RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/26 
15 September 2004 
 (04-3896) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 22-23 ARIL 2004 
 
Chairman :  Mr.  David Evans (New Zealand) 
 
 1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
22-23 April 2004. 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
A. AUSTRALIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ......................................................................1  
B. JORDAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ............................................................................2  
C. SOUTH AFRICA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ................................................................2  
D. CHINA – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ................................3  
E. MEXICO – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ..............................4  
F. PERU – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ..................................4  
G. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS ................................................................................5  
H. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS .....................................................9  
I. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION ..........................9  
J. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION .....................9  
K. EFFECT OF MEMBERSHIP ENLARGEMENT ON TRADE REMEDIES CURRENTLY IN FORCE IN THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES – ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA , JAPAN , KOREA AND THE UNITED  STATES ...................................10  
L. OTHER BUSINESS ............................................................................................................................... ......17  
(i) European Communities - Recent amendm ent to EC anti -dumping law......................................................17  
(ii) Canada – Measures on corrugated st eel bars..................................................................................... .....19 
M. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..........................................................................................................20  
N. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ...........................................................................................................................20  
 
A. AUSTRALIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 
3. The Chairman  noted that the first six items on the agenda were the review of notifications of 
anti-dumping legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in April 199 6 (document G/ADP/W/284, 12 February 1996). 
 4. The Chairman recalled that questions concerning ne w notifications of legislation were to have 
been submitted to the Member concerned and the S ecretariat no later than three weeks before the 
meeting, that is, by 1 April 2004.  As provided for in the agreed procedures, Members which had 
received written questions in time were asked to resp ond orally to those questions in the meeting, and 
subsequently to respond in writing to all questions received in written form.  The Chairman reminded 
Members that follow-up questions could be asked in the meeting.  Such follow-up questions were to 
be submitted in writing no later than 13 May 2004 if the Member posing the question wished to 
receive a written answer.  He reminded Member s to submit the written answers to all written 
questions by the deadline of 13 May 2004 to the Secretariat no later than 1 July 2004. G/ADP/M/26 
Page 2  
 
  
5. The Committee then turned to the notification of Australia. 
 6. The questions regarding the notification of Australia
 can be found in the following 
document: 
 
  G/ADP/Q1/AUS/3 Submitted by the United States   Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:   
  G/ADP/Q1/AUS/4 Replies to the United States 
  B. J
ORDAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGIS LATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 7. The questions regarding the notification of Jordan
 can be found in the following documents: 
 
  G/ADP/Q1/JOR/1 Submitted by the European Communities   G/ADP/Q1/JOR/2 Submitted by the United States  Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:   
  G/ADP/Q1/JOR/3   Replies to the Eu ropean Communities and the United States  
 C. S
OUTH AFRICA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 8. The questions regarding the notification of South Africa
 can be found in the following 
documents: 
   G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/1 Submitted by the European Communities   G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/1 Submitted by the United States   G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/6 Submitted by the United States (follow up)  
Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:  
   G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/4   Replies to the European Communities    G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/5   Replies to the United States    NO WRITTEN REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS IN DOCUMENT G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/6 
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE. 
 
9. The delegate of the United States
 stated the view that it was fair to characterize South Africa 
as a major user of the anti-dumping instrument.  Nevertheless, he noted , South Africa had not 
provided any description of its anti-circumven tion practices to the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention, and an initial review of the history of the Working Group on Implementation 
indicated that South Africa had not provided a descr iption of its practices with respect to any of the 
topics taken up in that Group.  The United States encouraged South Africa and all other Members to do so.    
10. The United States noted that in response to sever al of its questions, for example, question 8, 
question 11, question 18 and question 19, South A frica had referred to "internal policies".  The 
United States asked South Africa when it intended to  notify these internal polic ies, which appeared to 
govern a good deal of its practices, to the Committee.   G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 3 
 
 
 11. The delegate of Turkey  requested clarification from South Africa on several points.  The first 
concerned Article 45.1 of the new Anti-dumping Regulations where it was stated that "the 
Commission will only initiate an interim review if th e party requesting such interim review can prove 
significantly changed circumstances".  Could exam ples be given of the factors that would be 
considered to establish significantly changed circum stances and would lead to initiation of an interim 
review?   
 12. The second was whether the provisions of the new Anti-dumping Regulation would apply to 
anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigations or revi ews which had not yet been concluded as of the 
date when the new Anti-dumping Regulation came into effect?  The delegate of Turkey requested that 
his questions remarks be reflected in the record of the meeting. 
 13. The delegate of South Africa,
 in response to the US question regarding notification of internal 
policy, asserted that this was internal  policy, and as such would not be notified to the Committee.  
However, Members were welcome to scrutinize its reports to see that South Africa conformed to the 
requirements of the AD Agreement. 
 14. Regarding the questions posed by Turkey, on  AD Regulation Article 45.1 on interim reviews 
and changed circumstances, the delegate of South Africa clarified that these were circumstances that would indicate a change in the market conditions, wh ich meant, for instance, where there were related 
parties that were no longer related or where partie s had not previously been  related and were now 
related, which meant it was a circumstance that di d not only address the particular investigation but 
actually had an effect on what the normal value and the export price would be, not only during the 
period of investigation but also in the future.  15. Regarding the second question on investigations  and reviews not concluded by the time the 
Anti-dumping Regulations came into force.  The Sout h African delegate clarified that in terms of 
South African jurisprudence it had to apply whatever  would place the least obligations on parties and 
would be the least cumbersome.  Therefore, wher ever it was possible, South Africa would apply the 
Anti-dumping Regulations.  However where a part y enjoyed certain rights under pre-regulation 
conditions South Africa would have to apply whatever measures and pr ocedures were enforced prior 
to the promulgation of the regulations. 
 
16. The delegate of the United States
 sought some clarification from South Africa if by internal 
policies they were referring to policies governin g their anti-dumping procedures which were not 
available to any other WTO Member nor to any othe r interested party who may be appearing before 
them? 
 
17. The delegate of South Africa  noted that she was referring to issues that were already covered 
by the WTO Agreement.  South Africa clarified that  if something was not covered in the regulations, 
but was covered in the WTO Agreement, the latter would prevail.  The delegate of South Africa 
offered to submit its internal policies at a later st age, but noted that these were just the same as the 
WTO Agreement.  As previously noted Members, we re welcome to look at South Africa's reports to 
review their conformity. 
 18. The delegate of the United States
 invited South Africa to submit these internal policies, as the 
United States believed this was required by the AD Agreement.  
D. C
HINA – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY RE VIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 19. Questions regarding the previously reviewed notification of China
 were received from 
Argentina and Mexico and can be found in the following documents:  G/ADP/M/26 
Page 4  
 
   G/ADP/Q1/CHN/38 Submitted by Argentina 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/28 Submitted by Mexico   G/ADP/Q1/CHN/44 Submitted by United States (follow up)  Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/39  Replies to Argentina   G/ADP/Q1/CHN/43 & corr.1  Replies to Mexico  
NO WRITTEN REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS IN DOCUMENT 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/44 HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE. 
 
E. M
EXICO – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY RE VIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 20. Questions regarding the previously reviewed notification of Mexico
 were received from 
Argentina and can be found in the following document: 
   G/ADP/Q1/MEX/6 Submitted by Argentina   G/ADP/Q1/MEX/12 Submitted by the United States (follow up)    Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
 
  G/ADP/Q1/MEX/11 Replies to Argentina  
 NO WRITTEN REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONS IN DOCUMENT G/ADP/Q1/MEX/12 
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE. 
 F. P
ERU – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY RE VIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 21. Questions regarding the previously reviewed of Peru
 were received from the United States 
and can be found in the following document:  
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/26 Submitted by the United States 
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/28 Submitted by the United States (follow up)    Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:   
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/ 27 Replies to the United States 
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/ 29 Replies to the United States (follow up)   22. The Chairman
 thanked all delegations for their replies to the questions posed, as well as the 
Members who had formulated questions.  The process of reviewing notifications continued to be a 
positive one, of benefit to all Members.  He re minded Members to submit follow-up questions in 
writing to the Member whose legislation was con cerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than 
13 May 2004 if the Member posing the follow-up question wished to receive a written response.  
Members were requested to submit written answers to  all questions received in writing by that date.  
Members were requested to submit such answers to the Secretariat no later than 1 July 2004. 
 
23. The Chairman reminded Members that, pursuant to the adopted procedures for review of 
notifications of legislation cont ained in document G/ADP/W/284, in order for a new notification of 
legislation to appear on the agenda of the Oct ober 2004 meeting of the Committee, it had to be 
circulated in three languages no later than 16 Septem ber 2004.  As a practical matter, in light of the  G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 5 
 
 
 translation requirements, the Chairman informed the Committee that notifications of legislative text 
received after 30 June 2004 were unlikely to be transl ated in time to meet the above agreed deadline.   
 24. As was its practice, the Secretariat would info rm Members of any additional new notifications 
to be considered at that meeting.  The d eadline for submission of questions regarding new 
notifications of legislation for next autumn's meeting would be 7 October 2004.  The Chairman 
encouraged Members to submit questions as early as possible, and Members receiving questions were encouraged to submit written answers in advance of the spring meeting to the extent possible. 
 25. The Chairman informed Members that the new legislative notifications  of Canada, document 
G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4, and of Japan, document G/ADP/N/1 /JPN/2/Supplement 4, were expected to be 
on the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Committee in October 2004.  26. The Chairman informed Members that in orde r for a previously reviewed notification of 
legislation or regulations to appear on the agenda  of the Committee's regular meeting in October 
2004, questions regarding such notif ication must be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member 
whose notification was in question, no later than 16 September 2004.  27. Finally, the Chairman expressed continuing c oncern over the failure of some Members to 
submit any notification at all concerning legislation or regulations relevant to  anti-dumping.  He noted 
that for many, if not most, of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification, indicating that 
there was no such legislation or regulation currently in effect, would be all that was required.  He 
further remarked that for those Members who condu cted anti-dumping investigations but had not yet 
notified their legislation, it was obviously important, fro m the point of view of all Members, that such 
legislation be notified, in the interest of transp arency and better understanding.  He thus encouraged 
Members who had not yet done so to make th eir notification of legislation promptly. 
 
G. S
EMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
 28. The Chairman
 recalled that a request for the semi-annua l report for the second half of 2003, to 
be submitted by 5 March 2004, had been circulat ed to Members in document G/ADP/N/112, dated 
6 January 2004.  He reported that it appeared th at most Members taking actions had submitted semi-
annual reports, although not all repor ts were submitted in a timely fashion.  He expressed the hope 
that there would be continued improvement in this respect.  He noted that particularly for Members 
making a nil notification, reporting consisted simp ly of submitting a letter reporting that no actions 
had been taken, once before the end of Febr uary and again before the end of August. 
 
29. He reported that although there continued to be some problems in the form of reports, 
Members had clearly made an effort to submit reports in the format established by the Committee.  He reminded Members that guidelines for the format of  semi-annual reports were set out in document 
G/ADP/1, and noted that the Secretariat was always available to assist Memb ers with questions about 
the format of reports.    
30. The Chairman stated that Members who had su bmitted semi-annual reports were identified in 
paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/112  Addendum 1, dated 13 April 2004.  To the extent possible, 
the semi-annual reports had been translated and circ ulated to the Committee, and were included in the 
documents made available for the meeting.  In addition to those Member s listed, Bulgaria and 
Indonesia had submitted a semi-annual reports th at had been inadvertently omitted from the 
document. 
 31. In addition to the Members who submitted se mi-annual reports, a number of Members, listed 
in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP /N/112 Addendum 1, had notified the Committee that they had not G/ADP/M/26 
Page 6  
 
 taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in qu estion.  In addition, Ghana had submitted such 
a notification too late to be included in that document.  32. The Chairman noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with the 
obligation to submit semi-annual repor ts, or reports of no actions taken, there remained a significant 
number of Members who had not subm itted either type of report and th us failed to comply with this 
aspect of the requirements set out in Article 16.4 of the Agreement.  These Members were identified 
in document G/ADP/N/112 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.    33. The Chairman strongly urged all Members to co mply with the requirement to submit semi-
annual reports in a timely fashion in the future. 
 34. The delegate of Romania
 pointed out that Romania did notify that it did not take any anti-
dumping action during the period.  Romania was identif ied in both paragraph 2 and paragraph 3.  She 
requested the Secretariat to delete Romania from paragraph 3. 
 
35. The Committee then turned to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted. 
 36. With respect to the semi-annual report of Brazil , the delegate of the United States
 noted that 
the report indicated that expiry reviews were pending on the measures on polyvinyl chloride and 
polycarbonate resins against the United States.  However, on the tables on pages 2 & 3, there was no 
indication of these reviews during the period 1 July  and 31 December 2003.  The United States asked 
Brazil to explain this inconsistency, and if th ese reviews were ongoing, to describe their status. 
 37.  The delegate of Brazil
 indicated that he would check with his authorities in capital and would 
provide responses. 
 
38. The United States  requested Brazil, if appropriate, to file a corrigendum to their semi-annual 
report.  39. With respect to the semi-annual report of China , the delegate of the United States
 noted that 
on the current semi-annual report, the anti-dumpi ng investigations on phenol, ethanolamine and 
chloroform were absent from the notification.  Howe ver, these cases did appear in the previous semi-
annual report that covered the first half of 2003.  The United States delegate reminded China of the 
instruction to include in semi-annual reports all the investigations even  if no activity took place during 
the reporting period.  This was important to allow Members to use the semi-annual reports to get a full 
picture of a Member's use of the anti-dumping remedy. 
 
40. Second, the United States noted its understa nding that China had initiated an anti-dumping 
investigation into MDI on 20 September 2002, that was extended on 25 August 2003 and eventually withdrawn on 28 November 2003.  The United States asked China to explain why this investigation was not listed on its most recent semi-annual report w ith a notation under column 9, indicating that 
there were no final measures imposed as a result of the case being withdrawn. 
 
41. As a last issue the United States noted that, acco rding to China's report for this period, there 
were two investigations regard ing imports of hydrazine hydrate from the United States.  The 
United States asked whether the fact that there we re two listings was a clerical error on the semi-
annual report, and if not, to explain why the action appeared twice. 
 
42. The delegate of China
 indicated that he would check with  his authorities in capital and would 
provide responses.   G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 7 
 
 
 43. The United States  requested China to file a corrige ndum to their semi-annual report, if 
warranted.  44. With respect to the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the delegate of the United States
 noted 
that in its semi-annual report, Indonesia reported no definitive measures in place, but of the nine 
investigations initiated none appeared to have pr oceeded beyond the stage of proposing provisional 
measures.  All of these proceedings appeared to have taken much longer than the eighteen month 
maximum provided for in Article 7 of the Agreemen t.  The United States asked Indonesia to explain 
why this was the case.  
45. The delegate of Indonesia
 indicated that he would check with his authorities in capital and 
would provide responses.  46. With respect to the semi-annual report of Korea , the delegate of the United States
 first 
reminded Korea of the instruction to include in semi- annual reports all open inv estigations even if no 
activity took place during the reporting period.  This was important to allow Members to use semi-
annual reports to get a full picture of a Member's  use of anti-dumping remedies.  The United States 
noted, that Korea reported initiating several cases on particle board for the first half of 2003 but none 
of these cases were reflected in the report for the second half of 2003. 
 47. Second, the United States observed that it seeme d that Korea omitted information pertaining 
to the anti-dumping case it initiated against imports  of lithium manganese dioxide batteries from the 
United States.  This case was initiated on 4 Septem ber 2003.  The United States requested Korea to 
clarify and provide full informa tion regarding this proceeding. 
 48. Third, the United States observed that informa tion about Korea's initiation of an anti-dumping 
investigation concerning imports of choline ch loride and salt of choline chloride from the 
United States also appeared to have been omitted.  This investigation was initiated in December 2003.  
The United States requested Korea to clarify and pr ovide full information regarding this proceeding. 
 49. Fourth and finally, the United States noted that  according to Korea's semi-annual report, none 
of the determinations made duri ng the second half of 2003 appeared to have involved an examination 
of home market prices.  Rather Korea reported that all the determinations were made on the basis of 
facts available.  The United States asked Korea whether there was an explanation for such wide-
spread use of facts available during this reporting period.  50. The delegate of Korea,
 on the fourth issue regarding the use of facts available, noted that this 
came to his attention a couple of days ago.  He  had checked with capital on all nine cases on page two 
of the report.  He clarified that the cases where a determination had been based on facts available were 
only two, and that there had been a clerical error i nvolved in submitting Korea's notification.  The two 
cases where the determination had been based on f acts available were the fourth, on disposable 
lighters, and the last one on that page, on alkali  manganese batteries.  Out of the remaining seven 
cases, four cases had been based upon home market  prices, these were: the second and the sixth on 
alkali manganese batteries, the seventh on aluminium hydroxide,  and the eighth on polyvinyl alcohol.  
In the remaining four cases, the determinations were  based in part on facts available, since some 
exporters did not provide the information requested in the questionnaires.  51. Regarding the US requests for information in the investigations on dioxide batteries and 
choline chloride from the United States, the delega te of Korea offered to check with capital and 
submit a revised version as soon as possible.  52. With respect to the semi-annual report of Malaysia , the delegate of Malaysia
 drew the 
attention of the Committee to some corrections in  page 3 of its semi-annual report regarding the G/ADP/M/26 
Page 8  
 
 definitive anti-dumping duties in force for the period 1 July to 31 December 2003.  Malaysia noted 
that the reference to corrugated medium paper in rolls from the European Union should be deleted as 
this measure had been terminated.  Also, there we re two additional anti-dumping duties in force for 
China, on bicycles and for Hong Kong, China, al so on bicycles.  These amendments would be 
reflected in a corrigendum to be fo rwarded to the WTO Secretariat. 
 
53. With respect to the semi-annual report of Mexico , the delegate of Chinese Taipei
 expressed 
concern with regard to Mexico's anti-dumping sunset  investigation on baby carriages, which had been 
initiated seven months after the end of the five year  period of imposition of the duty.  Chinese Taipei 
reported that it was working constructively with Mexico on this issue and looked forward to a 
mutually satisfactory solution.  Chinese Taipei woul d also be monitoring closely the results of the 
investigation, due to be completed next month.   
 54. The delegate of the United States
 raised three issues with respect to Mexico's semi-annual 
report.  First, the United States noted that page 3 listed a proceeding initiated against newsprint from 
the United States.  It was the US understanding that this was an expiry review, however, it had not 
been listed as such on the notifica tion.  The United States asked Mexico  to confirm that this was an 
expiry review.  55. Second, with regard to the list of anti-dumping measures in force, the United States noted that 
Mexico did not list newsprint among products for whic h it had measures in force.  The United States 
asked Mexico to explain why this investigation did not appear on the list. 
 56. Third, the United States exhorted Mexico, cons istent with the reporting by other Members 
and consistent with the requirements of the Committe e, to also report all the reviews in Annex 4 of 
Mexico's report in the table that lists ongoing proceedings on pages 2 to 4 of the report. 
 
57. The delegate of Mexico
 noted that regarding the expiry review on baby carriages raised by 
Chinese Taipei, Mexico was working with Chinese Taipei on that issue and believed that the 
procedure would be concluded shortly.  Regarding the issue raised by the United States on newsprint 
the delegate of Mexico clarified that it had not re ported any measures in force on this product and that 
that what was reported was a new investigation.  Me xico noted that they did have a measure in force 
on bond paper which was undergoing an expiry review  as indicated in Annex 4 of Mexico's report. 
 58. The delegate of the United States
 expressed that they had a different understanding on the 
newsprint investigation and that th is would be pursued in writing. 
 
59. With respect to the semi-annual report of South Africa , the delegate of India  noted that in 
column 3 relating to initiation date, there were a large number of entries indicating that notice had 
been given of the sunset review, but not yet initiated.   India asked for clarification from the Secretariat 
on whether there was an obligation to include not ices requesting initiation of a sunset review, but 
where the sunset review had not yet been  initiated, in the semi-annual report. 
 
60. The delegate of South Africa  stated that on page 9 of South Africa's report, on the revocation 
of anti-dumping measures, a measure that had been  revoked was omitted.  This measure related to 
blanketing in roll form from Turkey, which had b een revoked in October.  South Africa would be 
making a supplemental notification to ensure that the report was correct.    
61. The Chairman
 noted, with regard to India's question,  that the only guidance that Members had 
agreed to regarding what was to be included in the semi-annual reports was contained in document 
G/ADP/1.  This document did not make and specific re ference to the inclusion of sunset reviews.   
 62. The Committee took note
 of the statements made.  G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 9 
 
 
  
H. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
 63. The Chairman
 noted that lists of the notifications  of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions received by the Committee were circulat ed to the Committee in documents G/ADP/N/110 and 
111 and G/ADP/N/113-116.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final anti-
dumping actions had been notified by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, the 
European Communities, Korea, Mexico, New Zeala nd, Pakistan, Poland, South Africa, Turkey and 
the United States.  
64. The Chairman stated that there continued to be a lack of full compliance in this area.  Some 
Members who had submitted semi-annual reports in dicating actions in progress had not submitted 
reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  Some Members had submitted reports which did not 
contain the minimum information called for, as set out in document G/ADP/2.  He noted that if the Committee was to carry out its role in monitori ng and discussion actions taken by Members, it was 
extremely important that Members notify their measures as required by the Agreement.  The 
Chairman strongly urged all Members to comply with their notification requirements.  65. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement.   
 I. C
HAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
 
66. The Chairman  reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention met on 
22 April 2003.  The Chairman reported that there were no new papers submitted for the meeting, but 
Members nonetheless had engaged in an interesting discussion, especially in relation to the paper 
submitted by the United States at the last meeting, as well as more generally on the question of how to 
tackle this complex issue.   
 67. Given the fact that there were no papers subm itted to the meeting of the Informal Group, the 
Chairman at that meeting had raised, under other busin ess, the issue of the further work of this Group.  
It was apparent from earlier discussions that Member s wished to continue to address the issue of anti-
circumvention in the setting of the Informal Gro up, pursuant to the Ministerial mandate.  The 
Chairman urged all Members to make the best  use of this Group by submitting papers and 
participating actively in the discussions.    68. The next Meeting of the Informal Group was sch eduled for the afternoon of 26 October 2004.  
The deadline for submissions for that meeti ng was 14 September 2004.  The Chairman urged 
Members to make maximum efforts to respect this deadline, in order to allow the Secretariat to 
translate and circulate your submissions in time.   This would allow delegations and capital-based 
experts to study the submissions in their prefe rred WTO language and prepare considered responses, 
which would enhance the discussions.  69. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement.  
 
J. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION .   
 70. The Chairman
 reported that the Working Group on Implementation met on 20 April 2004.  
He reported that the Group continued the discussions on the new topics that were referred to it by the 
Committee at its Spring 2003 meeting.  Although only  four Members had submitted papers, on three 
of the new topics, the discussion were nonetheless interesting and useful in enabling Members to 
better understand the issues involved and the practices of various Members.  G/ADP/M/26 
Page 10  
 
 71. The Chairman strongly encouraged those Me mbers who had not s ubmitted any papers on 
these topics to do so, as the more information on the table about the approaches of different national 
authorities on these issues, the better.  Additiona l information concerning national practices and 
different Members' views would add to the value of  the discussions.  In that regard, he noted that 
several Members made statements about their pr actices during the meeting.  While such oral 
statements were of course useful and appreciat ed, it would be very helpful if Members could 
reproduce such oral statements of information concer ning their practice in written form, so that other 
Members could consider them in more depth.  Sim ilarly, a number of questions were posed during the 
course of the meeting, which Members responded to, a nd it might be useful to put those questions in 
writing as well. 
 
72. While the Group had made good progress since 2001 in developing the text of a draft 
recommendation concerning conditions of competition that may be relevant to a decision whether a 
cumulative assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate, it became appa rent during the meeting 
last October that significant differences remain ed between Members concerning some fundamental 
elements of the draft text.  Following informal c onsultations with some Members prior to Tuesday's 
meeting, and as discussed further during the meet ing, it seemed unlikely that further progress in 
developing consensus on the revised draft text was possible.  Therefore, the Group decided to set the 
draft recommendation aside, at least for the time being.    73. The fact that the draft had been set aside did not mean that it could not be reconsidered, 
merely that it would not automatically appear on th e agenda of the next meeting of the Group.  Any 
Member may ask that it be put on the agenda for disc ussion, if they wish.  Similarly, if any Member 
submitted a paper relating to the draft recommendation, or indeed, to any of the other topics that had 
been set aside, that issue would reappear on th e agenda of the Group for its next meeting. 
 
74. In light of the fact that the Group had only f our topics before it fo r discussion, the small 
number of papers submitted for this  meeting and the previous meeting, and the fact that the Group 
was able to conclude the meeting in only half a day,  it had been decided to shorten the time allocated 
for the Group's meetings to one day.  Thus, the ne xt meeting of the Group was scheduled to begin on 
Wednesday, 27 October 2004.  The deadline for submissions for that meeting was 
15 September 2004. 
 
75. As usual, the Secretariat would circulate a re minder of the deadlines for all the Anti-Dumping 
meetings in the autumn.  The Chairman urged Memb ers to respect these deadlin es, in order to allow 
the Secretariat to translate and circulate Members' submissions before the meetings, which would allow delegations and capital-based experts to study  the submissions in their preferred WTO language 
and prepare considered responses, which w ould enhance the discussions next autumn. 
 76. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement.   
 K. E
FFECT OF MEMBERSHIP ENLARGEMENT ON TRADE  REMEDIES CURRENTLY IN FORCE IN THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA , JAPAN , KOREA AND THE 
UNITED  STATES  
 77. The Chairman
 noted that this item had been requ ested by India, Japan, Korea and the 
United States to be on the agenda for this meeti ng and the meeting of the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.   
 
78. The delegate of India  voiced concerns on the impact of EU enlargement on anti-dumping 
actions currently in force in the EC.  Article VI  of the GATT and the AD Agreement required that an 
anti-dumping measure in force in the territory of a country or a separate customs territory shall only 
be applied pursuant to an inv estigation initiated and conducted in accordance with these provisions.   G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 11 
 
 
 No anti-dumping measure was applicable on imports fro m India into the territory of the new member 
states for the moment.  India was not aware of any anti-dumping investigation having been initiated on allegedly dumped imports from India into the te rritory of the new member states with the 
exclusion of one product.  In the absence of such an investigation, application of anti-dumping duty 
on imports of India into the territory of the new member states from May 2004 would not be in 
conformity with provisions of Article VI of GA TT 1994 and the AD Agreement including:  Article 2 
on determination of dumping;  Artic le 3 on determination of injury;  and Article 5 on initiation and 
subsequent investigation.  Article 18.1 of the ADP  Agreement describes that no specific action against 
dumping can be taken except in accordance with th e provisions of GATT 1994, as interpreted by the 
AD Agreement.  There was no provision in GA TT 1994 or the AD Agreement which permitted a 
Member to geographically stretch the applicability of  AD measures to cover imports into the territory 
of countries which were not subjected to an AD investig ation.  India was therefore of the view that, if 
trade remedy measures which were currently applicab le in the EC-15 were extended to cover imports 
into the territory of the EC-25, then such action would be without basis in GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement.   
 
79. India was further of the view that it was not possible to bring such action into conformity with 
Article VI of GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement thr ough the mechanism of reviews.  Extending the 
AD measures of one of the constituent members of th e customs union, in this case the EC-15, to the 
territory of the new customs union EC-25, may result in conferring rights on certain WTO Members, when no such rights had been provided for in th e WTO Agreements to the adverse interest of 
countries not party to the customs union.  This could al so result in the application of a more restrictive 
regulation of commerce in respect of imports from I ndia into the territory of the new member states 
from 1 May 2004.  India therefore requested that th e EC do not extend the trade remedy measures of 
the constituent members of EC-15 automatically to the territory of the new member states. 
 
80.  The delegate of Japan
 also expressed concerns about th e EC's automatic expansion of 
AD measures.  He noted that these concerns ha d also been expressed through a letter from the 
Japanese Government inquiring about the legal justif ication of the EC's automatic expansion of the 
current AD measures to the newly acceding members.   Japan had not obtained any satisfactory 
explanation from the EC.  As expressed at the last  Committee meeting, in accordance with Article 1 
of the AD Agreement, anti-dumping measures shall be applied only pursuant to an investigation 
initiated and conducted in accordance with the provi sions in the AD Agreement.  The EC however, 
intended to expand the current anti-dumping meas ures to acceding countries without investigation 
pursuant to the Agreement.  It was obvious to Japan that the previous investigation for the 15 member 
states was not a valid basis for the imposition of AD duties on the 25 member states because the basis 
of the standing requirements and the injury determination were completely different.   
 
81. Japan did not believe that the proposed task force review was the investigation under the 
Agreement which could be a basis for the imposition of AD duties.  The proposed task force review 
presumed the continuation of the measures and transf erred the burden of proof from the investigating 
authorities to individual exporters.  Japan had obtai ned the explanation from the EC that the general 
economic weight of the newly acceding countries repr esented only 5 to 7 per cent industry output of 
the current 15 member states.  What Japan was c oncerned about was not the size of the economy but 
the legal obedience of the EC's treatment of the AD measures from the view point of the WTO.  Japan 
believed that the EC should comply with the WT O rules and should not automatically expand the 
current AD measures to the acceding countries without satisfying its accountability with respect to the 
legal basis of the automatic expansion of the measures. 
 
82. The delegate of Korea  also expressed concerns with the issue of the automatic and immediate 
application of all the existing EU-15 AD and C VD measures in the new member states as of 
1 May 2004.  It was regrettable that despite the objections, the EC had failed to address the concerns 
of several Members including Korea.  The EC had poin ted out that as of the date of enlargement, the G/ADP/M/26 
Page 12  
 
 existing trade measures in the individual new member  states would lapse.  There were possibilities for 
interested parties to request the reviews of AD a nd CVD measures in force in the EU-25.  The EC 
considered this review to be a changed ci rcumstances review under Article 11.2 of the 
AD Agreement.  However, as Korea had pointed out  at the last meeting, the previous injury 
determinations which were resolved as a basis of outstanding AD measures cannot constitute a valid 
basis to extend those measures to the new member states.  The outstanding measures to be extended 
geographically after the enlargement cannot possibl y be considered to have met the standing 
requirements or the initiation requirements as provided for in Article 5 of the AD Agreement.  83. He noted that concerning the possibility for in terested parties to request reviews of AD 
measures in force, as Japan pointed out, this wa s problematic, in the sense that by establishing a 
threshold requirement that such re quest be accompanied by sufficien t evidence that enlargement had 
substantially changed the circumstances of the measur es, the EC thus shifted the burden of proof from 
investigating authorities to the exporters concerned.    
84. In the view of Korea the right way to overco me the problem relating to parallelism between 
the scope of the investigation and the application of the measure was to conduct a reinvestigation on 
the basis of a broader geographical scope.    85. As this was the last meeting before the enlarg ement of the EU, Korea wished to reiterate its 
concern about the implication of enlargement of th e current outstanding trade remedy measures of the 
EC and encouraged the EC to reconsider its position. 
 86. The delegate of the United States
 stated that this was a very serious systemic issue.  Upon 
expansion the fundamental nature of the remedies imposed by the EC would change.  Nevertheless, 
all signs were that the EC would not conduct simp le reviews of injury on its own initiative.  The 
United States agreed with the EC on the relative economic size of new and old member states.  
However, for that reason it should be a straight fo rward matter to revaluate material injury.  The 
United States asked the EC to remove the taint on these trade remedies by examining this issue.   
 87. The United States recalled that it was said that "there is no new thing under the sun".  This 
was particularly true in anti-dumping.  The Unite d States had made available to Members in the 
meeting relevant pages from the minutes of the Comm ittee from 1995, the last time the EC expanded 
its membership.  The United States pointed out that  in those minutes, this very issue had been 
discussed before.  What was now being heard from the EC was virtually the same position as the last 
time around.  In light of these concerns the United St ates requested from the EC an update on its plans 
with respect to this issue. 
 
88. The delegate of China
 noted that the EC had issued a memo on 27 March 2003 explaining 
that upon expansion, any measures which currently  applied to the EC-15 would simply stretch 
geographically to cover imports into the territory of  the enlarged EC-25.  Ch ina pointed out that the 
EC was one of the WTO's most active users of trad e remedy measures.  The fact that the EC would 
rashly extend the scope of those measu res was of critical concern to China. 
 
89. He noted that a basic principle of the AD Ag reement was that any me asure must be supported 
by a determination material injury or threat thereof to the domestic injury.  China was of the view that 
the problem the EC's proposed policy raised was that the dumping duty being imposed in those new 
member states, and the protection offered to the dom estic industry in those states, was not based on a 
determination that those domestic industries were suffering material injury.  Article 5.4 of the 
AD Agreement provided that an investigation shall not be initiated un less the authority had 
determined that the application had been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry.  No 
investigation should be initiated when domestic producers supporting an application account for less 
than 25 per cent of total production of the like pr oducts produced by the domestic industry.  Upon  G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 13 
 
 
 expansion, absent a new investigation, it could not  be determined whether an EC trade measure had 
support to be extended to the new member states.  China believed that the scope of an existing anti-
dumping measure could not be automatically extended to include application of this measure in the 
newly acceding member states.  The EC's automa tic imposition of anti-dumping measures to the the 
new member states without proving dumping, injury  and causal link was inconsistent with the EC's 
obligations under WTO rules.  There was a need  for the principle underlying GATT Article VI and 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement to be respected.  90. The Chinese delegate remarked that the EC memo  stated that after enlargement the EC would 
conduct reviews, but only upon exporter requests.  This meant that the burden of establishing the need 
for a review would be on the exporter.  An exporte r had difficulty to access detailed information on 
the present condition of the domestic industry in any new acceding states.  How could an exporter 
apply for a review without the relevant information?   China was of the view that this would impose a 
burden on an exporter in requesting a review.  The review should not be on the basis of the 
information provided by the exporter but should be a total review and should be initiated by the EC 
itself rather than upon request by a Member affected by the anti-dumping measure.   
 91. He asked if a WTO Member had an outstanding measure against one of the EC-15 countries, 
could that Member apply the measure against the imports from EC-25?  How did the EC view the 
extension of existing anti-dumping measures to all 25 member states?    
92. He also requested the EC to update the Comm ittee concerning its plans regarding the issue of 
enlargement and outstanding trade remedy measures  and provide the planned future work on this 
issue for the benefit of all other Members.  93. The delegate of Pakistan
 shared the concerns expressed by  India, Japan, Korea, the United 
States and China.  Pakistan asserted that Members could only impose anti-dumping measures after 
conducting an investigation.  Pakistan reporte d that there were no anti-dumping duties on goods 
imported from Pakistan into the new member states  of the EC.  When these countries joined the EC, 
duties applied in the EC-15 would automatically be applied in these new member states.  Pakistan not 
only had systemic concerns but also had practical co ncerns.  Pakistan urged the EC not to extend anti-
dumping measures to the newly acceding member states.  If they were to do it, the EC should follow 
the due process of law. 
 94. The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 shared the same concerns raised  by the previous speakers.  
Chinese Taipei emphasized that the enlarged EC may contribute to multilateral trade liberalization 
only if it obeyed by the basic princi ple that the extension did not create a higher barrier to trade in the 
new members, as set out in Article XXIV of GATT and Article V of GATT.  Chinese Taipei had 
substantial interest in these matters as had me asures imposed by the EC on its exports.  These 
measures would apply automatically without any fu rther investigation or review for each of the 
10 new member states.  Chinese Taipei  had requested  consultations with the EC to find a solution and 
would continue to remind the EC of its due obligations under the WTO Agreement. 
 
95. The delegate of Brazil  joined in the concerns expressed by previous speakers and reserved the 
right to challenge the legality of any measure it d eemed necessary in order to preserve, not only its 
rights as a Member, but as also the integrity of the WTO system.  96. The delegate of the European Communities
 noted that as the United States had said, there was 
nothing new under the sun.  This could be seen fro m the minutes of the meeting of this Committee in 
1995, which the United States had made available to the Committee.  G/ADP/M/26 
Page 14  
 
 97. The EC intervention consisted of three parts.  First, it recalled for those not present at the last 
meetings the principles with regard to EU enla rgement in the area of anti-dumping.  Secondly, it 
provided an update on the latest developments.  Thirdly, it dealt with the legal considerations. 
 98.  The EC delegate recalled that on 1 May 2 004 the EU would enlarge with 10 new member 
states.  What did this mean in terms of AD measures?  
 
• The measures currently in fo rce in the EU-15 would apply for the enlarged EU-25. 
 
• All AD and other trade defence measure s in the 10 new member states would 
disappear. 
 
• From 1 May 2004 there would be no trade defence measures between the current 15 
and the new 10 member states. 
 99. The application of the AD measures currently in fo rce in the EU to the 10 new member states 
would be automatic.  There would be no systematic reviews, but if there was sufficient prima facie  
evidence justifying such review, th e EC was happy to initiate reviews in order to look whether the 
level of measures, based on 15 member states, should be adapted for the enlarged EU.  As the EC had 
already stated, for initiating such reviews, it would not ask the impossible in terms of prima facie  
evidence.  This approach was the same as in the previous enlargemen t.  The EC was convinced that 
the approach was correct, all the more since the economic weight of the 10 new member states was 
less than 10 per cent of the economic weight of the current EU-15. 
 
100. Secondly, the EC had taken a number of steps in  preparation for enlargement.  The delegate 
noted that the whole approach as ju st described had been widely communicated, in particular via the 
following measures:  
• The EC had launched an enlargement website. 
 
• Seminars with all economic operators in the new member states (producers, 
importers, users which will potentially be  affected by EU AD measures) were 
organised.  In brief, everybody had been in formed, so that they could react and ask 
for a review if they thought this was necessary. 
 
• Recently the EC had also published a notice in the Official Journal, OJ C 91/2 of 
15.4.2004.  This notice again set out the principles and contained an invitation to 
interested parties to request reviews. 
 
• The enlargement approach had been al ready twice discussed in the Committee. 
 
• In addition, a further step had been taken to ensure that enlargement ran smoothly in 
terms of anti-dumping.  The EC had set up an enlargement taskforce, to which Japan had already made reference.  This taskfo rce had contacted all countries with which 
the EC had significant measures in force.  "S ignificant" had been interpreted in a very 
broad sense:  32 delegations were contacted, out of a total of 33 against which the EC 
had measures in force.  The taskforce looked at all measures in force on the basis of a 
number of parameters: the level of the duty,  the significance of the level of imports 
into the acceding states, the level of producti on and the level of prices in the acceding 
states.  As a result of this exercise the EC had received 50 communications.  On 
20 March 2004 the EC initiated on its own initiative eight Article 11.2 of the AD 
Agreement reviews (Official Journal C 70 /15), which would be concluded soon.  G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 15 
 
 
  
101. Regarding the legal analysis, the EC delegate  recalled that the United States had said that 
enlargement was a serious systemic issue.  China had voiced great concern, referring inter alia  to 
Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement and to difficulties fo r exporters to obtain the relevant information on 
the 10 new member states, which would be needed fo r a review.  Chinese Taipei had mentioned a risk 
of increasing trade barriers.  Brazil even saw a danger for the integrity of the WTO system.  Several 
Members had argued that there was no legal justification for the EC approach.  102. The EC disagreed and strongly disputed such legal analysis.  The EC could not accept the 
request not to extend automatically the measures curren tly in force.  The EC asserted that its approach 
was perfectly in line with the EC's legal obligations. 
 103. The EC delegate noted that the statements fro m several Members were strong words.  They 
were perhaps so strong because they had to compensate for the lack of legal justification.  Indeed, the 
EC considered that all these statements seemed to  be a desperate and unsuccessful attempt to argue 
that enlargement was an event that did not fall unde r a provision to which it naturally belongs, i.e.  
Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement, instead of accepting the natural and sensible reality: that 
enlargement was an event which could be appr opriately addressed under Article 11.2.  Some 
Members who had taken the floor tried to base their case on provisions whose application to enlargement seemed very far-fetched.  
104. The EC delegate recalled that, as he had prev iously explained, many  things may change 
during the life-time of an AD measure.  New operato rs may enter the market, existing operators might 
leave the market; exchange rates can considerably vary, etc.  Th e EC assumed that there was wide 
agreement by Members that these events did not automatically trigger a review.    
105. Enlargement was, from a political point of view one of the most important events, if not the 
single most important event, in Europe these year s.  This political importance or the number of 
10 countries, should, however, not blur the assessmen t of enlargement in terms of AD action.  From 
the purely technical AD perspective, enlargemen t was not much more than one of the many 
circumstances that may and would change during the lifetime of a measure, but that would not 
necessarily lead to a change of an AD measure.   The EC assessment was that, in most cases, 
enlargement would not constitute such  change warranting a change in the level of measures, and thus 
a review.  106. The delegate of the EC illustrated this with an example concerning the United States.  The 
EC, being a moderate user of trade defence instru ments in the bilateral EU-US trade relations, had 
only one AD measure in force concerning the United States, i.e.  definitive AD measures on imports 
of ethanolamines.  In response to the concerns e xpressed by the United States, the EC had looked at 
the statistics on the US exports of the product concer ned (ethanolamines) to th e EC and to the ten new 
member states.  Statistics reveal ed that imports into the EU-15 amounted to 10,991 tons in 2001 and 
29,392 tons in 2003.  The level of imports into the 10 new member states was 580 tons in 2001 and 524 tons in 2003, i.e., hardly any imports.  There were also  no producers of the like product in the 
new member states.   
 107. The EC considered it obvious that if in such circumstances a review were initiated ex officio , 
it would create a lot of useless work, without serving any other purpose than creating a couple of billable hours for some law firms.  The EC did not  pretend that the example of ethanolamines was 
representative for all cases, but it was for many of them.  The EC was confident that many cases 
would fall into this category.  For the other cases, the EC was committed to initiate reviews if 
evidence showed that this was warranted, and would not ask the impossible for initiating such 
reviews.  G/ADP/M/26 
Page 16  
 
 108. The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 noted that the EC maintain ed 10 measures against Chinese 
Taipei's exports while Poland was the only new memb er state that maintained measures against its 
exports, with only one measure being in force.  The fact that one measure would disappear while 
10 others would be extended seemed to create an im balance.  Chinese Taipei was still not clear on the 
legal justification for the extension.  The mechanis m proposed by the EC for review of the extension 
of the measures also increased the burden on expo rters, as no reviews would be initiated if the 
exporter did not apply for a review.  109. The representative of the United States
 observed that the procedures adopted on 15 April 
clearly stated that enlargement per se , in the absence of evidence of its effect on the measure, would 
not be sufficient to warrant review of the measure.  The United States asked whether the 
50 communications received by the EC were requests for reviews, and whether it was correct in understanding that only 8 requests for review were gr anted.  The United States  also requested the EC 
to provide an update to the Committee on the results  of the hardship reviews, and noted that the 
hardship standard should not be necessary to warra nt a review.  The United States questioned other 
Members on whether they believed that automatic re views under Article 11.2 would be sufficient to 
allow extension of the measure or whether a new i nvestigation was necessary.  The United States also 
requested more information from the EC on the le vel of imports to the EU-15 and to the 10 new 
member states and as to the levels of transhipment in the new member states.  110. The delegate of India
 was of the view that an article 11.2 review was not sufficient to "cure" 
the violations generated by extension of the measur es.  India believed that measures could only be 
imposed as a result of an investigation in acco rdance with the rules of the AD Agreement and 
questioned where and when was this investigati on conducted with respect to imports entering the 
10 new member states.  Regarding the example gi ven by the EC on imports from the United States, 
India believed that although imports into the 10 ne w member states were minuscule this was not the 
point.  India also questioned the need to extend the measures to the new me mber states where there 
were no producers of the like product.  111. The delegate of Korea
 expressed the view that enlargement was not just a change in 
circumstances, but a change in the market itself th at is subject to the remedy.  Therefore, a new 
investigation was necessary.  Korea also believed that  the trade impact of the extension of the measure 
was unimportant as this was a systemic issue. 
 112. The delegate of Colombia
 noted that Colombia had a systemic interest on this issue.  
Colombia noted that compliance with the disciplin es set out in the AD Agreement was not based on 
the economic impact of the measure.  Colombia was of the view that a new investigation was 
necessary if the measures were to be applied in the new member states. 
 113. The delegate of Japan
 was also of the view that a new investigation was necessary.  Japan 
noted that the standing of the applicants from the EC-15 changed with expansion to the EC-25.  Japan 
also believed that even if expansion was considered  a change of circumstances, automatic extension 
of the measures was not within  the ambit of Article 11.2. 
 
114. The delegate of the European Communities  recalled that Chinese Taipei mentioned that the 
EC had currently 10 measures against them, while with regard to the acceding countries, there was only one measure from Poland against Chinese Taip ei.  Since only this latter measure would 
disappear there would allegedly be an imbalance.  This was not, in the EC’s view, the approach to 
take.  What mattered was whether there were signi ficant imports into the 10 acceding countries, or 
any other facts which impacted on the level of the m easure.  If that was the case, then, if there were 
indeed changed circumstances a review may be warrant ed.  But it was important to make this analysis 
first.   G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 17 
 
 
 115. Regarding the US request that the Committee be  updated on the hardship reviews, the EC 
would, in line with its usual practice, provide the results of these reviews, in accordance with 
Article 16.4 of the AD Agreement.  The United St ates also asked for more information on other 
aspects of imports into the 10 acceding countries, in par ticular the level of transhipment.  On this the 
EC noted that transhipment would not enter into th e trade statistics, as it would not be considered as 
imports. 
 116. Concerning the comments made by India, the EC delegate pointed out that, contrary to what 
India suggested, every single AD measure of the EC  was based on an investigation carried out in 
compliance with the AD Agreement.  The extens ion of AD measures did not change this fact. 
 
117. The EC delegate recalled that Japan argued th at enlargement had completely changed the 
measures and that new investigations would be necessary.  The EC believed this was not the case.  As the US example would suggest, there was in  many cases not even a change at all. 
 
118. The delegate of the United States
 was of the view that analysis of past trade flows was not as 
relevant as the impact on potential exports.  The Un ited States asked whether there was a deadline for 
requesting review of the extension.  119. The delegate of the European Communities
 confirmed that there was no deadline for reviews 
based on enlargement.  This followed from the no tice of 15 April 2004 (Official Journal C 91/2). 
 
120. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
 L. O
THER BUSINESS  
 
(i) European Communities - Recent amendment to EC anti-dumping law 
 
121. The delegate of the United States  noted that on 8 March 2004 he had received a press release 
from the EC which described changes made to its anti-dumping and countervailing duty rules as 
"introducing greater transparency, efficiency and pred ictability" to their trade remedy measures.  The 
United States was a strong proponent of all of these.  Further, in light of widespread worldwide 
dumping, the United States was not surprised at the statement by EU Trade Commissioner 
Pascal Lamy that "[w]e are responding to demands of EU companies suffering from unfair trading practices as well as to those raised [by] exporters in th ird countries.  One thing is clear:  strengthening 
rules on trade defence is in the overall interests of an open trading system".  The United States agreed, 
and commended the EC for improving obsolete prac tices which were ineffective in addressing unfair 
trade. 
 122. In reviewing the new rules the United States f ound that the changes were forward-leaning, 
and would allow the EC to act more swiftly and fi rmly against unfair trade practices, including in 
ways which were not highlighted in the press release.  
123. Although the regulations apparently  were not published in time to be included on the agenda 
of this meeting, presumably the EC would submit th em in time for discussion in the fall.  To assist 
Members in preparing for that discussion, the Un ited States highlighted certain questions which 
Members may want to keep in mind as they revi ew this legislation.  These questions were: 
 
• Why has the input of member states been reduced? 
 Previously no measures were adopted unless the member states approved.  Under the new rules, a Commission decision to impos e measures will be automatically adopted G/ADP/M/26 
Page 18  
 
 unless explicitly rejected.  Why has the EC  shifted its presumptions?  Does this 
reduce the role of public interest consid erations in EC trade remedy practice? 
 
• Why has the EC lengthened its reviews? 
 
The press release promises that longer deadlines will actually produce faster 
investigations.  According to the EC, unde r current practice it has often missed its 
own internal deadlines for completion of reviews.  Presumably this was not true in every case.  Further, the press release does not explain by how long the Commission has been missing its deadlines.  Although the press release promises "faster investigations," will the true effect of th ese longer deadlines be slower investigations 
in many cases? 
 
• Will some exporters be disadvantaged if the Commission misses its 
deadlines? 
 If an exporter requests a review of its assertions that, due to changed circumstances, a 
measure is no longer necessary, or requests a review as a new shipper, but the 
Commission misses the deadline for comple ting the review, the new rules seem to 
require the assertions be rejected and the reviews cancelled.  Why should an exporter 
be deprived of its right to a review because the Commission cannot meet its own deadlines?  
• Why are EU producers and non-EU producers treated differently in 
circumvention cases? 
 Under the new rules, if one producer outside the EU is found to be circumventing, all 
other non-EU producers are presumed to be circumventing in the same way until they can prove otherwise.  However, if the circumvention is being done by an EU 
importer, the same presumption does not appl y to other EU importers.  Why is such a 
difference in treatment based on whether the company in question is located inside or 
outside the EU?  
124. Finally, the United States took particular note of the EC's description of itself as a "moderate" 
user of trade remedies.  The United States welcomed such moderation, and used trade remedies with 
the same moderation exercised by the EC.  The United  States noted that it did not expect the EC to 
respond to these issues at the meeting and looked fo rward to reviewing in an orderly fashion the 
notification of their amended regulations under Article 18.5, as well as the written questions and 
answers from Members.  The United States made this statement to advise Members that press reports of the recent amendments of EC anti-dumping  law may have substa ntially understated the 
significance and effect of those changes. 
 125. The delegate of the European Communities
, as a point of procedure, suggested that Members 
should avoid using the agenda item Other Business as a means to circumvent the normal procedures 
and rules for dealing with notifications.  The spri ng Committee meeting was clearly not the right place 
for discussing this amendment of the EC Anti-Dumping law.  The amendment was published on 
13 March 2004, after the cut-off date for notificati ons to be examined by this Committee.  It had 
meanwhile been notified to the WTO and would be on the agenda of the autumn meeting.  Obviously 
the text of the amendment had not yet been distributed to other Members.  Consequently, many other Members had not yet had the possibility to look at the amendment.   G/ADP/M/26 
 Page 19 
 
 
 126. The EC delegate explained that the aim of the recent amendment to the EC AD law was to 
improve transparency and predictability, as well as to speed up investigations.  The following areas 
were covered by the amendment: improved deci sion-making; deadlines for review, which were 
immediately applicable to sunset reviews, for ot her reviews they would apply in two years time; 
clarified rules on anti-circumvention and anti-abso rption; and finally some updated provisions on 
undertakings. 
 127. He  recalled that the first issue raised by the United States not only concerned the “cuisine 
interne” of the EC, but the underlying assumption was actually wrong: the input of member states had not been reduced.  Member states had the same i nput as before.  The only matter which had changed 
was the value of abstentions, which would in fu ture count as positive votes.  This had no impact 
whatsoever on public interest considerations in EC AD investigations, but was a purely procedural 
matter.  128. According to the delegate of the EC, the sec ond issue was equally wrong.  The EC had not 
lengthened its reviews.  The EC considered that reviews generally lasted too long.  Therefore the 
introduction of deadlines seemed appropriate.  The deadline for a review should be aimed at 12 
months, with a mandatory maximum deadline of 15 months.  129. On  the third question, the EC delegate confir med that there would be no discrimination.  
Exporters would not necessarily be disadvantag ed if the Commission missed deadlines, because 
Article 11.2 reviews could be at the request of any inte rested party, i.e.  EC producers, exporters, etc.  
Indeed, if a deadline was missed in a sunset revi ew, this was to the disadvantage of domestic 
producers, since measures would then simply expire.  130. Regarding the fourth question, the answer was that there was no such different treatment and 
no such presumption. 
 131. The delegate of the United States
 mentioned that it was not his intent to circumvent the 
notification review procedures and would take part fa ithfully in those procedures at the next meeting.  
The issue was raised as a public service and did not constitute a substantive review.  Regarding the 
replies given by the EC on the deadlines to shorte n reviews the United States needed some factual 
analysis of how much overrun there was.  On the missing the deadlines for expiry reviews the 
United States understood that other parties may also  be disadvantaged.  The United States noted that 
in general they appreciated most of the changes that had been made.  132. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
(ii) Canada – Measures on corrugated steel bars 
 
133. The delegate of Cuba  recalled that on 12 January 2000, as a result of the investigation 
undertaken by Canada against imports of corrugate d steel bars from Korea, Turkey and Cuba, the 
Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) dete rmined that imports from Cuba had caused injury 
to the Canadian steel industry.  As a conse quence, the Cuban exporter had anti-dumping duties 
imposed which should expire, as stated in the record  of the investigation, on 11 January 2005, unless 
it was decided to the contrary by the CITT.  The ongoing review investigation on these measures should be concluded on 28 April 2004.  Cuba expressed concern about the possibility that the 
Canadian authorities would decide to extend these duties, since, as stated by Cuba in 2000, the 
commercial interests of a developing country would be affected unjustifiably for a longer period.  
Cuba noted that it had argued, before and after impos ition of the measure, that its level of exports to 
the Canadian market was small, indeed, almost non-existent, and that those imports were unduly 
cumulated with imports from other countries during the original investigation.    G/ADP/M/26 
Page 20  
 
 134. Cuba trusted that the Canadian authority w ould recognize in the ongoing review process the 
substantial changes that had taken place in the steel market from the year 2000 to date.  Cuba noted 
that the price of steel bars had doubled and consider ed that there would be no justification to extend 
the duties beyond the expected expiry date, which would eliminate the injury caused to the Cuban 
exporter.  With this statement Cuba wanted to ma ke clear its opposition to the extension of the duties, 
which it considered had not been justified original ly, and much less now, a nd which would be another 
example of non-compliance with Article 15 of the AD Agreement establishing special and differential 
treatment for developing countries.  Cuba reserved the right to come back to th is issue once the results 
of the review had been notified.  
135. The delegate of Canada
 noted that the CITT would decide on 28 April 2004 whether to 
conduct an expiry review, if no revi ew was initiated the measure would expire.  If the CITT initiated a 
review it would do an analysis of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury.  Canada 
encouraged Cuba, if a review was initiated, to pa rticipate and make its views know to the Canadian 
authorities.  Canada asserted that during the origin al investigation, the CITT did consider Article 15 
and whether the essential interests of Cuba were being affected. 
 136. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 M. D
ATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
 
137. The Chairman noted that the Committee had agr eed 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.  The 
SCM Committee had the same schedule, as did the Safeguards Committee.  In order to accommodate 
all three bodies' meeting, the next regular meeti ng of the Committee was proposed for the week of 
25 October 2004.  In light of previously scheduled meetings of the Working Group on 
Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circ umvention, the Committee would therefore meet 
beginning in the morning on Thursday, 28 October 2004.  138. The Committee decided
 to meet on the date proposed by the Chair.   
 N. E
LECTION OF OFFICERS  
 
139. The Chairman noted that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had not yet 
completed informal consultations on the nomination of Chairpersons for the different bodies operating 
under the auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  Thus, contrary to the usual practice, there were 
no proposed nominations before the Committee for consideration. 
 
140. The Chairman recalled that the Committee's ru les of procedure called for the election of 
officers to take place at the first regular meeting of the year.  The rules of procedure called for the election to take effect at the end of that meeti ng.  However, unless the Committee wished to proceed 
with the election of a Chairman without waiting fo r the results of the overall consultations, and in 
light of the circumstances, the Chairman proposed  that the Committee, as an  extraordinary measure, 
extend the term of the current Chairman and Vice Chairman, Mr.  David Evans and Mr. Mateo Diego-
Fernandez, until the next meeting of the Committee.  The Chairman noted that this action would be 
consistent with the action of the Committee in the past, when this situation had arisen, in 2000. 
 141. The Committee so decided
. 
 
142. The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________