RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/18
21 November 2001
(01-5921)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 26 APRIL 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Yair Shiran (Israel)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
26 April 2001.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................... ..........2
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (G/ADP/N/72 & ADDENDA) .............4
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINAR Y AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/70-71 AND G/ADP/N/73-75) .............................................................................................. ...6
D. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF IN FORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION...6
E. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................... ...................7
(i) Canada- United States' initiation of an anti-dumping investigation of softwood lumber from  Canada ........7
(ii) Korea – Initiation of anti-dumping inve stigation on Korean PSF by Japan...................................................8
(iii) Turkey – Anti-dumping practice of Argentina on imports of hot-rolled bars from Turkey ...........................8(iv) New Zealand – Definitive duties on milk imposed by Brazil .................................................................. ......9
(v) Indonesia – Anti-dumping practice on Indonesian polyester staple fibre.....................................................1 0
(vi) Committee's Report to the Council for Trade in Goods....................................................................... ........13
F. POSSIBLE COMMITTEE DECISION ON THE STATUS OF ADOPTED
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................ .........14
G. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION. ................................................................................................................ ............16
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..............................................................................................18I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS......................................................................................................... ...........18G/ADP/M/18
Page 2
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
3. The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda was 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 1996 (document G/ADP/W/284, 12 February 1996).  As indicated in
the agenda, the Committee would first consider the notifications of new or amended legislation, in the
order indicated in the airgram convening the m eeting.  The Committee would then turn to the
questions concerning previously reviewed notifications of Chile and Malaysia.
4. The Chairman stated that unfortunately, after several meetings for which most questions had
been submitted in a timely fashion, Members appeared to have reverted to bad habits, as only thequestions from Egypt on Tunisia's legislation had been received by the applicable deadline,
5 April 2001.  The Chairman emphasized how important it was to submit questions on time in order to
enable translation and preparation of answers by the Members whose legislation was being reviewed,
and expressed the hope that at the Committee's next meeting, they would again be in the happy
situation of questions having been received on time.
5. Turning to the substantive discussion, the Chairman noted that as provided for in the agreed
procedures, Members receiving written questions would be asked to respond orally to those questions
in the meeting, to the extent possible in the case of late-submitted questions.  Follow-up questions
might be asked in the meeting.  Such follow-up questions had to be
 submitted in writing no later than
17 May 2001 if the Member posing the question wished to receive a written answer.  Members would
be requested to submit written answers to all written questions received.  Written answers were to be
submitted to the Secretariat no later than 2 July 2001.  After the conclusion of the spring meetings of
the Committee and the SCM and Safeguards Committees, the Secretariat  would issue a note setting
out the applicable deadlines for submissions with respect to this meeting and the Committee meetings
the following autumn.
6. The questions regarding notification of Canada can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/10 Submitted by the United States
The answers provided by Canada to the ques tions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/11 Reply to the United States
7. The questions regarding notification of Ecuador can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/10&Corr.1 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/11 Submitted by the European Communities
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE AS YET BEEN PROVIDED BY ECUADOR.
8. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Jordan.  The Committee took note  of
the notification.
9. The questions regarding notification of Latvia can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/LVA/1 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/LVA/2 Submitted by the European Communities
The answers provided by Latvia to the questions can be found in the following documents:G/ADP/M/18
Page 3
G/ADP/Q1/LVA/3 Reply to the United States
G/ADP/Q1/LVA/4 Reply to the European Communities
10. The questions regarding notification of Morocco can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/MAR/2 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/MAR/3 Submitted by the European Communities
The answers provided by Morocco to the ques tions can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/MAR/4/Rev.1 Replies to the United States and European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/MAR/5 Replies to the European Communities and United States
11. No questions were posed concerning the notification of Mexico. The Committee took note  of
the notification.
12. The questions regarding notification of Peru can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/13 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/PER/14 Submitted by the European Communities
The answers provided by Peru to the quest ions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/15 Reply to  the United States
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE AS YET BEEN PROVIDED BY PERU TO THE
QUESTION POSED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.
13. The questions regarding notification of Tunisia can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/TUN/2 Submitted by Egypt
G/ADP/Q1/TUN/3 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/TUN/4 Submitted by the European Communities
The answers provided by Tunisia to the questions can be found in the following document:G/ADP/Q1/TUN/5 Replies to Egypt, United States and European Communities
14. The Chairman thanked the Members whose notifications had been discussed that day for their
answers, and the Members who had undertaken to put questions noting that as usual, the exercise had
been positive, and of benefit to all.
15. The Chairman reminded Members that follow up questions asked at the meeting were to be
submitted in writing no later than 17 May 2001 if the Member posing the question wished to receive a
written answer.  Written answers to all written questions received by Members whose new
notifications had been reviewed that day should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than
2 July 2001.
16. The Chairman informed the Committee that, a lthough not all of the following have been
circulated to Members as yet, it was expected that the new notifications of Burundi , document
G/ADP/N/1/BUR/1, Croatia , document G/ADP/N/1/HRV/1, Korea , document G/ADP/N/1/KOR/5,
Oman, document G/ADP/N/1/OMN/1, and Papua New Guinea , document G/ADP/N/1/PNG/1,G/ADP/M/18
Page 4
would be on the agenda of the Committee's meetin g in October 2001.  The Secretariat would inform
Members of additional new notifications to be considered at that meeting in mid-September 2000.
The deadline for submission of questions regarding new notifications of legislation for the meeting in
October 2001 meeting would be 4 October 2001.
17. The Chairman stated that the final aspect of legislation review of the day involved questions
regarding legislation notifications that had already been reviewed.
18. Questions concerning the legislation of Chile were received from Argentina in document
G/ADP/Q1/CHL/2.  Written answers  to these questions were to have been submitted no later than
12 April 2001, but had not been received by the Secretariat by that date.  Written answers to the
questions posed by Argentina were submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/CHL/4.
19. Questions concerning the legislation of Malaysia were received from the United States in
document AG/ADP/Q1/MYS/7.  Written answers to thes e questions were to have been submitted no
later than 12 April 2001, but had not been received by the Secretariat by that date.  Written answers to
the questions posed by the United States were submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/MYS/8
20. Finally, the Chairman noted that in order for a previously reviewed notification of legislation
to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in October 2001, questions should be
submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose notification was in question, no later than
13 September 2001.  The Chairman expressed the hope that this advance warning would helpMembers in scheduling their internal work programmes.
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (G/ADP/N/72 & ADDENDA)
21. The Chairman stated that a request for semi-annual reports for the second half of 2000, to
have been submitted not later than 2 March 2001, had been circulated to the Members in
G/ADP/N/72, dated 8 January 2001.  The Chairman  noted that there continued to be some
improvement in the submission of semi-annual reports.  While a number of semi-annual reports had
been received late, the degree of lateness was far less than it had been in the past.  It appeared that
Members were taking note of the regularity of the applicable deadlines for submission of semi-annual
reports, and perhaps putting mechanisms in place to  ensure that this routine obligation was routinely
fulfilled.  The Chairman congratulated Members on this accomplishment, and urged all others to
follow suit to ensure that semi-annual reports were submitted when due.  The Chairman remindedMembers that semi-annual reports were always due at the end of February for the period July through
December of the previous year, and at the end of August for the period January through June of the
current year.
22. The Chairman noted that Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified in
paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/72 Addendum 1, dated 12 April 2001.  He noted that there was an
error in that document – Colombia and the European Communities had submitted semi-annual reportsbefore the document was circulated, and therefore should be listed in paragraph 1, not paragraph 3.
To the extent possible, the semi-annual reports had been translated and circulated to the Committee,
and were included in the documents made available for the meeting.  After the Addendum 1 document
circulated, Jamaica submitted a letter stating that it had initiated one investigation during the relevant
period, but did not submit a semi-annual report in  the format set out in document G/ADP/1.
23. The Chairman observed that in addition to the 24 Members who had submitted semi-annual
reports, 22 Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/72 Addendum 1 had notified the
Committee that they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  Since that
document was prepared notifications of no anti-dumping action taken had been received fromG/ADP/M/18
Page 5
Burundi, Cyprus, Guatemala, Latvia, and the Slovak Republic.  With respect to notifications of no
action, there was no good explanation for some Members' failure to make this notification in a timely
fashion.  The Chairman reiterated that all that was required if a Member took no action during a given
period was a one sentence letter stating that fact sent to the Chairman or the Secretary of the
Committee before the end of February, and another such letter before the end of August.  Particularlyfor Members who did not conduct anti-dumping inves tigations, it seemed to the Chairman that this
should be a relatively simple task.
24. The Chairman noted that while there had been  an improvement in compliance, there remained
a significant number of Members who had not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, and
had therefore failed to comply with this important requirement set forth in Article 16.4 of the
Agreement.  These Members were identified in  document G/ADP/N/72 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.
25. That said, the Chairman turned to the reports submitted and asked if any Member had
comments or questions concerning these semi-annual reports.  He noted that some of these reported
no actions taken, but also reported measures in place, and were therefore before them for
consideration.
26. The delegate of Hong Kong, China noted that at the previous meeting of the Committee, he
had requested clarification from South Africa concerning South Africa's semi-annual report dated
22 September 2000, which indicated that definitive anti-dumping duties had been imposed on imports
of garden picks from Hong China since 11 Octobe r 1996.  Hong Kong, China had not been notified
by South Africa of the imposition of this measure, and South Africa's earlier semi-annual reports had
not reported such measures.  Hong Kong, China requested clarification on this matter from
South Africa, noting that the same information was contained in the latest semi-annual report, dated
March 2001.  Hong Kong, China looked forward to an early response from South Africa on the
matter.
27. The delegate of South Africa apologized for not providing the information earlier, and
indicated that South Africa was forwarding the information to Hong Kong, China, which should
receive it before the end of the week.
28. The delegate of Canada noted that both the cover letter and the semi-annual report of the
United States had contained dates indicating that the report was for the period 1 January to
30 June 2000, when it should have been for the period 1 July to 31 December 2000.  Later in the
report, the list of cases contained the correct dates, suggesting it must have been a clerical error.
29. The delegate of the United States indicated her authorities would look into the matter and
correct it as appropriate.30. The delegate of India noted that in the semi-annual report of the United States, under columns
11,12, 13, 14, especially columns 11 and 12, it was consistently reported that no information
concerning these elements was available.  The delegate of India inquired whether it was standard
practice that information regarding trade volume and dumped imports as a percentage of domesticconsumption was not collected in the United States.
31. The delegate of the United States noted that this matter was something the United States
authorities would be happy to look into, to determine the precise explanation.  Typically, this situation
arose in the case of administrative reviews, which under the United States system were frequentlycompany-specific.  Consequently, in a review context the United States typically would not have
collected public information on the total trade volume concerned, etc., resulting in the "not available"
designations in the relevant columns.  The delegate of the United States noted that if there was aG/ADP/M/18
Page 6
particular proceeding that India was concerned about , the United States would be happy to look into
it.
32. The Committee took note of the statements made.
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/70-71 AND G/ADP/N/73-75)
33. The Chairman noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received by the Committee had been circ ulated to Members in documents G/ADP/N/70-71
and G/ADP/N/73-75.  Preliminary and final anti-dumpi ng actions had been notified by Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Egypt, European Community, Indi a, Israel, Jamaica, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand,
South Africa, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela.
34. As with other notification requirements, there ap peared to be a lack of full compliance in this
area, as some Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating actions in progress had not
submitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  The Chairman reiterated that an important
aspect of the Committee's task is its role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members.Further, the Chairman emphasized that if Members did not take their obligations to notify seriously
and comply, the Committee would be prevented from accomplishing its goal of considering Members'
compliance with the requirements of the Agreement.
35. The Chairman asked whether any Member wished to address any of these notifications.36. The delegate of the United States stated that it had come to her delegation's attention, upon
arrival in Geneva, that there might be some administrative difficulties in systematically reporting
some of the United States' notices of preliminary and final actions.  The United States would consult
internally and see whether they could improve the s ituation, and confirm this to the Secretariat at an
appropriate time.
37. The Committee took note of statements made.
D. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
38. The Chairman noted that, as most Member s were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention had met on Wednesday. At the meeting, the Group had considered papers submitted
on topic 2, organized into 3 categories: (1) answers to specific questions to the United States, (2) a
general paper by Mexico, and (3) papers regarding factual scenarios.  There had been a number of
questions raised at the meeting, in particular with regard to papers submitted in the third category.
Members who had posed questions were asked to submit those questions to the Secretariat in writingas soon as possible for circulation.  It was hoped that Members to whom these questions were
addressed would provide a written response in time for consideration at the next meeting.
39. The Group had agreed that for its next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, 24 October 2001,
the Secretariat would update the list of factual scenarios submitted by Members in previous papers,
circulated as document W/ADP/IG/W/29.  The Chairman noted that the Group had considered the
possibility of opening discussions on the third topic of the agreed framework namely:  "To what extentcan circumvention be dealt with under the relevant WTO rules?  To what extent can it not?  And what
other options may be deemed necessary?" but had not  reached a consensus to do so.  The Chairman then
concluded that for the next meeting the Group would continue its discussions on topics 1 and 2 of the
agreed framework.G/ADP/M/18
Page 7
40. The Chairman expressed his hope that, in future meetings of the Group, they would be able to
further advance the work required by the Ministerial Decision on Anti-Circumvention taken at
Marrakesh.  He reminded Members that the Ministerial Decision on Anti-Circumvention mentioned
the desirability of uniform rules in that area "as soon as possible", and refered the matter to theCommittee on Anti-Dumping Practices for resolution.
41. The Chairman stated that next meeting of the Group was scheduled for Wednesday,
24 October 2001. The deadline for submissions for that meeting was Wednesday, 10 September 2001,
and he urged Members to make maximum efforts to respect that deadline.  The Chairman expressed
the hope that more Members would participate actively in the work of the Informal Group by
submitting papers on the items for discussion, and in the discussions themselves.  He noted that acopy of the text of his statement would be available after this meeting was adjourned.
42. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Canada- United States' initiation of an anti-dump ing investigation of softwood lumber from 
Canada
43. The delegate of Canada appreciated the opportunity to make a statement concerning the
23 April 2001 decision by the United States to initiate an anti-dumping investigation concerning
softwood lumber from Canada.  This anti-dumping investigation was the most recent episode in along running saga of US trade remedy actions agai nst softwood lumber from Canada.  The delegate of
Canada noted that indeed, the current anti-dumping action was being taken concurrently with a
countervailing duty investigation - the latter being the fourth such investigation of lumber from
Canada in 18 years - notwithstanding the fact that the United States had failed to sustain a finding of
subsidies to Canadian producers in the three previous cases.
44. Canada believed that the anti-dumping petition had been deficient in a number of important
respects - conveniently disregarding certain information that had been reasonably available to the
petitioners and directly relevant to the issues of dumping, injury and causation.  As such, it was
Canada’s view that the petition had not provided an adequate basis for the initiation of an
investigation.
• On the issue of dumping, the petition had failed to provide actual sales and cost data that had been
reasonably available to petitioners.  Among the petitioners and petition supporters werecompanies that regularly purchased lumber in Canada, imported lumber from Canada, and/or
owned major Canadian lumber producers. Nonetheless, the petitioner had provided only a handful
of non-specific price comparisons, as well as constructed costs, that were not sufficient evidence
to justify initiation.
• The petition had also failed to substantiate the allegations of injury. Canada noted it was difficult
to imagine how the United States could find sufficient evidence of material injury in the period of
investigation, during which time the Canada-United States Softwood Lumber Agreement  had been
in effect, given that United States producers explicitly had represented that the Agreement had
eliminated material injury.
45. Canada stated that the decision of the United States to initiate an anti-dumping investigation,
in spite of the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the petition, raised serious questions respecting US
compliance with Article 5.3 of the ADA.G/ADP/M/18
Page 8
46. Canada would be closely monitoring the progress of the investigation and would avail itself
of its rights under the WTO as necessary.
47. The delegate of the United States thanked Canada for the comments.  The United States
would not offer a point by point reply, having been notified the previous day that this matter would be
on the agenda of the Committee.  Further, the United States shared Canada's desire that this trade
problem between their countries be solved - this was something that the United States would have
preferred to have been solved some time ago.  The United States would not address issues having to
do with subsidies, but would take careful account of the comments Canada had made.  The delegate of
the United States noted that expressions of domestic industries as of whether the material injury did or
did not exist was recognized as being separate from  legal findings made by investigating authorities.
The United States would of course respect its international obligations during the course of theinvestigation.
(ii) Korea – Initiation of anti-dumping investigation on Korean PSF by Japan
48. The delegate of Korea stated that the Japanese authorities on April 20 had decided to initiate
an investigation on Korean PSF products. Korean exports of PSF to Japan in 1992 had been only 3 per
cent of the total Japanese market and there was strong doubt that there was any dumping or injury to
the Japanese domestic industry. Korea was concerned that the Japanese authority, despite such scant
evidence of dumping and injury, had initiated the investigation.  The Korean government would keep
a close watch on that investigation.
49. The delegate of Japan thanked the Korean delegation for the statement concerning the recent
initiation of an anti-dumping investigation.  The investigation that Korea had mentioned had been
initiated as of 23 April.  Japan would proceed with this investigation in an unbiased and objective
manner, according to the WTO rules.  Therefore, the Japanese delegate could not discuss anything
about the contents of the investigation.  Finally, the Japanese delegate noted, for the reference ofKorea, Japan had not applied any anti-dumping duties on products from Korea while Korea had taken
six cases of anti-dumping measures on products from Japan.
(iii) Turkey – Anti-dumping practice of Argentin a on imports of hot-rolled bars from Turkey
50. The delegate of Turkey drew the attention of the Committee to Argentina's anti-dumping
practices, and specifically the imposition of provisional measures, inter alia , on imports of Turkish
hot rolled bars.
51. The delegate of Turkey provided a brief summary of information about the anti-dumping
investigation.  The investigation had been initiated on 8 June 2000.  A provisional measure in the
form of minimum FOB export prices had been imposed on Turkish exports of the subject product by
public notice published on 7 February 2001.  There was no information concerning how and on whatbasis this price level had been set.  However, it was apparent that the minimum FOB export price was
much higher than the world price level of the subject product.  Turkey had exported a small quantity
of nearly 1,700 tons in 1999, when the market si ze was roughly 80,000 tons; and no shipments from
Turkey to Argentina had been made in the years 1997, 1998 and 2000.
52. The delegate of Turkey also raised certain issues regarding the procedures and methodology
of the investigation, and provided an explanation for each issue.
53. Public Notice - In accordance with Article 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, "public
notice shall be given of any preliminary or final determination, of any decision to accept anundertaking and all such notices and reports shall be forwarded to the Member and to other interested
parties known to have an interest therein".  In contrast to this provision, the public notice published byG/ADP/M/18
Page 9
the Argentine anti-dumping authority had been obtained by the efforts of Turkish officials, instead of
having been sent by the authority as foreseen in the Agreement.  Article 12.2 of the Agreement stated
further that, "such notice shall set forth, or make available through a separate report, in sufficient
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered material by the
investigating authorities."  However, the above-mentioned public notice did not contain any findingsand determinations establishing a basis for the provisional measure imposed.  Nor had any separate
report establishing such basis been provided, as mentioned in above Article of the Agreement.  The
public notice and additional documents obtained after the imposition of the provisional measure
contained only facts about the situation of the domestic industry and no data or calculation of either
the dumping margin or the minimum FOB export price for each country.
54. Cooperation and Facts Available - According to Article 6.8. of the Agreement, "in cases in
which any interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide, necessary information
within a reasonable period or significantly impedes the investigation, preliminary and final
determinations, affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of facts available."  It was further
set forth that the provisions of Annex II should be observed in the application of that Article.
Pursuant to paragraph 6 of Annex II, if the information provided was not accepted by the authority,the cooperating parties should be informed of the reasons therefore and should be given an
opportunity to provide further explanations if the explanations were considered by the authority as not
being satisfactory, the reasons for the rejection of such information should be given in any published
determinations.  In this case, one of the Turkish exporters had cooperated in the course of the
investigation, making its best effort.  However, it was not clear whether the information provided bythis company had been taken into consideration in the calculation of the minimum FOB export price
as a provisional measure.  If the information provided had not been not accepted by the Argentine
authority, the cooperating party should have been informed thereof, through the public notice or any
other published document.  However, this was not the case.  Therefore, the company concerned did
not have any information about how and on what  basis the provisional measure was established.
55. Domicile Address Requirement - The Argentine authority required the cooperating parties to
establish a legal domicile address in the Federal Capital of the Argentine Republic, pursuant to
Article 19 of the Regulatory Decree No. 1759/72 of the Administrative Proceedings Act.  According
to this decree any correspondence with the investigating authority had to show a domicile address in
Argentina.  Although Turkish exporters had fulfilled that requirement by showing the address of
Turkish Embassy in Buenos Aires, this practice seemed  to deprive the interested parties of their right
to defend.
56. The delegate of Argentina stated that they had taken note of preoccupation of Turkey and they
would transmit the matter to the Argentinian authorities.
(iv) New Zealand – Definitive duties on milk imposed by Brazil
57. The delegate of New Zealand stated that at the previous meeting of the Anti-Dumping
Committee, New Zealand had posed a question to Brazil regarding the extension of the anti-dumping
investigation into milk imports from Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, European Union and
Uruguay where the investigation period was extended past a mandatory date of one year.  To date,New Zealand had not received the written reply Brazil had undertaken to give at the previous meeting.
58. The delegate of New Zealand noted that definitive duties had then been put in place.
New Zealand officials had closely studied the findings and the investigation and particularly the
imposition of the anti-dumping duties on imports of milk products from New Zealand.  TheNew Zealand Ambassador to Brazil had sought information from officials in Brazil in order to review
the calculations on which the final anti-dumping measure had been based.  In that regard,
New Zealand's understanding was that Brazilian legislation did not contain provisions for lesserG/ADP/M/18
Page 10
duties.  New Zealand noted, however, that in this case, a calculated weighted average dumping margin
of 101.4 per cent had been reduced to 14.8 per cent for one of the countries involved in the
investigation.  New Zealand had also noted several other areas where it believed that the Brazilian
investigating authority had not complied with the rules as set out in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
The New Zealand Dairy Board, the exporter in this case, had taken steps to obtain further informationvia its legal council in Brazil.  Depending on the outcome of the Dairy Board's approach to the
Brazilian authorities, the New Zealand government might wish to seek further clarification on certain
issues.  New Zealand therefore was reserving its right to take further action on this matter at a later
date as it saw necessary.
59. The delegate of Brazil thanked the delegate of New Zealand for the statement and noted that
they had taken note of the points that had been raised.  The delegate of Brazil assured that they would
check with their authorities on the answer to the question that had been posed to them last session.
(v) Indonesia – Anti-dumping practice on Indonesian polyester staple fibre
60. The delegate of Indonesia drew the attention of the European Union delegation to the
statement made by Indonesia regarding the anti-dum ping practice on Indonesian polyester staple fibre
(PSF) at the Committee meeting in November 2000.1  The delegate of Indonesia reminded the
European Communities delegation that Indonesia was still waiting for the response of the EuropeanCommunities to that statement.
61. The delegate of the European Communities thanked the delegate of Indonesia for continuing
the interesting subject, and presented the Europ ean Communities' reply to the statement made by
Indonesia on the imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures on Polyester Staple Fibre
(PSF) originating in several countries, amongst them, Indonesia.  The delegation of European
Communities addressed the different issues presented by the Indonesian delegation at the last meeting
of the Committee.
62. The first issue was the sampling methodology.  The Indonesian delegation had alleged that
given the number of producers of the product concerned the use of sampling methodology had not
been justified.  They also had alleged that the sample had not been representative since only two
companies had been selected for the sample.  As a consequence of sampling no opportunity for a
"newcomer-review" would be available for three companies which had not exported to the European
Communities during the investigation period.  The Indonesian delegation had also alleged that non-sampled companies had not got the opportunity to defend themselves.  Finally, companies who
wanted to seek individual treatment had not been given sufficient time to answer the questionnaire.
63. In reply to these arguments the delegation of the European Communities outlined the
following.  At the time of the initiation, the Euro pean Communities was aware of the existence of ten
producers of PSF in Indonesia.  This number of producers was considered sufficiently large to justify
sampling, all the more considering the fact that further exporting producers unknown to the European
Communities at that moment might have existed.  Seven companies came forward and provided
information with a view to being included in th e sample.  Furthermore, the use of the sampling
methodology was at no point put into question by the Indonesian authorities at the time when thesampling process took place.
64. The statement that only two companies were selected for the sample was not correct.  In fact,
the European Communities initially selected three exporting producers according to their
representativity with regard to the European Communities and the domestic market.  However, two ofthese three companies failed to further cooperate.  Furthermore, of the two companies that requested
                                                     
1 See document G/ADP/W/416.G/ADP/M/18
Page 11
individual treatment, only one prov ided a questionnaire response.  The allegation by the Indonesian
delegation that all seven companies had “furnished all information as required by the EU” was not
corroborated by the facts.  Only the basic data requested to constitute the sample had been furnished
by all seven companies.
65. The reconstitution of a completely new sample as a consequence of the non-cooperation could
not be envisaged given the statutory time limits of the proceeding.  It should be also noted that
available time had been further reduced by the many extensions exceptionally given, in particular to
one of the Indonesian companies in the initial sample , in order to give it the opportunity to provide a
meaningful questionnaire response.
66. Under these circumstances, the only other Indonesian company that had provided a
satisfactory questionnaire response, with a view of being granted individual treatment, was added to
the sample.  There was no other satisfactory response from any other of the seven companies that
would have allowed the inclusion of other exporting producers in the new sample.  The European
Communities therefore, as a consequence of the high level of non-cooperation, had no other choice
than to work on a basis of a sample of two companies.
67. The unusual fact that companies declared their readiness to be sampled and then did not
cooperate once they had been included in the sample led to considerable delays in the proceeding and
left the European Communities therefore with no alternative but to use the only two producers that
had provided a meaningful questionnaire response from the sample.  The delegate of the EuropeanCommunities noted that the European Communities could have taken more stringent action at that
stage.  It could legitimately have declared that the sampling process had been impossible to
implement.  As a consequence it would simply have investigated the two exporters and would have
given a residual duty to the rest of the country.
68. However, another course of action was followed and the Indonesian authorities were
informed and raised no objection to the revised sample.  The two companies selected were, moreover,
two of those that had, since the beginning, been sugge sted to be included in the sample by the Anti-
Dumping Committee of Indonesia (letter of 17 May 1999).  It should also be noted that this final
sample still covered more than 50 per cent of the Indonesian exports of the product concerned to the
European Communities and more than 30 per cent of the domestic sales.  Therefore, the European
Communities could not share the assessment of the Indonesian authorities that this sample was “notrepresentative".
69. Further, the European Communities stated th at, as concerned the treatment of companies
which had not exported during the Investigation Period, special newcomer treatment was not granted
automatically but only on request of the companies concerned, under the conditions set out inArticle 2 of the Regulation imposing definitive duties on imports of PSF originating, amongst other,
in Indonesia (Council Regulation N°1522/2000).  In that  respect, provided that the conditions for a
newcomer were fulfilled and the necessary information was provided, an accelerated procedure for
new exporters could be carried out with the aim of modifying the existing Regulation.  However,
given that sampling was used in the original investigation, no individual treatment would be given tonewcomers as that would discriminate against cooperating companies in the initial proceeding that
were not included in the sample and would turn the concept of sampling ad absurdum .  The rate for
companies for which a new exporting producer status would be granted would be the rate for
cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample, i.e. the weighted average of the rates of
the sampled companies.
70. The non-sampled cooperating companies were given ample opportunities to defend
themselves.  In this respect, all their submissions were examined and answered by the Commission.G/ADP/M/18
Page 12
71. With regard to the time available to the companies seeking individual treatment, the
delegation of the European Communities stressed that individual treatment was not an automatic
alternative for companies that have not been included in the sample.  The conditions on individual
treatment had to be fulfilled on their own merit.  The timeframe to answer the questionnaire in view of
seeking individual treatment was independent from the date of communication of the result of thesampling exercise.  In fact the notice of initiation in point 5(c), last paragraph stipulated that exporting
producers seeking individual treatment should as soon as possible request a questionnaire because all
such questionnaires should be completed within the general time limit, i.e. within 40 days from the
date of initiation.  Therefore all companies had time, from the date of the publication of the notice of
initiation on 22 April 1999, to answer to the questionna ire in view of receiving individual treatment.
This had also been stressed and further explained in  the letter sent to all known Indonesian companies
on the day of publication of the notice of initiation of the proceeding.  One company seekingindividual treatment acted accordingly, was granted the full period of 37 days to reply and submitted a
questionnaire response, while the other companies did not.  That company was finally added to the
sample.  The allegation that companies seeking individual treatment had been only granted 13 days to
answer to the questionnaire was therefore not correct.
72. The second point addressed by the Indonesian delegation was the product coverage and like
product.  With respect to product coverage and like product, the Indonesian delegation was of the
view that the product coverage as set out in the notice of initiation was more limited than that of the
measures adopted. Indonesia claimed that given that non-spinning and non-woven polyester fibres had
not been mentioned at the moment of the initiation of the proceedings, they should have beenexcluded from the product scope.
73. In that respect, the delegation of the European Communities stressed that the definition of the
product concerned based on the description of the CN-code 5503 20 00, as used in the notice of
initiation, was not limited to PSF for spinning.  In fact, that CN-code covered all types of non-further-processed PSF indifferently of their final use. This definition was in line with that of the complaint,
which included all types of PSF and was not restricted to PSF used for spinning purposes.  The
European Communities had replied to all relevant argu ments raised in the course of the investigation.
74. The third point raised by the Indonesian delegation was the level of profitability.  The
Indonesian delegation complained of the use of 10 per cent by the European Communities as a
reasonable level of profit for the domestic industry, instead of 6 per cent which was the level of profitsof the Community industry at the time of the initiation of the proceeding.  Moreover, it requested a
clarification on the concept of "reasonable level of profit" in the light of the WTO Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
75. In that respect, the delegate of the European Communities noted that the 10 per cent level of
profit used by the European Communities when calculating the amount of duty necessary to eliminate
the injury sustained by its domestic industry had been considered a reasonable level of profit which
could have been obtained by that industry in the absence of dumped imports from several countries,
amongst other, Indonesia.  The level of profits had been therefore correctly determined.
76. The fourth point raised by the Indonesian delegation concerned currency fluctuation.  The
delegate of the European Communities stated that although the statement of the Indonesian
Delegation was not fully clear on this point, they would like to clarify that in the calculations the
European Communities had compared, by product type, the weighted average normal value for the
entire investigation period with the weighted average export price for the entire investigation periodand not with monthly export prices or export prices of individual transactions as the table attached to
the statement of the Indonesian delegation seemed to suggest.  The conversion of the export prices in
foreign currency into Indonesian Rupiah had been carried out using the rate of exchange on the date
of sale, as set out in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.G/ADP/M/18
Page 13
77. The final point raised by the Indonesian delegation concerned Article 15 of the Agreement on
the special and differential treatment for developing countries.  The Indonesian delegation stated that
the European Communities had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 15 of the WTO
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 22 of its Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, since it had nottaken into account that as a consequence of the Asian economic crisis and the subsequent depreciation
of the currencies of certain Asian countries, exporting producers in those countries had substantial
foreign exchange losses which were extraordinary, unprecedented and not recurring in nature.
78. Article 15 of the Agreement provides in particular that possibilities of constructive remedies
should be explored before applying anti-dumping duties which would affect the essential interest of
developing country members.
79. In that respect, the European Communities had taken account of the specific situation of
Indonesia as a developing country.  The European Communities noted that Indonesian exporters had
not cooperated sufficiently with the investigation and that, as a consequence, findings with regard to
dumping had had to be based on facts available.  Notwithstanding that insufficient cooperation, theCommission had not applied facts available in an adverse way but had used the company's own
information.  That lenient treatment could only be justified on the basis of Article 15 of the
Agreement.  The European Communities therefore considered that constructive remedies had been
provided in that case in the form of imposition of a lower duty.
80. Furthermore, due to the fact that Indonesia had not made any submission showing that the
imposition of an anti-dumping duty on PSF would affect its essential interest, the European
Communities did not actively suggest a price undertaking, particularly in view of the significant non-
cooperation.  However, the delegate of the European Communities stated that the European
Communities would have carefully examined, pursuant to Article 15 of the WTO Anti-DumpingAgreement, any offer for price undertakings as well as any other remedy proposed either by
Indonesian companies, or by the Indonesian authorities.
81. The delegate of Indonesia thanked the European Communities for its comments and requested
the written version of its response.2
(vi) Committee's Report to the Council for Trade in Goods
82. The Chairman raised a matter concerning the report of the Committee to the Council for
Trade in Goods in connection with the Fourth Mini sterial Conference, which would take place from 9
to 13 November this year in Doha, Qatar.  The Chairman stated that, as Members might be aware, the
General Council would be meeting on 23-24 October.  At that meeting, it would undertake the annual
review of WTO Activities on the basis of reports submitted by subsidiary bodies, including the reportof the Goods Council, which would be adopted sometime in early October.
83. The Chairman stated that the Committee was not scheduled to meet again before the adoption
of those reports. This situation had arisen before, and in those cases, before the Geneva and Seattle
Ministerial Conferences, the Chairman of the Committee had sent a letter to the Chairman of theCouncil for Trade in Goods containing a factual report of the Committee's activities since its most
recent annual report.  That had avoided the necessity to call a special meeting simply to adopt an
interim report for consideration by the Goods Council.
84. The Chairman proposed that, as had been done in the past, the Chairman of the Committee
would send a letter to the Goods Council Chairman prior to the Goods Council meeting.  That letter
                                                     
2 A written response was subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/W/418.G/ADP/M/18
Page 14
would contain a factual statement of the activities of the Committee, and of the Ad Hoc Group on
Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, since the adoption of the
Committee's last annual report in October 2000.  Essentially, that letter would report on the meetings
being concluded.  The Chairman assured that copies of the letter would of course be made available to
all Members.  In addition, as the Committee would adopt its annual report for 2001 at the Octobermeeting, every effort would be made to circulate that report prior to the Ministerial Conference.
85. No Members commented on the Chairman's statement, and the Committee took note of the
statement.F. POSSIBLE COMMITTEE DECISION ON THE STATUS OF ADOPTED
RECOMMENDATIONS
86. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the fact that one of the elements under discussion
with respect to the draft recommendation on informa tion to be included in preliminary affirmative
determinations had been a statement in the chapeau concerning the status of the recommendation.
During the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group earlier in the week, it had been pointed out that that issue
was one of general relevance to all recommendations developed in the Ad Hoc Group and adopted inthe Committee.  It had been also pointed out that the Committee had already adopted two
recommendations without the inclusion of such a statement in the text of those recommendations.  It
had been suggested that, rather than include a st atement on that issue in the chapeau of that one
recommendation, it might be more appropriate to consider the matter in the Committee, with a view to
possibly adopting a Committee decision on the matter.
87. The Chairman brought to the Committee's attention, in that regard, that the mandate of the
Ad Hoc Group, and statements by himself and by pr evious Chairman had repeatedly addressed that
question.  It had been pointed out that Article IX :2 of the Marrakesh Agreement provided that "The
Ministerial Conference and the General Council shall have the exclusive authority to adoptinterpretations of this Agreement and of the Multilateral Trade Agreements."  It had also been pointed
out that a recommendation could not add new rights or obligations, nor could it detract from existing
rights and obligations of Members, under the Agreement.  As had been reiterated on numerous
occasions, neither the Ad Hoc Group nor the Committee could modify the legal obligations set forth in
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
88. Nonetheless, the Committee had established the Ad Hoc Group in the belief that it would be
useful, where possible, for Members to come to some agreement about practices in the conduct of
anti-dumping investigations that they considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  Thus, the Committee adopted recommendations agreed to by Members after
discussion in the Ad Hoc Group.  Those recommendations reflected the common understanding of
Members and set out non-binding indicative guidelines on implementation of the Agreement.
89. However, some Members had expressed a legitimate concern that the status or effect of
adopted recommendations might be misunderstood by some outside the Committee.  The Chairman
noted that while the Committee could not, of course, control the actions of others, it might be
appropriate for the Committee to issue, and circulate as a Committee document, a formal decision onthe status of adopted recommendations, incorporating the points the Chairman had made in that
regard.  Such a decision would serve the purpose of providing notice of the Committee's
understanding of the status of its own adopted recommendations to all who might be interested.
90. The Chairman stated that he had prepared, on his own responsibility, a draft text of such a
decision for the consideration of Members.  The Ch airman noted that he did not suggest that Members
rush to adopt such a decision at this meeting.  Ho wever, if Members could agree to take the draft textG/ADP/M/18
Page 15
with them and consider it carefully before next mee ting, it might be possible to come to a resolution
of this important issue at that time.
91. The Chairman circulated the text of a draft decision on status of adopted recommendations.
92. The Chairman noted that if Members considered it useful, they might undertake a discussion
of the text of the draft decision.  Alternatively, the Chairman suggested that the Members could
simply agree to revert to that matter at a future meeting, after they had had an opportunity to consider
the matter carefully, and consider the specific details of the text at that time.
93. The delegate of Malaysia stated that in the room document of 26 April 2001 (concerning the
draft recommendation on matters to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations) both
options A and B concerning this issue had been deleted in the understanding that Members would
reach a decision on this issue in the Committee at some time.  The delegation of Malaysia stood by
the position that option A should be used in that draft recommendation on preliminary affirmative
determinations.  Notwithstanding that view, Malaysia was willing to consider a decision that could be
applied horizontally across all the decision that had been taken by that group in the past and in thefuture.  Until a decision is reached in the Committee, Malaysia would stand by option A and the
preference would be A not be deleted but kept open until the Members had a decision in the Anti-
Dumping Committee.  As far as it concerned Malaysia, both options A and B were alive until a
decision was made in the Committee.  The delegate of Malaysia suggested that the matter be
examined at the next meeting of the Committee.  The delegate of Malaysia suggested that Members
should not rush into the matter, bearing in mind that there were a lot of other paragraphs in the draft
recommendation that were yet to be resolved.  Concluding, the delegate of Malaysia stressed that
Ad Hoc Group had already reached consensus on time extension.
94. The Chairman thanked Malaysia for its comment and noted that the room document referred
to by the delegate of Malaysia contained a proposal to delete A and B, i.e. these paragraphs had not
yet been deleted.  The issue would be brought before the Ad Hoc Group for further consideration.
95. The delegate of Malaysia referred to the Chairman's statement that there was just a proposal
to delete A and B and that there had been no deci sion, and suggested that A and B should remain in
the text until a decision in the Committee was made and the Members could  revisit these provision in
the light of the decision of the Committee.
96. The delegate of Egypt stated that Malaysia had raised a number of points Egypt wanted to
make and thanked Malaysia for bringing up the matter.  The delegate of Egypt stated that the matter
was of great importance for Egypt, as it was to Malaysia and maybe other developing countries.
Egypt was happy to consider that the Committee might make a decision, across the board, for all theadopted recommendations, having retroactive effect on past recommendations, present ones and even
for the future.  The delegate of Egypt stressed that Egypt wanted a draft decision to define clearly the
legal status of the adopted recommendations.  It had to be formulated in language showing that
adopted recommendations were indicative, non-binding. and they did not have primacy over the
existing anti-dumping provisions, especially vis-à-vis the dispute settlement procedures, i.e. panels
and Appellate Body rulings.  The delegate of Egypt expressed the view that they had to look more at
the language of the draft decision, which still had to be strengthened.  It might be of use to look at it in
the period until the next in order to try to have other formulations which would be stronger..
97. The delegate of the European Communities stated that it was a good idea to put this point on
the agenda of the meeting, as it reflected the discussions they had in the Ad Hoc Group.  There had
been concerns by Members with regard to the status of recommendations and it merited clarification.
It made sense to do it on a horizontal base instead of restating it in different recommendations.  The
delegate of the European Communities thanked the Ch airman for the draft proposal.  He agreed withG/ADP/M/18
Page 16
the previous speakers that the Members should take the time to look at it and consider it, and avoid
hasty reactions.  The European Communities stated that they would consider the draft proposal
carefully and they had the possibility until the next meeting to make proposals and discuss the matter
at length.  With regard to the room document of 26 April concerning the draft recommendation on
information to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations, the delegate of the EuropeanCommunities noted that they could continue to work on that document, leaving options A and B aside
but bearing in mind that the issue was open.
98. The delegate of the United States indicated that, as they had suggested in the meeting of the
Ad Hoc Group, they thought it was a good idea for this approach to be taken by the Committee on this
issue.  The United States suggested that the Chairman's draft text was a basis for reflection by
delegations and was in the direction the United States thought would be appropriate.  The
United States might have some additional drafting suggestions to make in writing before or at the next
meeting.  From their perspective, the delegate of the United States noted, they had to be mindful of
what a statement could and could not accomplish, but there might be some additional concepts that
they could introduce into the statement that would be helpful and consistent with the objectives
various delegations had put forward.
99. The delegate of Mexico thanked the Chairman for proposing to discuss the matter in the
meeting, in reply to comments by Mexico as well as others.  Regarding the need to find a horizontal
and systemic solution to meet the concerns expressed by a number of delegations regarding the status
of recommendations, it was Mexico's view that what ever could be agreed on would be applicable to
all recommendations, those adopted in the past as well as those to be adopted.  Mexico considered it
important to have the opportunity of consulting on the draft text with legal advisors in capitals, after
which they would be in the position to discuss it at the next time the issue was brought up.
100. In light of Members' comments the Chairman proposed that the Committee agree to
undertake, at the next meeting, a discussion on the draft text of a decision on the status of the adopted
recommendations, starting from the Chairman's proposed text and considering proposals for additions,
deletions and other changes.
101. The Committee so agreed.
G. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION.
102. The Chairman noted that a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group had been conducted over the course
of the week.  The Chairman was pleased to report that the participation of Members had been
excellent.  The Group had discussed all of the topics on its agenda.  The discussions had been at times
lively, and a great deal of information had been exchanged among Members regarding their practicesin implementing the requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
103. The Chairman reported with pleasure that, with the constructive efforts of Members, the
Group had arrived at a consensus with respect to the text of a draft recommendation concerning an
indicative list of elements relevant to a decision on  a request for extension of time.  The text of the
draft had been made available in all three languages the previous afternoon, and additional copies
were available in the room.  Given the extensive discussion concerning the draft recommendation in
the Ad Hoc Group, the Chairman hoped that the Committee could agree to adopt the Draft
Recommendation..
104. There were no comments from Members.  In light of the apparent agreement of the Members
of the Committee, the Chairman proposed that the Draft Recommendation concerning indicative list
of elements relevant to a decision on a request for extension of time be adopted.G/ADP/M/18
Page 17
105. The Committee so decided.
106. The Chairman stated that the Ad Hoc Group had had a very fruitful meeting that time, and he
expressed the hope that Members would continue to participate actively in the work of the Ad HocGroup.  In that regard, the Chairman reminded Members of the tasks agreed to with regard to the
topics under consideration in the Group.
• Members were asked to focus their attention on the list of elements that had been considered in
selecting transactions to be considered in a transaction to transaction analysis under Article 2.4.2
of the Agreement, with a view toward determining whether a draft recommendation might be
developed in that regard.
• The Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft recommendation, in light of the discussions at the
meeting, based on the list of possibly relevant criteria regarding conditions of competition forconsideration in deciding whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports was
appropriate in light of those conditions.
• The Secretariat was requested to revise the list of questions posed by Members in their written
submissions and in the course of the meeting on the application of lesser duty and consideration
of public interest.  Members were asked to respond to those questions in preparation for the next
meeting.
• Members were requested to submit papers and suggestions on the question of  implementation of
the Article 6.12 requirement to provide opportunities for industrial users and representative
consumer organizations to provide information which was relevant to the investigation regardingdumping, injury, and causality.
• Several Members had commented on the usefulness of information concerning how Members
applied the lesser duty rule.  In this regard, the Chairman brought to the attention of Members thatthat issue had been discussed in conjunction with the first set of topics referred to the Ad Hoc
Group in 1996.  Members had been requested, in July 1997, to provide information on theirapplication of the lesser duty rule.  The information received had been compiled by the Secretariat
and issued in document G/ADP/AHG/W/43, date d 16 April 1998.  Any Member who had not
already done so was requested to provide a description of how the lesser duty rule was applied by
the Member.  Any responses would be circulated in an updated revision of the document.
• The Chairman noted that with regard to the draft recommendation on matters to be included in
preliminary affirmative determinations the Secretariat had circulated to Members a revisedversion of the draft recommendation based on the discussions at the meeting, for further
consideration at the next meeting of the Group.  As discussed the previous day, if time permitted
and Members wished to do so, the Committee could reconvene the Ad Hoc Group for further
discussions on the draft recommendation after adjourning the meeting.
• And finally, Members were requested to submit, by 31 July 2001, written proposals for new
topics to be referred by the Committee to the Ad Hoc Group for discussion.
107. The Chairman noted that the Group had scheduled its next meeting for the last full week of
October 2001, in conjunction with the regular autumn meeting of the Committee.  Further, theChairman reminded the Members that the deadline for submissions for that meeting was Monday,
10 September 2001.  As usual, the Secretariat would issue reminders of the matters to be discussed
and of the applicable deadlines to Members.G/ADP/M/18
Page 18
108. The Chairman stated that he was particularly encouraged by the presence of experts from
capitals at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group, who br ought the necessary technical knowledge of their
own practices to the discussions, thereby making them more substantive and useful for all Members.
The Chairman assured that their participation had been critical to the ability to have a productivemeeting.  Further, he strongly encouraged Members, if at all possible, to continue to bring technical
experts from capitals to future meetings of the Group.  The Chairman noted that a copy of the text of
his statement would be available after the meeting was adjourned.
109. As it appeared the Committee would finish with the business on its agenda before the lunch
break, the Chairman asked whether the Members wished to meet in the afternoon to continue the
discussions of the Ad Hoc Group.  After a brief discussion, the Committee agreed to meet as the
Ad Hoc Group in the afternoon.
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
110. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that
regular meetings normally would be held in the last week of April and the last week of October.
Accordingly, the Chairman proposed that the next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in
the last full week of October 2001.  In light of pr eviously scheduled meetings of the Ad Hoc Group on
Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, the Committee would therefore meet
on Thursday 25 October 2001.
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
111. The Committee elected Ms Sahar Hosni Abdelaziz of Egypt as Chairperson, and
Ms Ana Novik of Chile as Vice Chairperson.
112. The meeting was adjourned.
__________