RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/17
9 April 2001
(01-1784)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 2 & 3 NOVEMBER 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Milan Hovorka (Czech Republic)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
2 and 3 November 2000.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS –
REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS BY
THE GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CO NSULTING .........................2
B. NATIONAL LEG ISLATION ........................................................................................3
-    Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not
previously reviewed by the Co mmittee................................................................3
(i) Chile - G/ADP/N/1/CHL /2-G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2 .................................................3
(ii) Turkey - G/ADP/N/1/TUR/3-G/SCM/N/1/TUR/3...............................................4
(iii) Malaysia - G/ADP/N/1/MYS/1 /Add.1-G/SCM/N/1/MYS/1/Add.1 ....................4
   - Continuing review of prev iously reviewed notifica tions .....................................4
United States - G/ADP/Q 1/USA/21–G/SCM/Q1/USA/21
                       - G/ADP/Q1/USA/22- G/SCM/Q1/USA/22.............................................4
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/65 and Addenda) .........................................................................................5
D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/62-64, and G/ADP /N/66-69 + 69/Add.1) ....................................................7
E. MEXICO – APPLICATION OF A PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING
MEASURE ON ELECTRIC TRANSFORMERS ABOVE 10,000 KVA
(Item requested by Brazil) .............................................................................................7
F. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP
ON ANTI-CIRCUMV ENTION...................................................................................11G/ADP/M/17
Page 2
G. OTHER BU SINESS.....................................................................................................11
- Japan - United States' Byrd Amendment ............................................................13
- Indonesia – EU anti-dumping practice s on Indonesian polyester synthetic
fibre  ...................................................................................................................11
- New Zealand – Brazil's anti-dumping investigation on milk imports from
Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, the EU and Uruguay ................................13
- UNCTAD (as Observer) – Announcement to Members ....................................16
H. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF AD HOC GROUP
ON IMPLEMEN TATION............................................................................................17
I. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ..........................................................18
J. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
(Article 18.6) ................................................................................................................1 8
K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS.........................................................................................18
A. INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS – REQUEST FOR OBSERVER
STATUS BY THE GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSULTING
3. The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda was the request of the Gulf
Organization for Industrial Consulting ("GOIC") for Observer status in the Committee.  In July 2000,
GOIC had requested, by letter, Observer status in various Councils and Committees of the WTO,
including this Committee. The Chairman recalled that the General Council had adopted proceduresfor Observer status for international intergov ernmental organizations in July 1996 (Annex 3 of
document WT/L/161). According to those procedures, requests for Observer status were to be
considered on a case-by-case basis by each WTO body to which a request had been addressed, taking
into account such criteria as the nature of the work of the organization concerned, the nature of its
membership, the number of WTO Members in the organization, reciprocity with respect to access to
proceedings, documents and other aspects of observership, and whether the organization had been
involved in the past with the work of the GATT.   The Chairman pointed out that, at its meeting on7 February 1997, the General Council had agreed, with regard to international intergovernmental
organizations, (a) that the organizations which already had Observer status in the General Council on
an ad hoc  basis be granted Observer status immediately; (b) that for international intergovernmental
organizations whose requests had not yet been considered the Chairman would conduct consultations;
(c) to invite the other WTO bodies to proceed in a similar way.
4. The Chairman noted that GOIC had not previously attended meetings of the Committee as an
Observer and that GOIC had also requested Observer status in several other WTO bodies.  The Chairmen
of those bodies, including the General Council and the CTG, were consulting with Members concerning
the request.
5. Since the General Council and the Council for Trade in Goods were still in the process of
consultations on the request for observership for those bodies, and in order to avoid acting before the
Councils had done so, as well as to allow for consultations on this request in the context of the overall
process, the Chairman proposed that he be authorized to conduct consultations on the request for
Observer status of GOIC, and report back to the Committee at the appropriate time.
6. The Committee so decided.G/ADP/M/17
Page 3
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
7. The Chairman stated that the next 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, 3 February 1996).  As had beenindicated in the agenda, the Committee would first consider the notifications of new or amended
legislation, in the order indicated in the airgram convening the meeting.  The Committee would then
turn to the continuing review of notifications of legislation previously considered by the Committee.
8. The Chairman congratulated Members on the timely submission of most questions for this
meeting's legislation review.  Members who would be responding to questions today appreciated the
effort involved in receiving timely submissions, which facilitated their ability to answer. The
Secretariat would, as it had for this meeting, prepare and circulate a document setting forth deadlinesfor submissions in connection with next spring's meeting of the Committee, as well as the Committees
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and Safeguards (document G/ADP/W/417-
G/SCM/W/428-G/SG/W/187, 23 Nove mber 2000).  Members were strongly urged to make every
effort to comply with the applicable deadlines fo r submissions.  The Chairman expressed his hope that
in the future Members would make maximum efforts to ensure that their submissions were timely,which would enable Members to prepare for the discussions in subsequent meetings.
9. Before turning to the notifications on the agenda for review, the Chairman drew the
Committee's attention to document G/ADP/W/415, circulated on 17 October 2000.  This document
listed all written legislation review questions submitted over the course of the review process since it
began in 1995 that had not yet been answered in writing. The Chairman was happy to report that anumber of Members had responded to reminders in this regard that had been issued by the Chairman
and by the Chairman of the SCM Committee in the Spring, by submitting written answers to
outstanding legislation review questions. These were reflected in supplements to the minutes of the
respective meetings of the Committees. The Chairman expressed his hope that the trend would
continue until all outstanding questions had been answered.
10. The Chairman reiterated that the Secretariat would shortly issue a reminder of all applicable
deadlines for submissions for the spring 2001 meetings of the Committees on Anti-Dumping
Practices, Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and Safeguards. The Chairman urged all Members
to take note of these deadlines, inscribe them on their calendars, and respect them.  Given the nature
of the work in question, there was no reason Members could not begin preparing for next April's
meetings shortly after the fall meetings were over, while matters were still fresh in their minds.
11. The Chairman then turned to the substantive discussion. Questions concerning new
notifications of legislation were to have been submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat
no later than three weeks before the meeting, 12 October 2000.  As provided for in the agreed
procedures, Members receiving written questions were asked to respond orally to those questions that
were submitted on time in the meeting.  Members would also be requested, in accordance with the
procedures adopted by the Committee, to answer all questions submitted in writing.  The Chairmanreminded Members that follow up questions could be asked in the meeting.  Such follow up questions
had to be submitted in writing no later than 27 November 2000 if the Member posing the question
wished to receive a written answer.  Written answers to all written questions submitted were to be
submitted to the Secretariat no later than 8 January 2001.
12. The questions regarding the notification of Chile can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/CHL/1 Submitted by BrazilG/ADP/M/17
Page 4
The answers provided by Chile to questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/CHL/3 Reply to Brazil
13. The questions regarding the notification of Turkey can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/TUR/2 Submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/TUR/3 Submitted by United StatesG/ADP/Q1/TUR/4 Submitted by Brazil
The answers provided by Turkey can be found in the following document:G/ADP/Q1/TUR/5 Replies to Japa n, United States, and Brazil
14. The questions regarding the notification of Malaysia can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/MYS/3 Submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/MYS/4 Submitted by European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/MYS/5 Submitted by United States
The answers provided by Malaysia can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/MYS/6 Replies to United States, Japan, and European Communities
15. The Chairman thanked all delegations for replying to questions received.  The Chairman
reminded Members that follow up questions were to be submitted in writing to the Member whose
legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat no later than 27 November 2000.  Members were
requested to submit written answers to all questions received in writing by that date.  Those answers
were to be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 8 January 2001.
16. The Chairman informed the Committee that the new notifications of Canada,
G/ADP/N/1/CAN/3/Add.1, Ecuador, G/ADP/N/1/ECU/2, Latvia, G/ADP/N/1/LVA/2 andSupplement 1, and Morocco, G/ADP/N/1/MAR/2 were  expected to be on the agenda of the
Committee meeting next spring.  The Secretariat would inform Members of any additional new
notifications to be considered at that meeting in mid-March 2001.  The deadline for submission of
questions regarding new notifications of legislation for next spring's meeting would be 5 April 2001.
17. The Chairman noted that the final aspect of legislation review before the Committee involved
questions regarding legislation notifications that had already been reviewed.
18. The questions concerning the legislation of the United States can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/21 Submitted by Brazil
The answers provided by the United States can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/ USA/22 Reply to Brazil
19. The Chairman once again thanked the Members whose notifications were discussed today for
their answers, and the Members who undertook to put questions, noting that as usual, the exercise had
been positive and of benefit to all.  The Chairman pointed out one additional deadline.  In order for aG/ADP/M/17
Page 5
previously reviewed notification of legislation to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular
meeting in April 2001, questions regarding such notification had to be submitted to the Secretariat,
and to the Member whose notification was in question, no later than 15 March 2001.
20. Finally, the Chairman expressed his continuing concern over the failure of some Members to
submit any notification at all concerning legislation or regulations relevant to anti-dumping.  Formany, if not most, of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification, indicating that there
was no such legislation or regulation in effect at that time, would be all that was required.  This
seemed to be a relatively simple matter.  The Chairman encouraged Members who had not yet done
so to make this notification promptly.
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
21. The Chairman recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the first half of 2000, to
be submitted by 31 August 2000, was circulated to the Members in document G/ADP/N/65, dated3 July 2000. The Chairman expressed disappointment at the number of semi-annual reports that were
received late, or not completed in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Committee and set
out in document G/ADP/1. The Chairman noted that Members were well aware of the applicable
deadlines for submission of semi-annual reports. He reminded the Committee 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 th rough June of the current year. The Chairman stated
that there was simply no reason that this routine task could not be routinely attended to by Members,
and their semi-annual reports submitted in a timely and accurate manner.
22. The Chairman noted that, with respect to the format of semi-annual reports Members might
wish to consider whether the standard format, which is the same as that followed under the TokyoRound, and which was adopted in 1995 for use by WTO Members, remained appropriate.  He
observed that it might be time to consider whether revisiting the format for semi-annual reports could
improve their usefulness to Members, and perhaps facilitate accurate reporting. The Chairman made
no specific proposal in this regard, but merely suggested that Members think about this question, and
if they considered it might be a useful matter to pursue, to contact either the Secretariat or the
Chairman with any ideas or proposals.
23. The delegate of Brazil suggested that the Chairman, the Secretariat and Members also reflect
on the possibility of changing the way updating of the lists of which Members had submitted semi-
annual reports was notified. As he understood it, Members received a different series of documents,
each pertaining to one period of notification. He himself had received 5 or 6 of those that day. They
were very similar and did not really aid him in identifying who had and who had not submitted semi-
annual reports, as the document did not distinguish newly submitted reports from those previouslysubmitted, and was therefore difficult to follow. He asked whether perhaps a table could be used, with
columns for the periods of notifications, and rows for the Members, indicating those who had notified
and those who had not.  This would consolidate the information in one piece of paper instead of
receiving a number of documents relating to the sa me thing.  Other committees issued such tables,
which he had found useful.
24. A member of the Secretariat explained the Secretariat's practice in this regard.  Semi-annual
reports submitted for each reporting period were circulated with a common document number and the
three letter country code to indicate the submitting member.  Thus, for example, the semi-annual
reports for the period 1 January to 30 June 2000 were all issued under document number
G/ADP/N/65.  An addendum document was issued just before the meeting at which the reports forthat period were to be reviewed, listing those Members who had submitted semi-annual reports, those
who had notified no actions taken during the reporting period, and those who had made no
notification.  Thus, for example, document G/ ADP/N/65 Addendum 1, circulated for this meeting,G/ADP/M/17
Page 6
identified Members in these three categories with respect to the report for period 1 January to
30 June 2000.  With regard to later submitted semi-annual reports for any given period, the
Secretariat's practice was to issue a revision of the Addendum 1 document for each reporting period
twice a year, in October and April, updated to reflect later submitted semi-annual reports.  In the
future, the names of Members submitting semi-annual reports that were new in each such revisionwould be highlighted, in order to facilitate identifying which Members had newly submitted semi-
annual reports.
25. The Chairman thanked the Secretariat for this explanation.  He stated that Members who had
submitted semi-annual reports were identified in paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/65 Addendum 1,
dated 19 October 2000. In addition, Panama and Venezuela had submitted semi-annual reports too
late to be included in that document. To the extent possible, the semi-annual reports had been
translated and circulated to the Committee, and were included in the documents made available forthe meeting.
26. In addition to the Members who submitted semi-annual reports, a number of Members, listed
in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/65 Addendum 1 had notified the Committee that they had not
taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question. In addition, Cuba had submitted such
notification too late to be included in that document. With respect to these notifications, the Chairmannoted that there was no good explanation for some Members' failure to make this notification in a
timely fashion.  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. Particularly for Members who did not
conduct anti-dumping investigations, it seemed to the Chairman that this should be a relatively simpletask.
27. The Chairman noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with the
requirement for semi-annual reports among Members who took actions, 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 Annex B of the Committee's annual report, as well as in document
G/ADP/N/65 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.  The Chairm an strongly urged all Members to comply with
the requirement to submit semi-annual reports in a timely fashion in the future. The Chairman noted
that any Member who submitted a semi-annual report in written form before the close of business
Friday would be identified as having done so in the Annual Report.
28. Turning to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted, the delegate of Japan asked India
to clarify the reported investigation of pure terephthalic acid imported from Japan, listed on page 3 of
India's report. Japan believed that there had been no final determination as yet in that case.  In
addition, it appeared that there were three items missi ng with respect to investigations of imports from
Japan of aniline, hydrozyl amine sulphate, and caustic.  Japan requested that these be added to the
report.
29. The Chairman observed that the Indian delegate appeared to be out of the room, and
requested that Japan put the matter to India in writing.
30. The delegate of Japan indicated he would do so.
31. The delegate of Hong Kong, China noted that in South Africa's semi-annual report, an item
indicated that anti-dumping duties had been imposed since 11 October 1996 on imports of garden
picks from Hong Kong, China. However, Hong Kong, China had never been notified by South Africaof such measure and South Africa's previous semi-annual reports had never reported such measures
against Hong Kong.  Hong Kong requested clarification on this matter.G/ADP/M/17
Page 7
32. The delegate of South Africa stated that his authorities would look into it and get back to
Hong Kong on this matter.
33. The delegate of Japan asked the United States several questions about its semi-annual report.
On page 30 of the report, in the Japan section, on the top part of the page there were three items listed
concerning measures on acrylic sheet, benzyl paraben, and bicycle speedometers.  However, hebelieved the measures on these three items were revoked as a result of sunset review on 1 January of
that year.  In addition, on the bottom of the page, there was another item listed, solid urea, regarding
which the Japanese delegate believed there was no measure.
34. The delegate of the United States thanked the Japanese delegation for its remarks, and
indicated his authorities would look into the matter and issue a correction if necessary.
34bis. The delegate of Malaysia noted that its semi-annual report inadvertently omitted a case
against Japan.  This case had been completed, and should have appeared in this semi-annual report.
He indicated that Malaysia would submit a corrigendum in this regard.
35. The Committee took note of the statements made.
D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
36. The Chairman noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received were circulated to the Comm ittee in documents G/ADP/N/62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69,
and 69 Addendum 1.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions had been notified by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Ecuador, European Communities, Korea,
India, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, and the
United States.
37. The Chairman noted that there continued to be a lack of full compliance in this area, as some
Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating investigations in progress had not
submitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  An important aspect of the Committee's task
is its role in monitoring and discussing actions taken by Members.  If Members do not take their
obligations to notify seriously and comply, the Committee will be prevented from accomplishing its
goal of considering Members' compliance with the requirements of the Agreement.
38. No comments were made regarding the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions.
39. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
E. MEXICO - APPLICATION OF A PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMERS ABOVE 10,000 KVA - ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL
40. The delegate of Brazil stated on  November 11, 1999, by means of a government resolution,
the government of Mexico opened an anti-dumping investigation on imports of electric transformers
above 10,000 KVA originating in Brazil.  The following was a brief summary of the investigation.   A
public tender for the supply of a turn-key electri c power system was awarded to a Mexican company
called ELECNOR. In its bid, ELECNOR had attached a preliminary price quote for electric
transformers.  The petitioner alleged that these prices were the export prices for two Brazilian
companies, Trafo and Ansaldo Coemsa.  The petitioner alleged that the prices were below theconstructed normal value in  Brazil and that the imports of the transformers constituted a threat of
material injury to the Mexican industry.  On 13 July 2000 SECOFI applied provisional anti-dumping
duties on the transformers from Trafo (112.05 per cent ) and Coemsa (68.98 per cent).G/ADP/M/17
Page 8
41. Brazil believed that in the course of the investigation, several provisions of the Anti-dumping
Agreement were violated. Brazil underlined the main violations it detected:
• Dumping exists when exports occur below the normal value of the like product in the domestic
market of the exporting country.  A bid with a preliminary price quotation could not be construedas proof that exports will occur at the prices indicated therein.  In this particular case, it merely
represented the prices that ELECNOR, the Mexican company, believed it would obtain in the
international market.  At the time the bid was presented, the Brazilian companies were under no
obligation to supply the transformers at the quote d prices, or at any price.  The AD Agreement
foresees the possibility of a threat of injury; it contains no provisions for a threat of dumping.
Footnote 8 of the Agreement very clearly establishes that "the date of sale would be the date of
contract, purchase order, order confirmation, or invoice, whichever establishes the material terms
of sale."  The bid in this case had none of the elements mentioned in footnote 8.  In fact, the
material terms of the sale were only established when the contract was signed with ELECNOR, inOctober 1999, a date that falls outside the period of dumping investigation established by
SECOFI.
• For the preliminary determination of dumping, SECOFI ignored the data supplied by the
exporters for the construction of the normal value and export price adjustments.  SECOFI allegedthat the data supplied had not been verified YET.  The Mexican authorities maintained that the
data had to be verified in loco , a procedure that would not occur until later in the investigation.
Only after the in loco  verification would SECOFI use the data supplied by the exporters.  The AD
Agreement sets out very specific conditions when the authorities may disregard information
supplied by the interested parties. Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Agreement go to great lengths
in explaining how the use of best information available is an exception that may be utilised only
under very special circumstances.  Paragraph 7 of Annex II stresses that "if the authorities have tobase their findings…on information from a secondary sources, they should do so with special
circumspection ." (emphasis added)  Paragraph 3 of the same Annex clearly states that "All
information that is verifi able" (emphasis added) (not information that has been verified) is to be
taken in to account when determinations are made.  SECOFI's report mentions Article 6.6. of the
Agreement to justify its actions.  Brazil notes that Article 6.6 merely permits in loco
investigations; it does not allow or direct authorities to disregard information while they do not
take the time to verify them. To conclude, it must be pointed out that Coemsa submitted to
SECOFI - to no avail - a letter by its auditor, Ernst and Young, attesting the accuracy of the data
supplied.
• For the purposes of injury determination, the Mexican authorities also disregarded information
provided by the exporters. Once again, SECOFI alleged that the information had not YET been
verified.  As pointed out above, the AD Agreemen t provides no support for such practice.  The
exporters presented evidence that production capacity limitations would preclude any injury to the
Mexican industry.  Actually, the Mexican authorities also ignored the fact that the Brazilian
companies did not participate in following tende rs, which corroborates the capacity utilisation
data supplied to SECOFI.
The Brazilian delegate concluded by stating that a number of irregularities and violations were
detected by the Brazilian government in this investigation.  Brazil was ready to provide the Mexicandelegation a list of the shortcomings identified, if this would be useful.  In the interest of time and an
effort to keep his intervention in telligible to delegates not familiar with the investigation, he had
identified only a few of the violations Brazil believed were of a more systemic and substantive nature.
Brazil would appreciate any comments or clarification the Mexican delegation might have on these
points.G/ADP/M/17
Page 9
42. The delegate of Mexico thanked the Brazilian delegation for their comments on this case.  As
Mexico had only received Brazil's statement that morning, its comments would be only preliminary
observations on the different points highlighted in the Brazilian intervention, focussing on the way in
which the investigating authority of Mexico, SECOFI, carried out its work.  More specific replies
might be possible at a later stage, when Mexico had had the opportunity to analyse the points putforward by Brazil.
43. Another representative of Mexico took the floor to explain SECOFI's activities in this case.
In Mexico's view, the investigating authorit y, SECOFI, closely followed the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.  With reference to the view of Brazil that Mexico had acted inconsistently with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement by initiating an anti-dumping investigation when the import of the product had
not physically taken place, he noted that Article 2.1 provides that a product is the object of dumping,
that is that it is introduced in the market of anothe r country at a price below its normal value, when its
export price when exported from a third country to another is below the comparable price for a like
product of the exporting country.  In this Article, the Anti-Dumping Agreement talks about the
introduction of a product on the market of another country, however it does not define what is meant
by "introduction".
44. This case involved an international bid. As in  the case of public tenders, the companies
bidding present a project that they intend to follow  to comply with all the bidding requirements and
the authority then chooses one of the bids and informs the successful company that it has to fulfil all
the terms of the proposal.  One of the features of this type of bid is that a commitment letter is sent
which guarantees that the proposal is serious.  These two elements, in Mexico's view, oblige the
company which has been given the bid to fulfil or go through with the project.
45. In this case the investigating authority was informed because the bid decision was submitted
to it.  In this case, ELECNOR, the importing company, was the successful bidder.  Another element
which was considered by the investigating authority was a list of prices of Brazilian transformers
included in the ELECNOR proposal.  As noted earl ier, ELECNOR was obliged to go through with its
proposal.  This led Mexico to interpret differently from Brazil the significance of the prices indicated,which Brazil interprets as a preliminary price list.  In Mexico's view, it is not a preliminary list
because there are features of the international bid where the participants have to, or are compelled to,
fulfil all the elements of the proposal.  Given that , the investigating authority found in its preliminary
determination that ELECNOR had a prior agreement with the Brazilian companies for the purchase
and sale of a certain transformers.  If that had not been the case they would not have submitted a list
with the prices.
46. The investigating authority analysed further spec ifics of the sale, noting that the purchase and
sale operations of electric transformers are very complex and very particular.  These transformers
must fulfil certain technical specifications and the manufacture of the transformers, if Mexico
understands correctly, takes from 6 up to 18 months.  In other words, it is necessary that there be a
prior contract where both parties are bound in order for the manufacture of these products to start.
The investigating authority, when it started its in vestigation, was informed that the importation would
not take place immediately but would take place at a later stage.  In this respect, the Mexican
legislation establishes that a good that is to be imported will be considered when its transfer or
shipment to the national territory has been decided.
47. In Mexico's view, SECOFI had sufficient basis to believe that the transformers were going to
be imported at a later stage.  The information was not mere statements but was supported by clearevidence which led the investigating authorities to st art the investigation.  These elements of evidence
led the investigating authority to determine at the beginning of the investigation that they had
sufficient evidence of normal value and export price, that is sufficient evidence on the existence of the
dumping.G/ADP/M/17
Page 10
48. With respect to the second and third points of Brazil's statement, in Mexico's view these are
closely linked because both refer to the lack of consideration by the investigating authority of the
evidence and arguments presented by the exporter.  Mexico considered it important that this was a
preliminary determination, and thus does not lead to an annulment of the benefits established in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, because importation was not stopped.  The importer was only required tosubmit a guarantee which would automatically be cancelled if the final determination was not to
impose anti-dumping duties.
49. The representative of Mexico clarified that the investigating authority at no time ignored the
arguments and the evidence submitted by the exporters.  He noted that throughout the preliminary
resolution the investigating authority mentioned the evidence and arguments put forward by the
exporters.  However, the investigating authority d ecided to not evaluate them for the preliminary
resolution.  That is, they were accepted, but the investigating authorities decided not to assess themfor the preliminary resolution, as noted in paragraph 41 of the preliminary resolution with respect to
the information on the production costs given by the companies Coemsa and Trafo.  This information
was allowed, but was not taken on board at this stage of the investigation, according to Article 6.6 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Consequently, in Mexico's view, there was no annulment of the
benefits established in the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because the Agreement was followed to theletter.
50. The delegate of Brazil thanked Mexico for its answers. However, he disagreed with Mexico's
interpretations both with regard to the first point and the other two. He pointed out that the
interpretation of what constituted an export price seemed to be too lax. In fact ELECNOR was the
company that had a legal obligation to fulfil the contract, not the Brazilian companies. The Braziliancompanies did not have any contractual obligation or any kind of obligation to fulfill the contract,
which was signed by ELECNOR with the Mexican government. Those transformers could come from
Brazil, they could come from anywhere else in the world.  On the second point, which Brazil
considered more serious in terms of a systemic nature, the Mexican delegate's view, that a preliminary
determination did not affect the rights of another Member, was of great concern.  Brazil completelyand vehemently disagreed with that statement. The mere opening of an anti-dumping investigation, as
Members knew, might have a chilling effect on trade flows, let alone the preliminary determination.
The provisional dumping duties may well preclude exports.  This case involved provisional anti-
dumping duties of 100 per cent on one company and 69 per cent on another. This was not seen as a
light matter by Brazil.  Brazil did not understand how an investigating authority might consider
information but ignore it at the same time. The fact was, information supplied by the Brazilian
companies was not taken into account for the preliminary determination or any other determination.And it should have been, unless the investigating authority had solid grounds to disregard it, which
was not the case. Brazil disagreed in this regard, and expressed its concern.  However, Brazil
remained thankful for the opportunity to discuss the matter further, which might continue later in
another context as well.
51. The delegate of Mexico responded, with respect to the first comment made by Brazil, that the
investigation was initiated because the investigatin g authority considered at that stage that the
petitioner had provided all the evidence reasonably available to it at that time, as was stated in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Because these type of contracts are not available to anybody, it seemed
reasonable that at the beginning of the investigation SECOFI did not have the contract. As far as
Brazil's second comment was concerned, that in the preliminary resolution the rights provided for inthe Anti-Dumping Agreement were not applied, Mexico wished to say that at no time was the
importation of products prohibited or stopped because of the preliminary determination. While he
thought it important to continue to discuss the matter, Mexico was not in a position at that point to
reply to other questions that Brazil could put to it.
52. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/ADP/M/17
Page 11
F. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
53. The Chairman stated that as most Members were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention had met on Wednesday.  At that meeting, the Chairman had expressed his surprise that
only a few papers had been submitted in response to the request for Members to submit scenariosbased on factual situations faced by their investigating authorities, formulated at its last meeting in
April 2000.  Based on these scenarios, the Group had intended to be able to discuss responses to these
situations.  It was hoped that the discussion of concrete examples would contribute to make the work
of the Group more focussed and efficient. At the meeting, the Group had considered the only paper
submitted in response to this request. The Group also considered questions posed by several
delegations to other Members, and preliminary answers thereto. Members were asked, to the extent
they had not already done so, to respond to these questions in writing in preparation for the nextmeeting.
54. The Group had agreed that for its next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, 25 April 2001,
Members would make a renewed effort at submitting scenarios based on factual situations faced by
their investigating authorities.  Additionally, the Secr etariat was asked to compile a list of all concrete
scenarios which had been submitted by Members in their previous papers, and circulate it prior to thenext meeting.  Members were also urged to react to the paper submitted for this meeting outlining
scenarios, which would be issued as a WTO document, and to answer questions posed in document
G/ADP/IG/W/23.  The Chairman expressed his sincere hope that in future meetings more Members
would participate actively in the work of the Informal Group by submitting papers on the items in
discussion, and in the discussions themselves.
55. The Chairman reiterated that the next meeting of the Group was scheduled for Wednesday,
25 April 2001. The deadline for submissions for that meeting was Wednesday, 14 March 2001, and
the Chairman urged Members to make maximum efforts to respect this deadline.
56. In response to a request by the delegate of Nigeria, the Chairman stated that copies of the text
of his report could be obtained by Members from the Secretary of the Committee later in the day.
57. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
G. OTHER BUSINESS
58. With the agreement of Members, the Chairman proposed to change the order of the items
discussed under "other business" in response to a request from Japan.  The Committee so decided.
- Indonesia – EU anti-dumping practices on Indonesian polyester synthetic fibre
59. The delegate of Indonesia drew the Committee's attention to Indonesia's growing concern
regarding EU actions related to anti-dumping practices generally, and especially to the recent
imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures on Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) products
originating in several countries, including Indonesia.  He described the case as follows:  Through
Council Regulation No. 1522/2000 dated 10 July 2000, the European Commission imposed various
levels of anti-dumping duties to Indonesian PSF, ranging from 8.4 per cent to 15.8 per cent.  On26 April 2000, the European Commission also imposed countervailing duties ranging from 0 per cent
to 10 per cent on the same product.  The two measures have resulted in total duties of 8.4 per cent to
25.8 per cent on Indonesian producers.
60. Indonesia had concluded that some rules and procedures of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
have been violated by the EU.  Accordingly, as an interested party Indonesia requested consultations,G/ADP/M/17
Page 12
which were held on 25 September 2000.  The consultations sought further clarification on issues
related to the implementation of certain articles of the Agreement, inter alia , sampling methodology,
like product, currency fluctuations, level of profitability and special and differential treatment.
Unfortunately, most of the questions raised have not been satisfactorily answered by the EU during
the consultation, as it maintained its position that the imposition of anti-dumping duties was based onpositive evidence sought during the investigation.
61. The delegate of Indonesia stated that, in the interest of time, he would not go into detail
regarding the five issues mentioned, and asked that the full text of his statement be circulated to the
Committee.
1
62. He concluded by expressing Indonesia's grave concern in the face of the anti-dumping actions
which the EU continues to take.  This situation, of course, will create unpredictable trade for
Indonesia.  To date, anti-dumping actions have been frequently used to give relief to an industrywhose competitiveness is on the wane, a situation that could create a potential abuse of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement for protection, which ultimately undermines the fruits and the balanced outcome
of the multilateral trade liberalization.
63. The delegate of the European Communities expressed his regret that this item had been raised
under other business, rather than as a separate agenda item as, lacking notice, he was not in the
position to reply to Indonesia.  He indicated that the EC would be in touch with Indonesia bilaterally
on this issue, and Indonesia could raise it in the next Committee meeting.
64. The delegate of Korea stated that Korea also shared the concerns of Indonesia on the EC's
recent imposition of anti-dumping duties on PSF products originating in Korea. The EC had initiated
a new proceeding on PSF imports only two months after the termination of the expiry review with anegative determination, that there was no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury.  In Korea's view, this was a situation of back-to-back complaints, which is against the principle
of the Anti-dumping Agreement. The delegate of Korea requested that, in its final determination of
that investigation, the EC correct its preliminary determination.  Korea reserved any rights it had
under the Anti-dumping Agreement on the back-to-back complaints.
65.  The delegate of Australia stated that while Australia was not familiar with the precise details
of Indonesia's concerns, an Australian company was also involved in the cases, and. Australia also
had certain concerns about aspects of the administration of the case.
66. The delegate of India indicated support for the concern raised by Indonesia and stated that it
had a systemic interest in the issue of back-to-back complaints.  India requested that any reply that the
EC might give to Indonesia also be shared with India.
67. The delegate of Malaysia expressed concern over the matters raised by the delegation of
Indonesia.  Malaysia supported, from a systemic point of view, the concerns raised by Korea and
India regarding back-to-back complaints. This was something which Malaysia, along with several
other developing countries, was taking up in the context of implementation issues.  Like the
delegation of India, Malaysia also would appreciate receiving a copy of any reply by the delegation of
the EC to the delegation of Indonesia.
68. The Chairman noted, in response to the comment of the delegate of the EC, that while it was
up to Members to decide how they wished to proceed, he wished to remind Members of the terms of
Article 25 of the Committee's Rules of Procedures.   That Article provides that Members should avoid
unduly long debates and discussions on subs tantive issues under "Other Business".
                                                     
1 The full statement of Indonesia was circulated as document G/ADP/W/416 on 8 November 2000.G/ADP/M/17
Page 13
- New Zealand – Brazil's anti-dumping inves tigation on milk imports from Argentina,
Australia, New Zealand, the EU and Uruguay
69. The delegate of New Zealand put the following question to Brazil: On 25 August 2000, Brazil
extended the due date for the conclusion of its anti-dumping investigation into milk imports from
Argentina, Australia, the EU, New Zealand and Uruguay. New Zealand asked Brazil to specify the
exact nature of the "special circumstances" required by Article 5.10 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 for extension of an anti-dumping investigation
beyond one year's duration?
70. The delegate of Brazil replied that Brazil understood from the question that New Zealand
would like Brazil to restrict its comments to the specifics of the case. Brazil noted that there were
several issues that led to the extension of the investigation, most of them had to do with the necessityof more time to process the amount of data involved in the investigation. The investigating authorities
in the case granted an extension of 30 days for all the parties that requested additional time to present
their answers. This already was a bit of extra time.  In addition, the volume of information was so
large that Brazil requested the parties to send an el ectronic version of the data.  Some provided CD-
ROMs, because the information would not fit in diskettes, another provided 20 diskettes.  Theinformation was provided in different formats of software.  As a result, it took a while before the
authorities could put all that together in order to process the information and make sense of it all.
Some parties did not provide complete information, some provided information relating to samples of
their transactions.  This also required some time to process, because instead of just disregarding that
information, Brazil requested the full set of transactions. Brazil also heard 44 Brazilian importers inthis process, which added to the mountain of information Brazil had before it. Another element was
that only after receiving the answers from the New Zealand Dairy Board did Brazil become aware of
the fact that that body operated only in the intern ational market. It provided no information regarding
domestic prices and provided information on exports to third countries. Brazil was trying to sort out
with them the kind of information that they could provide regarding domestic prices as well. Brazilreiterated that this knowledge came late in the pro cedure. Brazil wished to point out that the mention
of this item under other business caught Brazil by surprise, because no party had complained during
the investigations about the extension of time to co mplete the investigation. The delegate stated that
the investigators had a lot of information to process and that was the reason for the extension, which
did not mean that the authorities would use the full 6 months of the extension.
71. The delegate of New Zealand thanked the delegate of Brazil and noted that it would reserve
New Zealand's position in terms of New Zealand's approach regarding the special circumstances in
this case. New Zealand also noted that it would appreciate Brazil providing the answer in writing in
order to be able to examine it further.
72. The delegate of Australia stated that Australia shared similar concerns to those expressed by
New Zealand about the way the case had dragged on.  Australia was also interested in the response by
the Brazilian delegate and thanked him for that. It was not clear to Australia that the volume of thedata was in itself a special circumstance, but noted that possibly if there had been delays this might
contribute to some delay in the process. Australia would reflect on Brazil's answer.
- Japan – United States' Byrd Amendment
73. The delegate of Japan raised an issue about the so-called Byrd Amendment included in the
recent US Agricultural Appropriations bill. In light  of Article VI:2 of the GATT and Articles 9 and 18
of the Anti-dumping Agreement, anti-dumping duties should be levied to the extent that the injuries to
the domestic industries caused by dumping activities were off-set or prevented. The Japanese delegate
stated that this amendment was obviously aime d at distributing anti-dumping duty revenues to
domestic industries. This was seen by Japan as double-protection to the industries, far beyond theG/ADP/M/17
Page 14
remedies allowed in the GATT and the Anti-dumping Agreement. Furthermore, the parties qualified
for distribution include supporters of the anti-dumping petitions. Japan stated that this would cause a
negative effect on the implementation of Article 5.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, describing the
requirements for initiation of investigations. The delegate noted that although anti-dumping measures
were allowed in light of international rules, anti-dumping was considered to be an exception to thebasic WTO rules of non-discrimination. The delegate noted that since the petition itself had a chilling
effect on international trade, the Anti-dumping Agreement imposed requirements for filing a petition.
However, this amendment gave incentives for the US domestic industries to file more anti-dumping
cases.  Japan considered that this amendment had negative effects on international trade. Finally,
Japan pointed out that the distribution of anti-dum ping duty revenues to domestic industry would be a
specific subsidy under the definition in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
74. The delegate of Canada thanked Japan for raising this serious issue.  Canada had already
made formal representations to the US administra tion on this matter. Canada regarded the amendment
as a significant change in policy which could have unfortunate consequences for international trade in
general and the administration of trade remedy law in particular.  Anti-dumping procedures were set
up to level the playing field with regard to the imports of injuriously dumped goods. Canada felt that
US anti-dumping laws were already quite effective in that regard. In the opinion of Canada, thischange in US trade remedy laws would have the unfortunate effect of tilting the playing field in
favour of US producers in that the amendment provided in effect a second or double remedy for US
producers. They would receive protection from the effects of the dumped goods, as well as receiving
the resulting anti-dumping duties. It was Canada's view that this was inappropriate. Canada was
hopeful that the US administration would take immediate steps to correct that unfortunate situation.
75. The delegate of Australia also shared the concerns expressed by Japan and Canada about the
Byrd Amendment.  Australia had also raised this  formally with the US administration and Congress.
Apart from the issues of WTO consistency, Australia stated that this sort of provision really did send a
bad message about the use of trade remedies and the integrity of the anti-dumping system. On the one
hand, the US would be providing a double remedy to petitioners. This could well result in an increasein petitions. Of major concern was also the impact on the USA's obligations under the WTO
agreements related to standing and evidence. Austra lia stated that the US government would be saying
to producers if they did not support a petition they would not receive money, when an order was
imposed. In effect this would result in the government paying parties to support a petition.
76. The delegate of Brazil stated that Brazil too had an interest in this US legislation. Unlike the
previous interventions, Brazil did not think it was double protection, but rather triple protection that
was being granted. Brazil was following the matter very carefully and hoped that the US wouldreview the legislation at some point in time  Brazil looked forward to hearing any comments from the
US.
77. The delegate of Chile agreed with the views of previous speakers, and also wished to express
concern at the amendment. Chile saw three aspects causing concern. First, the amendment provided
for a subsidy.  Second, it altered the nature of the anti-dumping instrument by providing an additionalremedy to the situation caused by dumping and moreover was punitive. Finally, there were
consequences for market access by third party companies as well. Chile would continue to analyse the
effects of all this and consider the matter further.
78. The delegate of India also very strongly supported the concerns expressed on the Byrd
Amendment by previous speakers. While most of the points had been made, India wished to
specifically highlight five specific concerns with the legislation. First, it would provide an incentive to
domestic producers to file both anti-dumping and CVD investigations, and there would be indirect
pressure on domestic producers to support such a petition. Second, there would be an incentive to
domestic producers to exaggerate injury, so as to press for higher anti-dumping duties, since theseG/ADP/M/17
Page 15
would be likely to flow back to them. Third, there could also be pressure on investigating authorities
not to accept price undertakings – an integral part of the agreement – because then there would be
pressure from domestic producers since a price undertaking would not benefit them. Fourth, it was of
extreme concern to India that the legislation would also detract from the mandate of exploring
constructive remedies provided for under Article 15.  Finally, India considered that there was aquestion of double-jeopardy involved. Not only would the exporting country producers be levied
duties, but at the same time the domestic producers would be given a direct subsidy. For all these
reasons, India strongly urged and requested the United States to review this legislation. India noted
that it believed this matter was discussed during the Uruguay Round, and not agreed upon. Finally,
there was the possibility, which India said it would not like to consider at that time, that if the
United States went ahead with such legislation, after other countries were to follow suit, an
unfortunate  situation would evolve. India requested the United States to take into account theconcerns expressed and to review the matter.
79. The delegate of the European Communities expr essed the EC's concern with regard to the
Byrd Amendment.  On 25 October 2000, the ambassadors to the United States in Washington of
Japan, Canada and the European Commission had written a letter to President Clinton in which they
stated, "we (the ambassadors) view this section of the bill as a serious violation of US obligationsunder the anti-dumping and countervailing duty codes of the WTO."  The delegate did not wish to go
into a legal analysis, but did mention some systemic concerns. To pass on the duty income collected
in anti-dumping cases to petitioners or to the injured industry introduced an element of damages paid
to the injured domestic industry which was alien to the Agreement. The EC did not have provisions in
national law nor in the Agreement, which dealt with the situation where there might have beenpetitions which have not lead to the imposition of duties. In the negotiation of the Uruguay Round,
there had always been an argument that for these situations – they were called frivolous petitions
elsewhere – the industry which had been under investigation and had a shortfall of exports because of
the petition should be rewarded damages. That was always refused because that argument was against
the spirit of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Paying a type of damages to petitioning industries wouldalso be against the spirit of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In addition it could not be excluded that
this provision would encourage petitioners to bring petitions, which was not desirable.  Even more
dangerous was the possibility that the United States' example might be followed by others and that
there would be a flood of new cases which would definitely not be in the sense of further
liberalisation of trade.
80. The delegate of Korea agreed with the views of previous speakers, expressing deep concern
and regret that the United States had passed the Byrd Amendment.  Distribution of anti-dumping and
countervailing duties to the petitioners or interested parties was against the objective of anti-dumping
and countervailing duty measures, which were mainly allowed to prevent unfair competition due to
dumping and subsidies. Korea believed that the US  amendment was not in full conformity with the
WTO agreements on anti-dumping and subsidies, and seriously undermined the basic principle and
spirit of the WTO. Korea also feared that the introduction of this Act might invite frivolous anti-dumping cases and threaten the establishment of a stable international trade order. Korea therefore
hoped that the United States would take appropriate actions to repeal or nullify the said Act as soon as
possible.
81. The delegate of Mexico stated that Mexico was also concerned at the implications of the Byrd
Amendment. In particular, Mexico was concerned that this might lead to a wave of requests for the
start of anti-dumping investigations in respect of imports to the US market which might really be
aimed at obtaining economic benefit for the petitioners, rather than based on material injury to the
domestic industry. Mexico was concerned that this situation might put a damper on international
trade. Mexico also agreed that the amendment provided for double protection. While Mexico had not
concluded its study of the amendment, Mexico's very strong impression was that that legislationG/ADP/M/17
Page 16
might well be incompatible with US obligations under the WTO.  Mexico reserved its right to come
back to the matter in any forum of the WTO.
82. The delegate of New Zealand agreed with the concerns raised by previous speakers. For
New Zealand, the amendment would have the potential to significantly undermine the WTO-based
system on anti-dumping, which New Zealand believed would be very unfortunate.
83.  The delegate of South Africa expressed concerns regarding the Byrd Amendment, especially
in the light of the systemic implications it might have for the system and for the integrity of the
system.
84. The delegate of the United States took note of the comments of Members who had expressed
their views on the matter.  He stated that he was not in a position at that point to offer any meaningful
comments, but wished to assure all of the Members that, as the United States had always done, it
would notify new legislation and be pleased to entertain any questions that Members may have on it.
- UNCTAD (as Observer) – Announcement to Members
85. The representative of UNCTAD, speaking as an Observer, informed the Committee that the
Bangkok Plan of Action of UNCTAD X, in paragraph 132, provided that UNCTAD's work in the area
of market access should relate first to analysis and, where appropriate – on the basis of the analysis –contribute to consensus-building, including on the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing actions.
At the consultations of the president of the Trade and Development Board (TDB) on 31 March 2000
with the Bureau, co-ordinators and interested delegations, it was decided to convene an Expert
meeting on the "Impact of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Actions" on 4-6 December 2000. This
meeting would provide an opportunity for expert an alysis of the major issues deriving from the
application of anti-dumping and countervailing dut y measures, which in turn would contribute to
consensus-building as to possible actions in this regard. The representative noted that the meeting
would involve an exchange of experiences among the experts as to the impact of anti-dumping and
countervailing duty actions on trade, and would focus on identifying elements of a possible consensus
as to how this impact, particularly on the trade of developing countries, could be reduced. To facilitatethe experts' discussions, the UNCTAD secretariat ha d prepared a background note. Discussions at the
meeting would also be facilitated by additional background material to be provided by other
international organizations, such as the WTO. Experts participating in the Meeting were requested to
make a written contribution, with respect particularly to their specific experiences in the field of the
subject-matter involved. Member States of UNCTAD were requested to nominate experts at an early
date. Experts, who would participate in the meeting in their personal capacities, were expected to have
proven expertise in the subject. In this connection, the representative had brought copies of theprovisional agenda, annotations and secretarial background note for the December meeting, which he
would make available to Members at the end of the meeting.
86. The delegate of the European Communities thanked the UNCTAD representative for his
presentation and noted that it should be a highly interesting meeting.  He expected that there would be
some participation of the experts gathered for the Committee meeting.  He was sure that the purposeof that evaluation would not only be to assess th e impact on trade of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
measures, but also to consider the impact of dumping and the impact of subsidisation on international
trade.
87. The Chairman thanked the representative of UNCTAD for sharing with the Committee
information regarding the event he referred to.G/ADP/M/17
Page 17
H. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION.
88. The Chairman noted that the participation of Members, both in terms of the papers and
proposals, and the discussions themselves, was excellent.  The Group discussed all of the topics on its
agenda. The discussions were at times lively, and a great deal of information was exchanged amongMembers regarding their practices in implem enting the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
89. While the Group was unable, despite hard work and significant efforts by all participating, to
reach a consensus on the draft recommendation at this meeting, the Chairman believed that the Group
made signficant progress. The Secretariat would issue a room document later that day setting forth
revisions to the draft recommendation discussed over the course of the meeting, reflecting the state-
of-play as of the close of the meeting the previous day. He urged all Members to take the roomdocument back with them, and consider the proposals and remaining areas of difference with the
utmost flexibility. The Chairman hoped that at the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Group, Members
would be able to reach a conclusion in that regar d.  If, in the interim, Members felt further discussions
would be useful, they might contact the Chairman to undertake informal consultations on the basis of
the room document.
90. The Chairman noted that he was again encouraged by the presence and participation of
experts from capital at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group.  He noted that they brought necessary
technical knowledge of their own practices to the di scussions, thereby making them more substantive
and useful for all Members.  Their participation was, in the opinion of the Chairman, critical to the
Group's progress on the draft recommendation, as well as contributing significant understanding in theGroup's more technical discussions on the papers submitted on the various topics. He strongly
encouraged Members, if at all possible, to continue to bring technical experts from capitals to future
meetings of the Group.
91. The Chairman thought that the Ad Hoc Group had a very fruitful meeting that time, and
hoped that Members would continue to participate actively in the work of the Ad Hoc Group.  In thisregard, he reminded Members of the tasks agreed to with regard to the topics under consideration in
the Group.
• Members were requested to submit papers describing circumstances they considered might be
relevant in deciding on an appropriate comparison methodology under Article 2.4.2 of theAgreement in particular situations.
• The Secretariat was requested to compile, from Memb ers' submissions, a list of elements that had
been considered in selecting transactions to be  compared in the context of a transaction-to-
transaction analysis under Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement.
• The Secretariat was requested to prepare a draft recommendation on an indicative list of elements
relevant to a decision on a request for extension of time to provide information requested.
• The Secretariat was also requested to compile a list of questions posed by Members in their
written submissions and in the course of the meeting on the application of lesser duty andconsideration of public interest.
• Members were requested to respond to those questions in preparation for the next meeting, and in
addition might, if they had relevant practice in that regard, provide explanations regarding that
practice.G/ADP/M/17
Page 18
• In this regard, the Secretariat would compile from previously submitted papers information
provided by Members  regarding their application of lesser duty.
• The Secretariat was requested to revise, in light of the discussions at the meeting, the list of
possibly relevant criteria regarding conditions of competition for consideration in deciding
whether a cumulative assessment of the effects of imports was appropriate in light of those
conditions.
• Members who had not already done so might submit a description of their own practice regarding
cumulation, including, to the extent relevant, the role of any of the criteria on the list.
92. The Chairman noted that the Group had agreed to schedule its next meeting to begin Monday,
23 April 2001, during the same week that the Committee would meet. As it did this time, and last
spring, the Group should be prepared to meet over the course of the entire week as necessary to
accomplish its work. The Chairman reminded Members that submissions for the next meeting of the
Group were due no later than 12 March 2001. He hoped that Members would make a strong effort tocomply with that deadline, so that documents could be translated and circulated in a timely fashion
before the Group's meeting.
93. The Chairman stated that a copy of his report could be obtained from the Secretariat after the
meeting.
94. The Committee took note of the statement made by the Chairman.
I. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
95. 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 la st week of October. Accordingly, the next regular
meeting of the Committee was proposed for the last fu ll week in April, the week of 23 April 2001. In
light of previously scheduled meetings of th e Ad Hoc Group on Implementation and the Informal
Group on Anti-Circumvention, the Committee would therefore meet on Thursday, 26 April 2001.
J. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS96. The Chairman noted that pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Agreement, the Committee was
required to annually review the implementation and operation of the Agreement, taking into account
the objectives thereof, and to annually inform th e Council for Trade in Goods of developments during
the period covered by the review. The Committee had decided, at its special meeting in
February 1995, that it would follow the same procedure as the Tokyo Round Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices with respect to the Report.
97. The Chairman  pointed out changes to the draft report that had been circulated on Monday,
and stated to that corrections to the statistical tables in Annex C could be provided after the report had
been adopted, until close of business Monday.  The Chairman also suggested giving the Secretariat
authority to fill in the names of the new officers of the Committee, who were to be elected at the endof this meeting.
98. The Committee adopted the annual report for the Council for Trade in Goods.
K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
99. The Chairman recalled that at the time of the Committee's meeting last spring, the Chairman
of the Council for Trade in Goods had not yet comp leted the informal consultations on the nominationG/ADP/M/17
Page 19
of chairpersons for the different bodies operating under the auspices of the Council for Trade in
Goods.  Thus, as an extraordinary measure, the Committee had decided to extend the term of the then-
current Chairman and Vice Chairman, the Chairman himself and Mr Roberto Azevedo, until the next
meeting of the Committee, which was this meeting.
100. Now, however, he was in the happy position of being able to note that the Chairman of the
Council for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Mr. Yair Shiran of Israel as Chairman.
101. Mr. Shiran was elected Chairman by acclamation.
102. The Chairman noted that he had conducted consultations with Members, with the cooperation
of the Chairman-elect. On the basis of those consultations, the Chairman proposed the election of
Miss Sahar Hosni Abdelaziz of Egypt as Vice Chairperson of the Committee.
103. Miss. Hosni was elected Vice Chairperson by acclamation.
104. The incoming Chairman thanked the out-going Chairman for a well-done job and for his
contribution to the work of the Committee.
105. A number of delegations expressed their appreciation of the work done by the out-going
Chairman and Vice Chairman, and congratulated the incoming Chairman and Vice Chairperson on
their election.
106. The meeting was adjourned.
_____________