WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CHN/18
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/18
7 May 2003
(03-2447)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to the Questions Posed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 1
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2
The following communication, dated 30 April 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of China.
_______________
Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations
Q1. It results from Article 32 of the Provisional Rules that before initiation of an
investigation the Bureau of Fair Trade may co nduct on the spot verifications on the issues
contained in the application and supporting materi als.  Could the PRC please clarify what type
of investigation is envisaged, given in particular of the fact that the application includes a.o.
information on dumping ?
Reply
The investigating authority of China may examine and verify the genuineness and
completeness of the data and arguments contained in the application through various ways, such as
carrying out on-the-spot verification on the enterprises concerned, verifying the information through
customs data, investigating and querying the importers, which may all be what is meant to beinvestigation under Article 32 of the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations.
Provisional Rules on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations
Q2. The Provisional Rules set out a number of requirements for responding companies (see
for example Articles 7, 12-16, 22-28).  Can the PRC please confirm that it will apply these
provisions in the light of Article 6.13 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA)?
Would e.g. documents submitted in English, as a WTO language, but not translated into
Chinese be regarded as “facts available“, or will such documents be disregarded?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/11-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/11
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 + Suppl.1G/ADP/Q1/CHN/18
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/18
Page 2
Reply
The investigating authority of China has set out a number of requirements for responding
companies in the Articles of Provisional Rules on Questionnaire of Anti-Dumping Investigations(such as Articles 7, 12 through 16, 22 through 28) to provide a more explicit guidance for the
responding companies so as to save their time to respond and make the investigation move more
smoothly, which is in the interest of the responding companies as well.  The investigating authority of
China would abide by the relevant regulations of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA).
There is no specific rule set out in the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to which language
should be used in responses.  In practice, the WTO Members usually use their own official languages.The requirement of the investigating authority of China to submit the response in Chinese is
consistent with the common practice.
Q3. Article 20, second paragraph provides that MOFTEC may disregard information if the
responding company does not submit a satisfac tory non-confidential summary.  Would the
authorities of the PRC nevertheless use such information if it can be demonstrated from
appropriate sources that the information is correct, in accordance with Article 6.5.2 ADA?
Reply
In cases where a responding company does not submit a non-confidential summary of the
response, the authorities would still consider acc eptance of the response concerned if it could be
demonstrated from appropriate sources that the information in the response is correct.
Q4. Article 27 of the Provisional Rules states that the questionnaire response of the
responding company shall be submitted through a practising attorney at law of the PRC and
that relevant matters shall be dealt with by the attorney.  Does this mean that a responding
company cannot submit its response directly to MOFTEC or through any other lawyer?  What
are the consequences of not complying with this  provision? How does this provision relate to
Article 6.13 and Annex II ADA?
Reply
Based on the stipulation, a responding company's questionnaire response should be submitted
only through a practising attorney at law of the PRC.  This would be helpful to better clarify the facts
and protect the interests of the enterprises.
This Article in Provisional Rules on Questionnaire of Anti-Dumping Investigations is not
inconsistent with the relative provisions in Article 6.13 and Annex II ADA.
Provisional Rules on Sampling in Anti-Dumping Investigations
Q5. According to the Provisional Rules MOFTEC shall decide on the selection of the sample
and the disagreement of exporters and producers to the selection has no prejudice to the
selection of MOFTEC (Article 8).  Could the PRC clarify how these provisions relate to
Article 6.10.1 ADA?
Reply
It is set out in Provisional Rules on Sampling of Anti-Dumping Investigations that, while
selecting the samples, the investig ating authorities should, as much as possible, consult with theG/ADP/Q1/CHN/18
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/18
Page 3
exporters and producers concerned.  However, where the exporters and producers disagree to such
selection, there would be no prejudice to the selection of the authorities.  Article 6.10.1 of the ADA
does not prohibit the investigating authorities to select those who disagree to such selection after
consultation.
Provisional Rules on On-the-Spot Verification in Anti-Dumping Investigations
Q6. Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Provisional Rules provides that where non-governmental
experts take part in the on-the-spot verification , they shall strictly abide by the obligation of
confidentiality.  Are such experts subject to ef fective sanctions for breach of confidentiality
requirements, in accordance with Article 2 of Annex I of the ADA?
Reply
So far, the investigating authority of China has not come across such problems.  Should there
be any case in future investigation, the investig ating authority of China shall take correspondent
measures to deal with such behaviour of the experts strictly in accordance with relative laws and
regulations in China.
Provisional Rules on Price Undertakings in Anti-Dumping Investigations
Q7. Could the PRC please clarify what type of  criteria would be considered under Articles
10 (3) and 22 of the Provisional Rules, for the acceptance or cancelling of a price undertaking ?
What public interest considerations could play a role in Article 22 other than violation of the
undertaking or effectiveness of the measures?
Reply
Concretely speaking, "public interest" under Article 10(3) of Provisional Rules on Price
Undertakings of Anti-Dumping Investigations may refer to such factors as whether the price
undertaking is in conformity with the principle of balance of interests between the upstream industries
and the downstream industries, whether it would ov er-protect domestic industries, whether it would
have unbeneficial effect on the supply of the domestic market, whether it would jeopardize thecompeting  relationships on the domestic market (monopoly and unfair competition) and so on.  For
example, the investigating authority of China may declare cancellation of a price undertaking if it
finds such price undertaking may over-protect the domestic industry.
Provisional Rules on New Shipper Review in Anti-Dumping Investigations
Q8. Could the PRC please clarify the provision of Article 6 of the Provisional Rules?
Reply
According to Article 6  of Provisional Rules on New Shipper Review in Anti-Dumping
Investigations, only those export transactions on which anti-dumping duties have been levied can be
considered as the basis for the new shipper review, while those on which anti-dumping duties have
not been levied cannot be considered for such purpose.
Q9. Article 7 of the Provisional Rules provide s that the application for new shipper review
shall be filed not later than 30 days after the ac tual export.  According to Article 5, paragraph 2
the export shall be made in sufficient quantities.  How should the period of 30 days be counted ifG/ADP/Q1/CHN/18
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/18
Page 4
several export transactions took place at different moments, which cumulatively would
constitute a sufficient quantity?
Reply
The period of 3 months (noted:  it is mistakenly written as 30 days in the original letter)
provided for in Article 7.1 of the Provisional Rules on New Shipper Review in Anti-dumping
Investigations shall be counted from the first export transaction which shall meet the requirement of
"sufficient" quantities provided for in Article 5.
Provisional Rules on Interim Review of Dumping and Dumping Margin
Q10. According to Article 6 the application for an Interim Review shall be filed within 30
days from the date after each single year has elapsed following the anti-dumping measures
entering into force.  Would th is mean that where a change of circumstances occurred shortly
after the anniversary of the measures no application for review could be filed until the nextanniversary of the measures?
Reply
Article 6 of the Provisional Rules on Interim Review of Dumping and Dumping Margin
regulates only those cases in regular situations, which does not impede the rights of the interested
parties to file an application for interim review in advance where the change of circumstances would
have occurred before a whole year has elapsed following the entry into force of anti-dumping
measures or the decision of interim review.
Q11. Where the applicants of the original an ti-dumping investigation make comments,
pursuant to Article 11 of the Provisional Rules, on  whether such review shall be initiated, would
such comments be available to the expo rters and producers requesting the review?
Reply
In such circumstances, the comments made by the applicants of the original anti-dumping
investigation on whether the review shall be initiated, like comments made by other interested parties,
shall be made available to other interested parties, including the exporters and producers requesting
such a review.
Q12. Articles 25-27: could the PRC please clarify whether the investigation in an interim
review can only cover dumping or whether it can also cover injury in accordance with Article
11.2 ADA?
Reply
The interim review may cover both dumping investigation and injury investigation.
However, as limited by the functions of the former MOFTEC were limited, the Provisional Rules on
Interim Review of Dumping and Dumping Marg in only cover review of dumping and dumping
margins.  This does not preclude the investigatin g authority of China from conducting review on both
dumping and injury investigation in accordance with the relative legislations and regulations.
__________