WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/40 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/40 14 April 2004 
 
(04-1662) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   English 
 
 
  
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Replies to Follow-Up Questions from the UNITED STATES
1 
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2 
   The following communication, dated 13 April 2004,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of China. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
A.  Please describe the assistance the Ministry of Agriculture will provide.  Will the 
Ministry of Agriculture have any role in gatheri ng information, calculating dumping margins or 
making an injury determination?  If so, please describe those roles. 
 
Reply
 
 
 The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible fo r assisting investigations involving agricultural 
products, e.g. in assisting identifying domestic  products, domestic indus try and on-the-spot 
verification. The Ministry of Agriculture al so provides relevant information and data.  
 
B.  Please confirm whether comments from parti es other than consumers and producers on 
the issue of the appropriate like product will be accepted.  On this issue, does China’s answer 
mean that in each case it will solicit comment s on the like product through all three of the 
channels mentioned?  If not which “channel” will it use, or will some other means of soliciting 
comments be used?  Does the reference to the “p remises of necessity” mean that in some cases 
Chinese authorities will deem comments by inter ested parties to be “unnecessary?”  If so, how 
will it identify such cases?   
 
Reply  
 
 Rules on Investigations and Determinations of Injury for Anti-dumping  has been annulled 
recently and this article has been deleted. 
 
C.  Does this mean that volume and pricing data that China's investigating authority 
considers for purposes of its injury analysis pur suant to Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement and 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/35-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/35.  See also replies from China in G/ADP/Q1/CHN/32-
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/32 (23 October 2003) to questions posed by  the United States in G/ ADP/Q1/CHN/26-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/26 
(3 October 2003).  
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2 (14 April 2003). G/ADP/Q1/CHN/40 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/40 Page 2 
 
 
 Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement will include da ta pertaining to the dumped or subsidized 
imports that are ultimately excluded from the scope of  its order?  If this is the case, what is the 
logical basis for China premising an affirmative in jury determination in part on data relating to 
the same imports it determines, in the context of the same investigation, are not causing injury?  
Can exclusion of certain portions of the produc t under investigation pursuant to Article 13 of 
the Rules be based on the purchaser of the pro duct under investigation, or the region or time 
period in which the product under investigation is sold?  Has China applied this provision in any investigation?  If so, could China please provide details involving the application of this provision? 
 
Reply
 
  Rules on Investigations and Determinations of Injury for Anti-dumping  has been annulled 
recently and this article has been deleted. 
 
D.  Will information presented by users and co nsumers on public interest, or adequate non-
confidential summaries thereof, be made part of the public record? 
 
Reply
 
 
 Rules on Investigations and Determinations of Injury for Anti-dumping  has been annulled 
recently and this article has been deleted.  
E.  Is the reply to question 19 intended to be that provided in paragraph 2 of the reply to 
question 18 which reads “[i]n general, time limit for the return of questionnaire shall be 
37 days.  The investigating authorities shall not grant an extension without occurrence of special 
circumstances, irresistible forces or reasonable explanations”? 
 
Reply
 
  Yes. 
 
F.  Is the reply to question 20 intended to be  that provided in the reply to question 19, 
which reads “[a]rticle 25 of China’s Anti-Dumping Regulations has related regulations.  China’s investigating authorities have always ac ted in accordance with this regulation, citing 
ADA Article 6.7 and Annex I as our reference. We have always guaranteed that Article 32 of the 
Rules will not go against ADA Article 6.7 and Annex I, and fall in line with such stipulations. In 
practice, we have as well tried to make result s of verifications available to related firms, 
ensuring the availability of such results to related parties”?  
Reply
 
 
 Yes. 
 
G.  Is the reply to question 21 intended to also include that provided in the reply to 
question 20, which reads “[t]here are 4 common situat ions: 1. the request of an interested party 
is raised too late. With final verdict pressing near , the investigating authorities do not have time 
to conduct verifications. In such case, we ca n find some other ways to compensate, without 
infecting the accuracy of the verdict; 2. the req uest from an interested party bears no further 
significant evidence. A verdict can be made  from the possessed evidence, and there is no 
necessity for further verifications; 3. the intern al technical factors of the investigator have 
prevented the verification, but we will find ways to compensate without infecting the accuracy  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/40 
 G/SCM/Q1/CHN/40 
 Page 3 
 
 
 of the verdict; 4. other situations as regulated by law.  Investigating authorities will come up 
with a justified verdict in accordance with a ll premium evidences, and there will be no unjust 
regulations against the unverified interested party.”  If so, what standard is presently utilized to 
determine if an interested party’s request for a verification is too late?  When is the final 
opportunity for an interested party to request a verification before the final determination, and 
how will interested parties be notified of this  final opportunity?  Could China please provide 
some examples of “other ways to compensate, wi thout infecting the accuracy of the verdict” 
outside of conducting a verification? Could China please provide some examples of “other situations as regulated by law?”  What fact ors are considered when determining that “an 
interested party bears no further significant evidence”?    
Reply
 
  Yes. The request shall normally be made within  20days from the date of publication of the 
preliminary determination.  
 
H.  Aside from circumstances due to “irresist ible forces or unlawful requests”, are there any 
other circumstances under which requests for hearings would not be honoured?  What constitutes an “unlawful request” for a hearing?   Could China please provide some examples of 
“irresistible forces” which would cause a request for a hearing to be denied? 
 
Reply
 
  The request for hearing in compliance with laws and regulations are normally accepted.  
 
I.  Could China please confirm that in the event of a negative dumping or injury 
determination, a price undertaking will lapse? 
 
Reply
 
  Yes. 
 
J.  Could China please confirm whether co nfidential information submitted by one 
interested party, including documents collected dur ing on-site verifications, is ever released to 
another interested party? 
 Reply
 
  The investigating authority deals with confidential information according to the provisions of WTO rules and domestic laws and regulations. Ne ither has it disclosed such information to any 
interested party nor will it do so in the future.  K.  Does this mean that WTO Anti-Dumping  Agreement provisions which are in conflict 
with the spirit of Chinese regulations will be superceded by the Chinese regulations? 
 
Reply
 
 
 Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-dumping was made in accordance with 
WTO rules and in principle there is no contradiction between them.  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/40 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/40 Page 4 
 
 
 L.  How long after the final determination will the public record be available?  In the case 
of a positive determination, will the public record be available as long as the particular anti-
dumping measures are in place? 
 Reply
 
  Yes.  
M.  Are all public documents regarding injury  investigations China has undertaken since 
11 December 2001 available in th e MOFCOM public reading room? 
 
Reply
 
  Any interested party may contact with Inv estigation Bureau of Injury to Industry. 
 
N.  Does the Bureau of Industry Injury Investigat ion initiate expiration reviews separately 
from the Bureau of Fair Trade for Import a nd Export?  Which Bureau is responsible for 
conducting the expiration review?  Apart from in jury considerations, what else may constitute a 
legitimate reason for Bureau of Industry Injury  Investigation to self-initiate such a review?  
 
Reply
 
  Rules on Investigations and Determinations of Injury for Anti-dumping has been annulled 
recently and this article has been deleted.  
 
__________