. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/38 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/38 12 March 2004 
 
 
(04-1098) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 18.5 
AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
 
Follow-up Questions Posed by ARGENTINA
1 
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2 
   The following communication, dated 10 March 2004, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Argentina. 
_______________ 
 
  Argentina thanks the People's Republic of China for the replies provided in document 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17, G/SCM/Q1/CHN/17.  It would like to pose some follow-up questions in connection with those replies and would also like  some clarifications with regard to document 
G/ADP/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2. 
 1. Follow-up questions regarding the re plies of CHINA contained in document 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17, G/SCM/Q1/CHN/17  
 
 Question 8:  Regarding the notification cont ained in document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 and in the 
light of the replies given in document G/ADP/Q1/ CHN/17 (7 May 2003), it would be appreciated if 
China could provide a more detailed answer to que stion No. 8, explaining how  notification of the 
essential facts is effected: by means of a document, a meeting between the parties or by consulting the 
public file. 
 
 Question 9:  Regarding the reply to question No. 9, it would be appreciated if China could 
inform whether it has envisaged what might constitu te "other circumstances", despite not having had 
any practical experience of cases under Article 27.5.  2. Follow-up questions regarding the notification of  the People's Republic of China contained in 
document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2.  Argentina w ould welcome clarification of the following 
points : 
 (a) Article 9:  When detailing the reasons for which injury will not be attributed to dumped 
imports, this provision cites reasons of force majeure  in addition to those listed in the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  Could China please specify what these reasons might be or give examples? 
 (b) Article 13:  With regard to China's statement that, in its determination of injury, the technical 
body may exclude the product under investigation or part thereof that "did not cause injury", and taking into account the reply given to the United States of America in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/32, 
                                                     
 
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/17. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2. G/ADP/Q1/CHN/38 
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/38 Page 2 
 
 
 it is Argentina's understanding that, in the determ ination of injury, the technical body considers 
information about the investigated product as a w hole, which may be divided into parts for the 
purposes of more detailed analysis.  As a result of such  analysis, it is possible to determine whether or 
not injury is caused by the product as a whole or by one or several of the selected parts, giving rise to 
the application, or not, as the case may be, of anti-dumping measures.  In other words, the exclusion 
to which Article 13 refers would appear to be for the purposes of implementing a measure and not for 
determining injury.  Could China please clarify whether the above interpretation is correct and 
whether this is the meaning of the exclusion referred to in Article 13?  
(c) Article 18:  From a reading of the text of this provision, it would seem that the implementing 
authority is required to carry out a public interest an alysis.  In that respect, and further to the reply 
provided by China to the United States of Am erica in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/32, could China 
please indicate at what stage in the investigation the different parties are given the opportunity to 
comment on the issue of public interest? 
 
(d) Article 23:  It is Argentin a's understanding that interested pa rties have 20 days following the 
publication of the initiation of an investigation to co me forward and register as such.  Is it impossible 
for additional interested parties to come forward afte r this time?  In other words, is the deadline for 
participation in the investigation absolute?  
(e) Article 29:  Does the implementing authority send questionnaires only to the parties who have 
come forward in accordance with Article 23, or  does it also send them out to other known 
producers/importers/exporters?  (f) With regard to the rules on public hearings, a nd in particular to Article 11, we would be 
grateful if China could clarify whether or not th e hearing officers are members of the investigating 
body.  If so, are they selected from among officials above a certain rank?  If they are not members of 
that body:  (i) Is there some sort of official regi ster listing the names of potential officers?  (ii) Are 
they Government officials?  (g) Article 12:  Could China please answer the follo wing questions:  (i) Is the list of reasons set 
out in Article 12 that may be invoked by an interested party to require the withdrawal of an officer 
exhaustive, or might there be ot her reasons?  (ii) Can these reas ons be invoked for the purposes of 
requesting the withdrawal of SETC officials from an investigation?  (h) With regard to Articles 19 and 20 of the ru les on public hearings, could China please clarify 
whether a party that has refused to sign the writte n transcript mentioned in Article 19 will still be 
entitled to submit its written version of the oral  presentations (Article 20), and whether that 
submission is taken into consideration by the authority?  
__________