.  There had been a discussion about what the delay for such notification
should be and the delegate of the EC was under the impression that there had been some sort ofconsensus that notification should be at once, given that the Agreement provided for such
notifications "without delay".  Although there was nothing on paper, in his view it went without
saying that a notification of this type should follow the publication of the decision to impose a
measure.  For those Members who published notices in a language used by the WTO it could not be
any problem at all just to send the public notice to the Secretariat in Geneva at the time of publication.Where translation was necessary, it might take a bit longer.
42. The delegate of the EC stated that after more research, and consulting the WTO data base, he
had been faced with another problem, namely that the first response to his question on the definitive
measures taken by India for a certain period was " none".  That explained his previous question when
the Committee dealt with the semi-annual report of India.  The WTO data base was based on the
information in the semi-annual reports of Members who took anti-dumping actions.  The delegate of
the EC stated that in the case of India, he had perused the preceding semi-annual report and could notfind any notification of a definitive measure; it was all provisional.  The columns which dealt with
definitive actions were all empty.  Since the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement India
had taken 64 definitive actions, which is not a small amount.  This appeared from the list of measures
in force submitted in the semi-annual report.  However, no information had been included in the semi-
annual report tables concerning these final actions.  The delegate of the EC stated that this wasinsufficient, as he regarded these reports as a major source of information and provided a possibility
for those in Geneva, acting for their capitals, to find out what other Members do.
43. The delegate of the EC stated that he did not want it to appear as if he were targeting India
with his remarks -- it was just his experience in tr ying to find information concerning Indian actions
which had triggered his concern.  He noted that there were quite a few other Members who hadapparently taken preliminary or final actions for which a notification was not in the records of the
WTO.  Among these were quite important users of  anti-dumping measures, including South Africa,
Venezuela and Brazil.G/ADP/M/16
Page 8
44. The delegate of the EC requested the Chairman to consider ways this situation could be
improved.  He acknowledged that the Chairman appealed to Members at every meeting to fulfill their
notification obligations, but perhaps more could be done.  He observed that the work of Members in
the Committee became at least in part useless if they did not have sufficient notifications or if they
were not received in a timely fashion.  The work of the Committee, and probably that of othercommittees as well, would become far more fruitful and also interesting if there were proper and
complete notifications.
45. The delegate of India stated that definitive measures had been taken and that there must have
been some mistake with the report.  It was India's intention to rectify it before the next meeting.
Regarding the preliminary and final notifications, the delegate of India noted that it had been India's
practice to send notifications to the countries concerned.  The delegate of India stated that India would
make sure that by the next meeting copies regarding the preliminary and final measures will also havebeen sent to the Committee and the WTO.
46. The delegate of the EC thanked the delegate of India for his promise that he would look into
the matter and stated that the EC would be grateful to receive information.  Perhaps the delegate of
India would have the opportunity to make sure that the record could be completed.
47. The Committee took note of the statements made by the EC and India.
48. The Chairman noted that in addition to th e importance of these notifications to the
Committee's role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members, these notifications also
served an important function of information to othe r Members, by allowing them to learn more about
the details of determinations made by other Members.  This could assist Members in better
understanding how the Agreement was applied by individual Members, and in keeping abreast ofactions on a more up-to-date basis than was possible through the semi-annual reports.  The Chairman
reminded Members that the Committee had adopted guidelines for the minimum information to be
included in these notifications, at its meeting in October 1995.  Those guidelines could be found in
document G/ADP/2.
49. The Chairman urged all Members to comply with this notification requirement.  The
Chairman observed that he did not have to remind Members of Article 16.4 of the Agreement, which
provides that "Members shall report without delay to the Committee all preliminary and final anti-
dumping actions taken".
50. The Chairman noted the readiness of the Indian delegation to look into the matter and asked
other delegations to do the same.  He would be willing to discuss this issue further provided he had
some indications that there were some specific difficulties which prevented delegations from
notifying these preliminary and final actions.  The issue did not have to be further discussed now;clearly there was an indication from the delegation of India to react at the next meeting and at the
same time any difficulties which delegations have in complying with their notification obligations
could be discussed.
F. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
51. The Chairman stated that as most Members were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention had met the previous day.  Unfortunately, few papers had been submitted, despite the
fact that the Group had agreed at its last meeting in October 1999 to move on to consideration of the
second topic set out in the agreed framework for discussions.  Members had agreed, at yesterday'smeeting, to submit scenarios based on factual situations faced by their investigating authorities.
Based on these scenarios, Members would be able to discuss responses to these situations.  At theG/ADP/M/16
Page 9
same time, questions raised by the delegations of Hong Kong, China and Japan were considered and
the Chairman invited Members to respond to those questions.  The Chairman believed that this
approach would help the Group to move ahead and to have more structured and focussed debates.
52. To conclude his report, the Chairman noted that the Informal Group would meet again on
1 November 2000 to continue the discussions on the first and second topics for discussion under theagreed framework, the questions previously posed, and the factual scenarios presented by Members.
The Chairman hoped that for the future more Member s would participate actively in the work of the
Informal Group by submitting papers on the items in discussion, and in the discussions themselves.
G. ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS BY ARGENTINA ON KOREAN TEXTILE
PRODUCTS (Item Requested By Korea)
53. The delegate of Korea stated that in the ligh t of the serious concerns the Korean Government
had over Argentina's recent anti-dumping inves tigation and measures on Korean textile products,
Korea had requested that the subject be placed on the agenda of this meeting.
54. Recently, Argentine authorities had imposed a series of import restrictive measures, in
particular anti-dumping investigations and measures, on textile products originating in Korea.  The
Korean delegation referred to (1) Argentina's Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Polyester
Filament and Nylon Filament from Korea  and (2) Anti-Dumping Investigations on Polyethylene and
Dyed Woven Fabrics .  Korea was of the view that these matters raised several issues relating to the
obligations of Argentina under various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including
Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
55. The delegate of Korea stated that in January 2000, Argentina had applied a provisional anti-
dumping measure on polyester filament and nylon filament (HS 5407) from Korea and Taiwan by
fixing a minimum import price at $US 9.50 per kilo gram.  The Korean Government was of the view
that Argentina's anti-dumping determinations and measures were not consistent with the WTO
Agreements in the following aspects, among others:
- During the stage of anti-dumping investigations, Argentine authorities had failed to
give Korean exporters notice of the information they required and also had failed to
provide them an opportunity to defend their interests.  Specifically, Argentina did not
even identify the exporters in Korea and had failed to even investigate Korea's home
market price for the products concerned.  Needless to say, whether Korean exporters
were dumping or not should be determined by comparing the import price from
Korea and its home market price.  The Korean delegation wondered on what basis
Argentine authorities could have established the dumping margin as they did, withoutproperly establishing the home market price of the products.
- The Anti-Dumping Agreement did not aut horise the minimum import price system as
implemented by the Argentine authorities.  Article 8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
allowed only for voluntary price undertakings from exporters.  The minimum import
price measure Argentina had been implem enting without consent of exporters was
clearly compulsory in nature, and therefore was in violation of Article 8 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.
56. The delegate of Korea noted that the Argentine anti-dumping authority was currently
conducting investigations on polyethylene (HS 3901) and dyed woven fabrics (HS 5408) from Korea.
These investigations had repeated the same mistake of  failing to identify the exporters of the products
under investigation.  While exporters had not been duly notified of the investigation and thus had been
given no opportunity to defend themselves, some Korean companies who were not exporters of theG/ADP/M/16
Page 10
products under investigation had been included in the notice of initiation of investigations.  The
Korean delegation was concerned with the arbitrary manner in which these investigations were being
conducted.  If the Argentine authorities conducting these anti-dumping investigations continued to
disregard the standards set forth in the WTO Agreements, there was a high probability that these
investigations would lead to an unjustified determination of dumping based on inaccurate data.
57. The Korean delegate stated that on a number of occasions of previous bilateral contacts, the
Korean Government had conveyed its serious concerns to the Argentine Government.  However, there
had been no indication from te Argentine Government that the anti-dumping investigations and
measures would be rectified.  Korea strongly urged the Argentine Government to bring its actions
regarding the above-mentioned anti-dumping cases into conformity with its obligations under the
WTO Agreements.  The Korean Government reserved all of its rights available to it under the WTO
Agreements to defend its just commercial interests.
58. The delegate of Argentina replied that he would explain their procedure, which Argentina
considered to be consistent with the Agreement.  Firstly, with respect to the investigations on dyed
woven fabrics and polyester and nylon filament, Argentina considered that the Korean Government
had been notified of the opening of the investigation on 7 July 1999 and that Argentina had also asked
the Government of Korea to supply certain information to the Argentine authorities so they wouldhave adequate information for the investigation.  A questionnaire had also been submitted to the
Korean Government so it could participate in the investigation.
59. The Argentine Government had also told the Korean Government in August 1999 that the
Argentina authorities would appreciate any proof or evidence that the Korean Government could
submit to assist in the investigation.  The Argent ine Government also had a meeting with the Korean
Embassy on 12 July 1999 and with the Korean Government on 27 July 1999.  The Korean
Government had been given a copy of the preliminary determination on 12 January 2000.
60. The Argentine Government had complied with all the requirements of notifications with
respect to the opening of the investigation and the provisions of Article 5.5 of the Agreement.
Notification was provided on 1 January, and all the interested parties had been informed.  TheArgentine Government had also requested a list of the exporters of the product in question and gave
questionnaires to the exporters who had been identified after the initiation of the investigation, given
the fact that the Argentine Government could no t identify the exporters at the initiation of the
investigation.
61. The delegate of Argentina stated that with re spect to the notification of the investigation on
polyester and nylon filament, the Argentine Government had notified prior to the initiation of the
investigation in 1999 and had also provided notification after the initiation of the investigation in1999.  The Argentine Government had also requested that it be supplied with a list of exporters in
addition to the notification and the questionnaire and had sent out the notification to interested parties.
The Korean Government had therefore been given ample opportunity to provide information
throughout the investigation.  Based on the information, the Argentine Government had adopted a
provisional measure.  The delegate of Argentina considered that the application of the provisionalmeasure on the products in question had been consistent with the Agreement, and the provisional
duties the margin had been determined based on information provided by the parties as requested.
62. Unfortunately, the Government of Argentina had requested the participation of certain parties
who had not yet complied with that request.  The Government of Argentina continued to await their
contribution of information to the investigation.
63. Notwithstanding this, with respect to the violation alleged by the Korean Government and the
implementation of the provisional measures, the Government of Argentina did not see on what legalG/ADP/M/16
Page 11
basis Korea made its allegation at this stage.  Article 8 refered to inter alia  price undertakings, and
had nothing to do with the implementation of provisional measures.  Of course the Argentine
Government would be available for any further clarification that might be required by the Korean
Government.
64. The delegate of Korea pointed out that some el ements of the reply by Argentina varied from
Korea's understanding of the case at this stage, but that he would consult with his capital regarding the
reply from Argentina.  Meanwhile, the Korean Gove rnment reserved the right to take such measures
or steps as seems appropriate.
65. The Committed took note of the statements made.
H. OTHER BUSINESS
- Canada - Anti-dumping duties measures applied on steel bars from Cuba
66. The delegate of Cuba stated that as a result of the anti-dumping investigation that had been
initiated by Canada on 16 June 1999, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal had, on
12 January 2000, decided that importation of the steel bars had caused material injury to the Canadian
industry.  Cuba had noted with concern the results of this preceeding, based on the analysis and the
arguments relied on by the Tribunal in reaching this decision.  He wished to provide certaininformation.
67. At the public hearing, the Canadian producer had stated that Cuban exports had not caused
injury, but that they only posed a threat of injury, if they continued to follow the same trends.  Both
the exporter and the Cuban producer had demonstrated at the hearing that it was impossible to
continue to increase exports, based on the limited capacity for production of the Cuban industry aswell as the sustained growth in domestic demand and demand in traditional export markets, which did
not include Canada.  However, the Tribunal considered that the Cuban exports had caused injury to
the Canadian industry.
68. In the reasoning of its decision, the Tribunal did not reflect the evidence provided by Cuba
which indicated the existence of fixed price zones among the various domestic producers.
69. As soon as it had been informed of the initiation of the investigation, Cuba had requested an
individual analysis of its case, taking account of the marked differences in its industry which
differentiated it, from a productive and competitive point of view, from the rest of the investigated
countries and from the Canadian industry.  The Tribunal had explicitly informed Cuba that its practice
in its investigations dealing with  more than one country had been to carry out an assessment of the
cumulative effects of the exports of all the goods on the domestic industry.  Thus, in Cuba's view, the
Tribunal had converted the possibility of cumulative assessment under the Agreement, which had tobe analysed and demonstrated, into a rule.
70. In its decision, the Tribunal explained that under Canadian legislation, Cuba was required to
present evidence that the anti-dumping measures would affect its "essential interests". This improper
interpretation deprived the provision on special and differential treatment of its essence, and
conditioned the possibility of its application.  At the hearing, the interested Cuban parties, includingthe Canadian importer, had explained that their intention was to maintain a small, stable presence in
the Canadian market and had drawn attention to the negative effect of an affirmative determination on
this intention.  Today this negative effect was the reality -- since the imposition of the definitive
measures, Cuba had not been able to export one further ton of the product to Canada.  Canadian
importers responded to offers by Cuba that exports priced at the determined normal value were notcompetitive.G/ADP/M/16
Page 12
71. The delegate of Cuba stated that the policy of the Canadian authorities was to not consider the
possibility of accepting price undertakings unless the request is made by enough exporters, without
considering if an undertaking was possible, as it was in the case of Cuba.  This demonstrates that any
analysis in this regard is conditioned on the fulfilment of formal requirements which go beyond the
letter and spirit of the Agreement.
72. In light of this reality, the implications of this decision did not affect only the exportations of
a developing country, but rise to a multilateral level, confirming once again that the Anti-Dumping
Agreement did not provide developing countries with the necessary tools to benefit from the special
and differential treatment that they need.  And what is even more worrying is that the developed
countries are not assuming all the obligations that the present text of the Agreement imposes with
regard to this subject.  These re asons reinforce the desire of developing countries to have special and
differential treatment provisions of a binding nature, as a means to ensure a better balance among allthe participants in the multilateral trading system.
73. The delegate of Canada responded that on 13 December 1999, the Canadian Customs and
Revenue Agency (CCRA) had made a final determina tion of dumping with respect to imports of the
subject goods from the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Korea and Turkey.  The investigation had
concluded that the volume of imports of the subject goods from Cuba had been 3.9 per cent andtherefore, it was larger than is considered negligible under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
74. On 12 January 2000, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) had concluded its
inquiry into the injury of the dumped goods.  The Tribunal had found that the dumping into Canada of
the subject goods originating in or exported from the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Korea andTurkey had caused material injury to the domestic industry.
75. In the Tribunal's Statement of Reasons, it was explained that the Canadian legislation gave the
Tribunal the discretion to make or not make an assessment of the cumulative effect of the dumping or
subsidizing of goods.  However, it had been the Tribunal's practice, in inquiries which included goods
from more than one source country, to make an assessment of the cumulative effect of imports of allthe subject goods on the domestic industry.  Only by considering the overall effect of all the dumping
on the producers can the impact be properly assessed.
76. The Canadian delegate continued that in this inquiry, the evidence showed that the weighted
average margin of dumping of reinforcing bar for each of the three named countries was more than
2 per cent of the export price of the goods and that, therefore, it was not insignificant.  In addition, the
Tribunal had determined that the imports from each of the three named countries had not been
negligible for the purposes of its consideration of the question of injury to the domestic industry.
77. In view of the determination that the volume  of imports had not been negligible and the
evidence that the weighted average margins of dumping had not been insignificant, the Tribunal had
proceeded to examine the question of injury to the Canadian industry.  It had found that the domestic
producers had experienced a significant loss of market share.  In addition, to respond to this loss of
market share, the domestic industry had been forced  to reduce selling prices, leading to reductions in
the revenue and profitability of the domestic producers, especially in the latter part of 1998 and in the
first half of 1999.  The Tribunal had found that the magnitude of the market share losses, the price
declines and the resulting financial losses had been such as to conclude that the domestic producers
had been materially injured.
78. With respect to the concern raised by Cuba over Canada's implementation of Article 15 of the
agreement, a constructive remedy had been considered in the form of an undertaking.  Regrettably,
the parties involved had been unable in this case to pursue such an avenue.  In conclusion, theG/ADP/M/16
Page 13
Government of Canada had made every effort to take the circumstances as presented by Cuba into
consideration when the case was initiated and had worked closely with Cuba during this investigation.
As noted at the last meeting of this Committee, Cuba and Canada had met on several occasions in
Geneva, in Havana and in Ottawa.  The Government of Canada was sensitive to the concerns of Cuba
and concluded the investigation.
79. The Committee took note of the statements made.
I. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION
80. The Chairman observed that, in his assessment of the Group's work over the course of the
week, the participation of Members, both in terms of the papers and proposals, and the discussions
themselves, had been excellent.  The Group had discussed all of the topics on its agenda.  Thediscussions had been lively at times, and a great deal of information had been exchanged among
Members regarding their practices in implem enting the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
81. The Chairman was extremely pleased to be able to report that, after long hours, hard work,
and great effort on the part of all Members, the Group had arrived at a consensus with respect to thetext of a draft recommendation concerning the periods of data collection for anti-dumping
investigations.  The text of the draft had been made available in English earlier, and was available in
the room in Spanish and French.  The Chairman thanked all those who helped prepare the draft in all
three WTO languages.  Given the extensive discussion concerning this draft recommendation in the
Ad Hoc Group, the Chairman hoped that the Committee could agree to adopt the DraftRecommendation.
82. No Member spoke in response to the Chairman's comments.
83. In light of the apparent agreement of the Members of the Committee, the Chairman proposed
that the Draft Recommendation concerning the periods of data collection in anti-dumping
investigations be adopted.
84. The Committee so decided.
85. The  Chairman mentioned that he was particularly encouraged by the presence of experts
from capital at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group, who brought the necessary technical knowledge of
their own practices to the discussions, thereby making them more substantive and useful for all
Members.  Their participation in the discussions in the Ad Hoc Group over the course of the week had
been critical to Member's ability to adopt the draft recommendation at this meeting.  The Chairman
strongly encouraged Members, if at all possible, to continue to bring technical experts from capitals tofuture meetings of the Group.
86. The Chairman noted that the Ad Hoc Group had a very fruitful meeting this time, and hoped
that Members would continue to participate actively in the work of the Ad Hoc Group.  In this regard,
the Chairman reminded Members of the tasks agreed to with regard to the topics under consideration
in the Group.
• The Secretariat would circulate a revised version of the draft recommendation on the contents
of preliminary affirmative determinations, reflecting the suggestions made during the courseof the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group.G/ADP/M/16
Page 14
• With respect to the discussions concerning practical issues and experience in applying
Article 2.4.2, the Secretariat would compile and circulate a list of the questions posed byMembers, either in written submissions or orally at this meeting, as an aid to Members in
preparing for the next meeting.
• In addition, given the course of the discussion s on this topic, Members who had not already
done so, and who undertook transaction-to-transaction comparisons, were requested to
provide specific examples of their practice in this regard.
• With respect to the discussions concerning practical issues and experience in cases involving
cumulation under Article 3.3, the Secretariat would compile and circulate a document settingforth possibly relevant criteria regarding the conditions of competition for consideration in
deciding whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate in light of
those conditions.
• With respect to the discussions concerning practical issues and experience with respect to
questionnaires and requests for information under Articles 6.1 and 6.1.1, Members were
requested to submit their own proposals as to relevant considerations in deciding whether to
grant extensions of time to respond to questionnaires
87. The Chairman noted that the Group had schedul ed its next meeting for 30 October 2000, and
that submissions for that meeting should be provided to the Secretariat for translation and circulation by
18 September 2000.
88. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
89. The Chairman stated that 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 last week of October.
Accordingly, the next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of
30 October 2000.  In light of previously scheduled meetings of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementationand the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, this Committee will therefore meet on Thursday and
Friday, 2 and 3 November 2000.
K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
90. The Chairman stated that, as Members were are no doubt aware, the Chairman of the Council
for Trade in Goods had not completed informal consultations on the nominations of Chairmen for the
different bodies operating under the auspices of the C ouncil for Trade in Goods.  Thus, contrary to the
usual practice, there were no proposed nominations before the Committee for its consideration.
91. The Committee's rules of procedure called for the election of officers to take place at the first
regular meeting of the year, which was this meeting, to  take effect at the end of the meeting.  In this
regard, the Chairman noted that the CTG had decided that, until the consultations were completed, the
current Chairmen would continue in their functions  for one more meeting of their respective bodies.
Thus, unless the Committee wished to proceed with the election of a Chairman without waiting for the
results of the overall consultations, and in light of the circumstances, the Chairman proposed that the
Committee, as an extraordinary measure, extended the term of the current Chairman and ViceChairman, Mr. Milan Hovorka and Mr Roberto Azevedo, until the next meeting of the Committee.
This action proposed for the Committee was consistent with the spirit of the decision of the CTG.G/ADP/M/16
Page 15
92. The Committee so decided.
93. The meeting was adjourned.
__________