RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/M/7
2October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3996)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING
HELD ON29APRIL 1996
Chairman: Mr.J.McNab (Canada)
1. TheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") heldaregular meeting on
29April 1996.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Rules ofProcedure (G/ADP/135/Rev.1) 1
B. Semi-Annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Actions (Article 16.4) 2
(G/ADP/N/9 andAddenda)
C. Preliminary andFinal Anti-Dumping Actions: Notifications 6
(G/ADP/N/7, G/ADP/N/8, G/ADP/N/10 andG/ADP/N/11)
D. Notification ofCompetent Authorities (Article 16.5) 6
E. Possible Establishment ofanAdHocGroup onImplementation 7
F. TheGovernment ofIndia'sInvestigation ofBisphenol-A from 8
theUnited States
G. Procedures fortheAnnual Review andReport oftheCommittee 9
H. Other Business 10
I. Election ofOfficers 11
A. Rules ofProcedure
3. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee adopt thedraftrules ofprocedure contained in
document G/ADP/W/135/Rev.1, dated 20March 1996. Hestated thattheSecretariat would continue
itspractice ofissuing anannotated draftagenda approximately fourtosixweeks inadvance ofregular
meetings asitdidfortheTokyo Round Committee.G/ADP/M/7
Page2
4. TheCommittee adopted thedraftRules ofProcedure anddirected theSecretariat toforward
them totheCouncil forTrade inGoods forapproval inaccordance withparagraph 6ofArticle IV
oftheWTO Agreement.1
B. Semi-Annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Action (Article 16.4)(G/ADP/N/9 andAddenda)
5. TheChairman observed thatwithfewexceptions thesemi-annual reports were notreceived
bythedeadline (i.e.26February 1996), andsome were received aslateastwomonths afterthat
deadline. Semi-annual reports received latecould notbetranslated andcirculated toMembers in
sufficient timetoallow forthenecessary preparatory workfortheirconsideration attheregular meetings
oftheCommittee. Thus, thecontinuing failure ofMembers tosubmit semi-annual reports inatimely
fashion limited theCommittee 'sability toconsider thesubstance ofthose notifications. Moreover,
thesemi-annual reports submitted wereoften incomplete, lacking important information required by
theagreed-upon format, suchasthelistofmeasures inforce attheendofthereporting period.
6. Noreports hadbeenreceived fromthefollowing Members: Antigua andBarbuda, Argentina,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Côted'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, ElSalvador,
Fiji,Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India,
Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia,
Maldives,Mali,Mauritania,Mauritius,Morocco,Mozambique,Myanmar,Namibia,Nicaragua,Nigeria,
Pakistan, Qatar, St.Kitts &Nevis, St.Lucia, St.Vincent &Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
SriLanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad andTobago, Tunisia, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates andZimbabwe.
7. TheChairman stated thatitwasregrettable thatsuchalargenumber ofMembers hadnotfiled
therequired report, particularly assome oftheseMembers hadinthepastfiledsuchreports indicating
thattheyhadundertaken actions, whose status should bereported totheCommittee. Inthisrespect,
theChairman further noted thatmany, ifnotmostoftheMembers identified above, probably hadtaken
noactions, inwhich caseasimple onesentence notification tothateffect wasallthatwasrequired.
8. Barbados, Bolivia, Cuba, Cyprus, theCzech Republic, Dominican Republic, Honduras,
Hong Kong, Iceland, Malta, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Switzerland, Uruguay andZambia hadnotified thattheyhadtaken noaction during theperiod.
9. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, theEuropean Community, Israel, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, NewZealand, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, theUnited States
andVenezuela hadnotified actions taken.
10. TheChairman urged Members totaketheirobligations withregard tonotifications seriously
andmake efforts toimprove theircompliance. Thestatus ofimplementation oftheWTO Agreements
would beanimportant itemontheagenda oftheSingapore Ministerial meeting, andatthispoint the
status ofimplementation intheanti-dumping areawasquite poor. Henoted several questions raised
bythissituation: forwhatreasons hadsomany Members failed tomake notifications oflegislation
orsubmit semi-annual reports andwhywere semi-annual reports routinely submitted lateandoften
incomplete? Further, what, ifanything, could theCommittee dotoimprove thesituation? Henoted
that,todate,theCommittee hadbeenunable tofindasufficiently compelling waytogetalldelegations
1TheCouncil forTrade inGoods, pursuant toparagraph 6ofArticle IVoftheWTO Agreement,
approved theCommittee 'sRules ofProcedure atitsmeeting of22May1996 (G/C/M/10).G/ADP/M/7
Page3
tosubmit therequired notifications ontime. TheChairman asked Members toconsider these issues
carefully, andconcluded bynoting thatitwould bemostunfortunate iftheimplementation oftheAnti-
Dumping Agreement were notimproved before itwasconsidered byMinisters inSingapore.
11. Thedelegates ofHong Kong andtheUnited States expressed theirconcern overthestateof
notifications.
12. Turning tothereview ofnotifications submitted, thedelegate ofHong Kong raised questions
concerning areview investigation Canada hadinitiated on24February 1995 oninjury findings on
dumping ofphoto albums withself-adhesive leaves, imported together orseparately, andself-adhesive
leaves. Theoriginal measure wasfirstimposed in1985andextended in1990. Thelatest review was
completedinAugust1995andupheldtheoriginalinjuryfindings.HongKonghadanumberofconcerns
relating toboththesubstance ofthereview andthewaythatithadbeenconducted. Article 16.4of
theAnti-Dumping Agreement requires thatMembers onasemi-annual basisreport totheCommittee
onanyanti-dumping actions taken within thepreceding sixmonths. WTO document G/ADP/N/9/CAN,
Canada 'ssemi-annual report forJulytoDecember 1995, however, didnotreport thecompleted review.
Article 6.9oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement requires theinvestigating authorities, before afinal
determination ismade, toinform allinterested parties ofessential factsunder theconsideration based
onwhich thedetermination ismade. TheHong Kong Government, asaninterested party, hadnot
received suchinformation. Article 12.2oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement states thattheinvestigating
authority shall inform allinterested parties onthedeterminations made. Again, the
Hong Kong Government hadnotreceived anyinformation onthereview from Canadian authorities
atall.Hong Kong hadlearned oftheoutcome ofthereview earlier thisyearonitsowninitiative.
Hong Kong wasstudying thereview report andmight writetoCanada toseekclarification. Hong Kong
reserved itsrighttopursue thismatter further.
13. Thedelegate oftheECrequested clarification from theCanadian delegation regarding the
investigation onexports fromSweden ofaluminium venetian blindmaterial, asking whether thereview
inthiscasewasasunset review orsome other typeofreview. Inaddition, definitive duties apparently
were imposed inAugust 1995, buttheleveloftheduties wasnotindicated inthereport.
14. Therepresentative ofCanada stated thatthereport oftheaction onaluminium venetian blind
material referred toareview ofnormal values, notareview ofinjury andnotasunset review. In
theCanadian system, anormal value wasdetermined andwasapplied prospectively. Thereview did
notdetermine amargin ofdumping toapply tofuture importations. Once anormal value forimports
wasdetermined, Canada would assess theduties onthebasisoftheexport priceoffuture importations
compared tothatnormal value. Themargin ofdumping wasdetermined bytheexporter when the
exporter setitsprice toCanada. Regarding theHong Kong question, heindicated thattheactivity
oftheCanadian International Trade Tribunal, which hadconducted theinquiry, wasreported onpage11
ofCanada 'ssemi-annual report. Hecould notrespond tothequestion whether ornotHong Kong
hadreceived anotification ofthatreview, butwasquitesurprised thattheyhadnot,andwould pursue
thiswithhisauthorities inCanada.
15. Thedelegate ofHong Kong thanked theCanadian delegation fortheclarification, butpointed
outthatitwould beexpected thattheaction would bereported inthetableofthesemi-annual report
onpages 2-4.
16. Thedelegate ofCanada observed thatthere wasnoagreed format forreporting review
investigations. Document G/ADP/1, infootnote 2,indicated thattheformat forreview investigations
would bediscussed bytheCommittee. Itwould beuseful tohavesuchdiscussions, sothatsemi-annual
reports could beproperly completed.G/ADP/M/7
Page4
17. Thedelegate ofHong Kong raised aquestion regarding thesemi-annual report oftheEuropean
Communities, which indicated theinitiation ofareview investigation involving 3.5"microdisks
originating inHong Kong. Hong Kong understood thatthisinfactreferred toaproceeding against
alleged circumvention ofanti-dumping duties imposed on3.5"microdisks originating inJapan, Taiwan,
andthePRC, byimports of3.5"microdisks originating inHong Kong andeight other countries.
Hong Kong believed thattreating theproceeding inasemi-annual report asthough itwereareview
oftheanti-dumping duties applicable togoods originating inHong Hong maynotaccurately reflect
thenature oftheinvestigation initiated. Hong Kong appreciated theCommunity 'sefforts inreporting
theproceeding, andencouraged thisfortransparency purposes. However, Hong Kong would begrateful
iftheECcould clarify thereporting andrevise thenotification asappropriate.
18. Regarding thecaseitself, Hong Kong hadheldinformal consultations withtheECCommission
inFebruary. TheCommission hadclarified toHong Kong thatthepurpose oftheanti-circumvention
proceeding wastoensure correct collection ofanti-dumping duties imposed ongoods originating in
thePRCandTaiwan. TheCommission hadassured Hong Kong thatanti-dumping duties applicable
togoods originating inthePRCandTaiwan would notbeextended togoods originating inHong Kong
asaresult oftheproceeding. Theproceeding would notseektochange theanti-dumping duties
applicable togoods originating inHong Kong imposed since September 1994. Hong Kong believed
thattheuseofthisanti-circumvention proceeding wasinconsistent withthemultilateral rules. Insofar
asthe3.5"microdisks originating inHong Kong were subject todiscriminatory registration, the
proceeding wasinconsistent withmfntreatment asprovided forinGATT Article 1.If3.5"microdisks
originating inHong Kong weremade subject toadditional duties attherateapplicable totheproduct
originatinginthePRCorTaiwan,theactionwouldbeinconsistentwithGATTArticles1and2.Without
proofofdumping,injuryandacausallink,withrespecttothe3.5"microdisksoriginatinginHongKong,
suchregistration measures andanti-dumping duties were notjustified byGATT Article VIandthe
WTO Agreement onImplementation ofArticle VIoftheGATT 1994. According totheCommission,
theproblem wastheallegation thatsome 3.5"microdisks originating inthePRCandTaiwan were
being imported intotheECunder falsedeclarations ofHong Kong origin, thereby evading theproper
anti-dumping duty. Hong Kong didnotseehowaproceeding initiated against goods originating in
Hong Kong could solve suchaproblem. Toensure correct collection ofanti-dumping duties andto
resolve thealleged problem offalsedeclarations oforigin problem, Hong Kong wasoftheviewthat
theECshould resort totheproperly established andinternationally agreed customs rules, totackle
theissuebutavoid causing damage andeffects toinnocent traders andviolating themultilateral rules.
Hong Kong stood ready tooffer allpossible assistance. These views hadbeenconveyed totheEC
ininformal consultations andinawritten representation. Hong Kong urged theECtotaketheminto
account andforthwith terminate thecaseagainst Hong Kong. Hong Kong reserved itsrights under
therelevant multilateral trade agreements topursue thematter further.
19. Thedelegate oftheECnoted thatthisinvestigation hadbecome aroutine itemonthe
Committee 'sagenda, thistimeraised inthecontext ofcomments ontheEC'ssemi-annual report.
Heagreed thatperhaps thereporting didnotexplain fullythesituation regarding theinvestigation.
However, thepurpose ofthesemi-annual report wastoprovide transparency and,toaccomplish that,
theEChaddone itsbestbyreporting theinvestigation asareview. TheECwould consider
Hong Kong'scomments andseewhether anyimprovement inreporting could bemade toclarify the
matter, either byafootnote orotherwise.
20. Regarding thesubstance oftheinvestigation, theEC'sposition onanti-circumvention hadbeen
made clear. TheECconsidered thatitsrulesonanti-circumvention wereprecise andclear, included
testsforinjury anddumping, andwere consistent withtheAgreement. Informal consultations had
beenheldwiththeHong Kong authorities regarding theinvestigation inquestion, andtheEChad
provided asmuch information aspossible andwould continue todoso.Theinvestigation wasstill
inprogress, anditwasexpected thatitwould soonbecompleted.G/ADP/M/7
Page5
21. Thedelegate ofEgypt raised aquestion regarding theEC'simposition ofadutyonferro-silicon
originating inEgypt, adecision taken in1992. Henoted hisunderstanding thatanti-dumping measures
were taken against companies notagainst countries. However, ithadbeenbrought tohisattention
thatthereported duties applied toacompany thathadnotbeenunder investigation andhadnoexports
totheECatthetimeoftheinvestigation. Herequested explanation astothereason forthecontinuation
ofthedutybytheEConacompany thathadnotexported orhadnotbeenunder direct investigation.
22. Thedelegate oftheECstated thathehadnodetails regarding thiscase. However, henoted
thatitwasnormal thatduring aninvestigation, companies which shipped during theperiod of
investigation were investigated andreceived anindividual dumping margin. Inaddition, there was
the"allothers" orresidual rateofduty, thatwould beapplicable toallother companies which had
notshipped, hadnotcooperated, orshipped inthefuture. Thatapparently would explain thesituation
raised byEgypt. Ifthiscompany regarded itself asanewcomer, andbelieved itwasnotdumping
orwasdumping atalower ratethanthe"allothers" rate,itcould request anewcomer review under
certain circumstances, assetoutintheAgreement andintheEC'simplementing legislation. He
suggested thattheEgyptian authorities contact theEConabilateral basis.
23. Thedelegate ofEgypt thanked theECdelegate forhiscomments. Egypt reserved itsright
onthematter, butwould consult withtheECbilaterally.
24. Thedelegate oftheUnited States noted thatthePhilippines 'semi-annual report indicated a
dumping bondrather thanthedumping margin. TheUnited States hadunderstood thattheactual amount
ofthedumping margin should beindicated.
25. TheChairman observed thattheinstructions fortheformat forsemi-annual reports, G/ADP/1,
requested thisinformation.
26. TheCommittee tooknoteofallthestatements made concerning thenotifications.
27. TheChairman reverted tothequestion ofhowreviews should bereported, andasked ifany
delegation hadviews, comments orsuggestions. Theissue hadbeenraised from timetotimeinthe
Tokyo Round Committee, buttherehadbeennoagreement. Some delegations haddesigned individual
reporting mechanisms topresent theinformation.
28. Thedelegate ofCanada observed thattheformat fornotifications wassetuptoreport on
preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions intheoriginal investigation. Canada hadbeenconducting
sunset reviews since 1984, butonlyrecently hadarequirement forsuchreviews beenincorporated
intotheWTO Agreement. Canada hadanumber ofthese actions thatitfeltshould bereported, but
itwasnotentirely clearfromthewording oftheAgreement whether those wererequired tobereported
ornot.Moreover, theycould notbereadily slotted intotheexisting format, soCanada haddevised
aformat toreport them separately. Hewondered whether Members could agree onanalternative
reportingformat,andwhetherthereweretransparencyproblemswithrespecttothewayCanadareported
suchreviews.
29. Therepresentative ofHong Kong sought clarification onCanada 'snotation, withrespect to
some investigations, ofafootnote 'R'which meant thataninvestigation wasopened inthecontext
ofreview ofanexisting dumping measure. Hong Kong wasunsure whatthenature ofthisreview
was.
30. ThedelegateofCanadastatedthatthecasesreportedbyCanadawithafootnote'R'werereviews
ofthemargin ofdumping. Under Canada 'sbifurcated system, there were twokinds ofreview -a
sunset review bytheCanadian International Trade Tribunal, examining whether ornotthefindingG/ADP/M/7
Page6
ofinjury should continue, andareview byRevenue Canada todetermine themargin ofdumping to
beapplied toimportations. Inthepast,Canada hadreported normal value, ormargin ofdumping,
reviews inthefirstchartofthereporting format, andthatseemed tohaveworked quitenicely. However,
toaddtothatanother typeofreview made itabitconfusing. Perhaps there ought tobesome other
waytoreport review investigations.
31. Thedelegate ofJapan observed thatthere hadbeenlengthy discussions ontheformat before
itwasagreed. Regarding thetreatment ofreviews, there wasadivision ofviews whether toinclude
them intheformat ornot,which resulted inthefootnote referring tocontinued discussions. Japan
would bewilling tocontinue todiscuss thisissue atalaterstage. Thequestion wasfinding the
appropriate balance between theadministrative burden ofreporting andthetransparency necessary
fortheCommittee.
32. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made, andagreed tocome backtothisdiscussion
inthefuture.
C. Preliminary andFinal Anti-Dumping Actions: Notifications
33. TheChairman noted thatArgentina, Australia, Canada, theEuropean Communities, Korea,
Malaysia, Mexico, NewZealand, PeruandtheUnited States hadnotified preliminary andfinalanti-
dumping actions since theCommittee 'slastmeeting. Heobserved that,aswithother notification
requirements, there appeared tobealackofcompliance inthisarea, assome Members whohad
submittedsemi-annualreportsindicatingactionsinprogresshadnotsubmittedanyreportsofpreliminary
orfinalactions taken. Ashadbeenmentioned, animportant aspect oftheCommittee 'staskwasits
roleinmonitoring anddiscussing actions taken byMembers. IfMembers didnottaketheirobligations
tonotify seriously, theCommittee would beprevented from accomplishing itsgoalofconsidering
Members 'compliance withtherequirements oftheAgreement.
34. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheChairman 'sstatement.
D. Notification ofCompetent Authorities
35. TheChairman recalled that,attheCommittee 'smeeting of21February 1995, theChairman
hadnoted thattherequirements ofArticle 16.5relating tothenotification ofauthorities competent
toinitiate andconduct investigations andthedomestic procedures forsuchinvestigations might overlap
withtherequirement tonotify legislation andregulations pursuant toArticle 18.5andthatthelatter
notifications could therefore beexpected tosatisfy theformer. However, thisdidnotappear tobe
trueinallcases. Inorder toensure thatthisimportant information wasavailable toallMembers in
areadily accessible form, theChairman proposed thattheSecretariat issuearequest thateachMember
notify, by30June1996, thename, address, telephone andfaxnumbers oftheauthorities competent
toinitiate andconduct anti-dumping investigations. TheSecretariat would thenestablish andcirculate
alistcontaining thatinformation. Members would submit thisnotification once, butshould the
information change, Members would berequested toupdate orcorrect theirnotification.
36. Thedelegate ofKorea supported theproposal, andsuggested thatinaddition, aflowchart
representing thedomestic investigating procedures could benotified.
37. ThedelegateoftheUnitedStatessupportedtheproposal,andsuggestedthatInternetorelectronic
mailaddresses beincluded where available.
38. Thedelegations ofHong Kong, theEC,Japan, andBrazil expressed support fortheproposal,
withtheaddition ofe-mail addresses where available, butnotaflowchart ofdomestic procedures.G/ADP/M/7
Page7
39. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal, withtheaddition ofe-mail addresses where
available, andagreed torevert toKorea 'ssuggestion ofaflowchart atalaterdate.
E. Possible Establishment ofanAdHocGroup onImplementation
40. TheChairman recalled that,under theTokyo Round Code, theCommittee onAnti-Dumping
Practices hadestablished anadhocgroup toprepare recommendations onissues arising under theCode
where agreement seemed possible. Thatgroup discussed numerous issues andmade recommendations
concerning several important matters totheCommittee, which wereadopted bytheCommittee. Several
delegations hadencouraged theChairman topropose theestablishment ofasimilar group inthis
Committee. TheChairman believed there might beareas where Members could agree onfurther
clarification andperhaps guidelines, particularly forMembers whowerenewtotheAgreement orthe
areaofanti-dumping ingeneral. Suchrecommendations would not,ofcourse, addnewobligations,
norwould theydetract fromtheexisting obligations ofMembers under theAgreement. However they
would serve asuseful guides tothecommon understanding ofMembers onappropriate implementation
oftheAgreement.
41. Participation inthegroup would beopentoanyMember withaninterest inanyoneormore
oftheissues under consideration. Thus, participation inthework oftheadhocgroup byMembers
could varydepending ontheissue. Thegroup would nottakeanydecisions onanymatters itconsidered,
butwould make recommendations which theCommittee would thenconsider. TheCommittee could
adopt, reject ormodify anysuchrecommendation, orreferthematter backtotheadhocgroup for
further consideration, either withorwithout specific guidance orinstructions. While thespecific tasks
ofthegroup didnotneedtobedecided atthismeeting, theChairman welcomed thecomments of
Members andanysuggestions forquestions theadhocgroup might consider.
42. Thedelegates oftheUnited States, theEC,Australia, Japan, Canada, Argentina, Korea,
Switzerland, Hong Kong, Mexico, NewZealand, Venezuela, Norway, Colombia, andUruguay all
expressed support fortheestablishment ofanadhocgroup onimplementation.
43. Thedelegate oftheUnited States suggested thatthegroup 'sactivities belimited particularly
inthefirstinstance toaddressing procedural aspects oftheAgreement. Matters thegroup could focus
onincluded theclarification ofnotification procedures following theinitiation ofanewinvestigation,
thepresentation ofquestionnaires, andother details atthebeginning ofaninvestigation, inorder to
achievegreaterconsistencyamongMembers'practices.Anotherareawouldbeprotectionofconfidential
information, which anumber ofMembers handled differently, andathirdwould bemechanisms for
judicial review ofdecisions, inview ofthedifferent ways Members implement judicial review
mechanisms. TheUnited States wasopentoconsidering suggestions thatother Members maywish
tomake atthistime.
44. Thedelegates oftheEC,Australia, Japan, Korea, andVenezuela supported thesuggestion
thatthegroup should focus ontechnical andprocedural questions, atleastinthefirstinstance.
45. Thedelegate oftheECsuggested thatMembers make suggestions totheChairman orthe
Secretariat onmatters which should orcould betaken upbythegroup. Inaddition, theECwould
encourage theparticipation ofexperts fromcapitals inthegroup 'swork. Itwasimportant thatexperts
from capitals, whoareinvolved inday-to-day administering oftheinstruments, beinvolved inthe
discussions. Itwasalsosuggested thattheCommittee should referspecific matters tothegroup for
discussion.
46. Thedelegates ofAustralia, Argentina, Mexico, Hong Kong, andNewZealand, agreed that
theparticipation ofexperts fromcapitals should beencouraged, butparticipation should notbelimitedG/ADP/M/7
Page8
tosuchexperts. Itwasgenerally agreed thatscheduling meetings ofthegroup inconjunction with
meetings oftheCommittee would facilitate theparticipation ofcapital-based experts.
47. Thedelegates ofJapan, Mexico, NewZealand,Venezuela, Norway, Colombia, andUruguay
supported theproposal thattheCommittee decide thematters tobereferred tothegroup forthe
discussion. Inthisregard, itwassuggested thatitmight beappropriate toholdinformal consultations.
48. Thedelegate ofAustralia noted thatAustralia would expect participation inthegroup would
beonanational andnotapersonal basis.
49. Thedelegate ofCanada suggested thatoneareafordiscussion might bethequestion ofthe
reporting format raised earlier inthemeeting.
50. Thedelegate ofArgentina expressed some reservations withrespect toensuring thatthegroup
beeffective. Inthisregard, itwasnecessary toensure thattheparticipation wassufficient. Otherwise,
theCommittee might receive recommendations based onthepractice ofafewMembers, which would
present afalsesituation.
51. Thedelegate ofColombia observed thatalldelegations should beinvited toparticipate inthe
group, whether ornottheyhadpreviously expressed aninterest.
52. TheChairman underlined thatthegroup would nottakedecisions, butwould forward
recommendations totheCommittee, anditwasintheCommittee thatanydecisions would betaken.
Whether discussions inthegroup wentbeyond questions ofimplementation would bedecided bythe
issues thattheCommittee itself decided torefertothegroup inthefirstplace.
53. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee decide toestablish anAdHocGroup on
Implementation, toprepare recommendations onissues where agreement seems possible, andreport
totheCommittee. Inaddition, theAdHocGroup could consider otherissues regarding implementation
onwhich Members believe discussion would behelpful. AllMembers would berequested tosubmit
totheSecretariat proposals foritems thatthegroup could discuss. These would thenbecompiled
bytheSecretariat andcirculated toMembers forconsideration. Ifnecessary, theCommittee could
thenmeetinformally toconsider thesuggestions thathadbeenmade byMembers and,atitsnextregular
meeting, thematters thatwould bereferred totheAdHocGroup fordiscussion would bedetermined
bytheCommittee.
54. TheCommittee sodecided.
55. TheChairman stated thatdelegations were welcome tomake suggestions regarding matters
fortheAdHocGroup todiscuss totheSecretariat assoonaspossible, andtheSecretariat would issue
alistofthose suggestions before thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee.
F. TheGovernment ofIndia'sInvestigation ofBisphenol-A from theUnited States
56. TheChairman noted thatthisitemwasincluded intheagenda attherequest oftheUnited States,
andgavethefloor tothedelegate oftheUnited States.
57. Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated thatitwasseeking clarification fromtheGovernment
ofIndia. TheUnited States understood thatIndiahadself-initiated ananti-dumping caseagainst exports
fromtheUnited States ofthechemical product bisphenol-A. Under Article 5.6,self-initiation should
only occur inspecial circumstances. TheUnited States sought clarification astowhat specialG/ADP/M/7
Page9
circumstances ledtotheself-initiation ofthisinvestigation andwhatevidence India hadofdumping,
injury, andcausation.
58. Thedelegate ofIndia tooknoteofthecomments made bytheUSdelegation, andundertook
torespond atalaterdate.
G. Procedures fortheAnnual Review andReport oftheCommittee
59. TheChairman recalled thatthisitemwasadded totheagenda atthelastmoment because he
believed itimportant thattheCommittee consider itatthismeeting. Pursuant totheprocedures the
Committee adopted atitsfirstmeeting, theSecretariat prepares adraft oftheannual report ofthe
Committee which isthenconsidered andadopted bytheCommittee atitsOctober regular meeting with
appropriate revisions toreflect events atthatmeeting. Thereport isessentially afactual review of
thestatus ofimplementation oftheAgreement including Members 'compliance withthevarious
notification obligations, asummary ofthevarious matters discussed inCommittee meetings, anda
summary ofdecisions taken bytheCommittee, aswellasacompilation report insummary fashion
oftheanti-dumping actions taken byMembers. Thisformat isessentially thesame asusedbythe
Tokyo Round Committee.
60. Herecalled that,atthemeeting oftheGeneral Council heldon16April 1996, theChairman,
Ambassador Rossier, made astatement concerning theformat forreports ofstanding WTO bodies
(WT/L/145). Ambassador Rossier suggested thatadditional matters might beincluded intheannual
reports ofWTO Committees, including anindication ofissues andproblems which havebeenidentified
andrecommendations, ifany. Thecurrent meeting wastheonlyopportunity theCommittee would
havetoconsider whether itwished toalterinanyrespect theformat oftheannual report before the
Secretariat would havetodraftthatreport forconsideration bytheCommittee atitsOctober regular
meeting. Itwastherefore important thattheCommittee address theissueatthistimetogivethenecessary
direction totheSecretariat. TheChairman emphasised thatAmbassador Rossier 'ssuggestion had
specifically recognized thedifferent mandates ofWTO Committees andthedifficulty ofestablishing
acommon format forthereports ofthese bodies. Thus, eachbodymustdecide ontheformat ofreport
itdeems appropriate.
61. IntheChairman 'sview, theCommittee should donolessthanithadinthepast,thatisprovide
afactual summary oftheCommittee 'sdiscussions anddecisions, thestatus ofimplementation, the
record onnotifications andasummary ofanti-dumping actions taken byMembers. Thequestion he
puttotheCommittee forconsideration waswhether theCommittee should domore.
62. Hesuggested thatMembers consider whether theCommittee 'sannual report could andshould
include adiscussion ofsubstantive issues andproblems intheanti-dumping area. Inthisregard it
would benecessary tofirstconsider howsuchissues andproblems could beidentified andbywhom,
i.e.should theSecretariat beauthorized toidentify issues andproblems forinclusion intheannual
report, orwould itbetheresponsibility ofMembers toidentify suchissues totheSecretariat? Would
allsuchissues beincluded intheannual report, oronlythose agreed upon bytheCommittee? Such
agreement bytheCommittee would entail atleastonemeeting toagree uponalistofissues andproblems
tobeincluded intheannual report.
63. Second, theChairman suggested thatMembers consider howanyrecommendations todeal
withidentified issues andproblems could bedeveloped andagreed tobytheCommittee. Itseemed
clear thattheCommittee would havetoholdatleastonespecial meeting todiscuss anysuggested
recommendations before theSecretariat could eveninclude them inadraftreport.G/ADP/M/7
Page10
64. Thedelegate ofBrazil enquired whether thereport inquestion wastheannual report thatthe
Committee usually presents totheCouncil orwhether itwasaspecial report totheMinisterial meeting
orindeed, whether in1996 these tworeports were going tobemerged intoone.
65. TheChairmanstatedhisunderstandingthatAmbassadorRossier'ssuggestionwasthattheannual
report oftheCommittee should beaugmented, iftheCommittee sodecided, bytheinclusion ofthe
suggested additional items.
66. Thedelegate ofColombia noted thatasthereport would bepresented thisyeartoboththe
Council forTrade inGoods andtheMinisterial Conference inSingapore, itwasimportant thatthe
Committee consider whatprogress hadbeenmade intheanti-dumping area, ifany. TheCommittee
could compare progress made against existing standards, andreport onprogress made inthisarea.
67. Anumber ofdelegates agreed thatitmight beuseful toinclude adiscussion ofsubstantive
issues intheannual report. However, thedelegates ofJapan, Australia, theUnited States, theEC,
HongKong,Norway,Argentina,Canada,andBrazilallnotedthattheinclusionofsubstantivediscussion
ofissuesandrecommendationswouldbedifficult,andwouldrequiretheCommitteetomeetandnegotiate
firsttheissues tobeconsidered, andsecond thetextofthereport itself. Itwasnoted byseveral Members
thatthiswould entail atleasttwospecial meetings oftheCommittee, andthattospend considerable
timenegotiating thecontents ofanannual report seemed wasteful.
68. Itwasgenerallyagreedthatafactualsummaryoftheinformalconsultationsonanti-circumvention
should beincluded intheannual report oftheCommittee.
69. Thedelegate ofMexico suggested thatthereport should include some discussion ofevents
in1995, toprovide theMinisters withacomplete report ontheCommittee 'sactivities.
70. Thedelegates ofNorway andHong Kong supported Mexico 'ssuggestion.
71. TheChairman stated thatitseemed clear thatoneofthemain ingredients ofthereport for
theMinisters would beareport along thelinesoftheannual report thathadbeenprepared lastyear.
Itappeared tobetheconsensus oftheCommittee thattheSecretariat should begin thepreparation of
areport along those lines, andalsodraftashort factual report ofwhathadhappened concerning anti-
circumvention. Thequestion thathadnotyetbeenfullyanswered waswhether there wasinterest in
meeting informally toconsider whether tosupplement thisreport withitems thatwould fallunder part
(c)ofAmbassador Rossier 'sproposal.
72. Heproposed thattheSecretariat prepare adraftreport inthesame format ashadbeenused
lastyear. TheSecretariat could incorporate from lastyear'sreport those aspects ofimplementation
thatwould helpexplain theprogress thattheCommittee hadmade. TheSecretariat could alsodraft
ashort section onanti-circumvention, reporting toMinisters onwhat theCommittee haddone and
ontheinformal consultations through theyear. TheSecretariat would circulate thedraftreport to
theCommittee attheendofSeptember orinearlyOctober, acouple ofweeks inadvance oftheregular
meeting,atwhichtimetheCommitteewouldhavetodecidewhetheritshouldmeetinformallyinadvance
oftheregular October meeting todiscuss anyadditional matters forinclusion inthereport.
73. TheCommittee sodecided.
H. Other Business
74. Thedelegate oftheUnited States raised aquestion regarding ananti-dumping investigation
initiated bytheGovernment ofSouth Africa against suspension PVCfromtheUnited States andotherG/ADP/M/7
Page11
countries. TheUnited States hadnotbeeninformed priortotheinitiation ofthisparticular investigation
inaccordance withtherequirements ofArticle 5.5oftheAgreement. TheUnited States sought
clarification from theGovernment ofSouth Africa.
75. Thedelegate ofSouth Africa undertook toreferthequestion tohisauthorities.
76. TheCommittee decided that,inaccordance withtheproposal oftheChairman oftheGeneral
Council torearrange thedates formeetings forthefallsothatannual reports ofCommittees could
beprepared andprovided totheCouncil intimeforconsideration before theMinisterial Meeting in
Singapore inDecember, theregular meeting oftheCommittee would beheldon21October 1996.
I. Election ofOfficers
77. TheCommittee elected Mr.OleLundby ofNorway Chairman oftheCommittee, andDr.Kajit
Sukhum ofThailand ViceChairman.
78. Themeeting wasadjourned.