RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/13
10 March 1999
(99-0966)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 29 OCTOBER 1998
Chairman:  Mr. José Antonio S. Buencamino (Philippines)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
29 October 1998.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. Observers:  International Inte rgovernmental Or ganizations ............................ 2
B. Review of nationa l legisla tions ........................................................................ 3
- New or Amended Notifications not previously reviewed by the
Committee (including supplemental notifications of existing
provisions not previ ously review ed): ....................................................... 3
- Chad – G/ADP/N/1/TCD/1 & G/SCM/N/1/TCD/1 ............................. 4
- Costa Rica - G/ADP/N/1/CR1/1/Suppl.1
& G/SCM/N/1/CRI/1/Suppl.1 .............................................................. 4
- Ecuador - G/ADP/N/1/ECU/1/Suppl.1
& G/SCM/N/1/ECU/1/SUPPL.1 .......................................................... 4
- Haiti – G/ADP/N/1/HTI/1 & G/SCM/N/1/HTI/1................................. 5
- Korea – G/ADP/N/1/KOR/4 & G/SCM/N/1/KOR/3 ........................... 5
- Panama - G/ADP/N/1/PAN/1 & G/SCM/N/1/PAN/1.......................... 5
- Poland - G/ADP/N/1/POL/2  & G/SCM/N/1/POL/2 ............................ 5
- Qatar - G/ADP/N/1/QAT/1  & G/SCM/N/1/QAT/1 ............................. 5
- United States - G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL.3 &
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL.3 .............................................................. 5
 - notifications that have already been reviewed by the Committee:
- Brazil -
(G/ADP/Q1/BRA/8-G/SCM/Q1/BRA/8)
(G/ADP/Q1/BRA/9-G/ SCM/Q1/BRA/9)............................................. 6
-P e r u -
(G/ADP/Q1/PER/10-G/SCM/Q1/PER/10)
(G/ADP/Q1/PER/12-G/SCM/Q1/PER/12)........................................... 6
- United States -
(G/ADP/Q1/USA/7-G/ SCM/Q1/USA/7) ............................................. 6G/ADP/M/13
Page 2
        Page
C. Semi-annual reports of Anti-dumping actions (Article 16.4)
(G/ADP/N/41 and Addenda) .............................................................................. 7
D. Notifications of Preliminary and Final Anti-Dumping Actions
(G/ADP/N/39, 40, 42, 43 and 44) ....................................................................... 8
E. Chairman's Report on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation .... 9
F. Consideration of the Issues Under Review in the Ad Hoc Group
on Implementation ............................................................................................ 10
G. Chairman's Report on the Meeting of the Informal Group on
Anti-Circumvention........................................................................................... 11
H. Investigation by Argentina Regarding Fibre Optic Cables from the
United States, Spain and Brazil (Item requested by the United States)............. 11
I. EC – Investigations Concerning the Anti-Circumvention Measures
on Imports of Television Camera Systems from Japan(Item requested by Japan).................................................................................. 12
J. Other Business .................................................................................................. 14
(i) Mexico –  Anti-Dumping Investigation by Ecuador on Portland
Cement from Mexico............................................................................... 14
(ii) Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation by Panama on Sugar .................. 15
(iii) Egypt – South Africa's Measures Affecting Aluminium
Hollowware imported or originating from Egypt.................................... 15
K. Annual Report to the Council for Tr ade in Goods (Article 18.6) ..................... 16
L. Date of Next Regular Meeting .......................................................................... 17
A. O
BSERVERS :  INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
1. The Chairman recalled the outstanding requests of two international intergovernmental
organizations, the OECD and the ACP Group, for regular observer status in the Committee.
2. Turning first to the request of the ACP Group, the Chairman recalled that the Committee
had decided at its last meeting to defer consideration of the ACP Group's request for regular
observer status pending resolution of a horizontal process under way at the Council level.  TheCommittee had further decided to invite the ACP Group to attend its meetings on an ad hoc  basis
pending completion of that process.  The Chairman understood that this horizontal process at theCouncil level had not yet been completed.  Accordingly, the Chairman proposed that the Committeemaintain its previous decision and continue to invite the ACP Group to attend meetings on an ad
hoc basis pending completion of the process at the Council level, and revert to this matter at such
time as there were any new developments to be considered.
3. The Committee so decided.G/ADP/M/13
Page 3
4. With respect to the request by the OECD, the Chairman recalled that the Committee had been
considering this request for some time in light of issues involving reciprocity which principally
concern the Subsidies Committee, and in particular the question of WTO observer status in theGroup of Participants to the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits and Export CreditGuarantees.  At the last regular meeting, the previous Chairman had reported that, in light of thedecision of the OECD Participants regarding WTO observer status, the Subsidies Committee haddecided on a preliminary basis to grant ad hoc  observer status to the OECD under terms paralleling
those agreed by the Participants Group for the WTO.  Specifically, the Subsidies Committee haddecided to continue to invite the OECD to attend meetings on an ad hoc  basis.  With respect to
documents, the Subsidies Committee had decided to grant the OECD full access, subject toobjection by a Member in particular cases.  This decision had been taken on a preliminary basis, tobe confirmed at next meeting of the Committee following receipt of full details of the decision ofthe Participants Group.  This Committee took the same decision.   O n  3 June 1998, the WTO
Secretariat had been informed in writing by the Chairman of the Participants Group that the Grouphad decided to "invite the WTO Secretariat, from November this year, to attend meetings on an ad
hoc basis.  In practical terms, this meant that the Secretariat [would] be invited to attend discussions
in which it has a clear interest; additionally, it [would] be given access to relevant supportingdocuments."  Following further inquiries from the WTO Secretariat regarding the decision, theChairman of the Participants Group confirmed that  "in practice, the WTO will be invited to all
meetings and have access to all documents, except in cases where a Participant objects."   In light of
this information, the Chairman proposed that the Committee decide to confirm its decision of
April 1998 (a) to invite the OECD to attend meetings on an ad hoc  basis and (b) to grant the OECD
full access to documents, subject to objection by a Member in particular cases.
5. The Committee so decided.
B. R EVIEW OF NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS
- New or Amended Notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee
6. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the fact that that, u nfortunately, some
questions had been submitted well after the applicable deadline of 5 October 1998.  Members were
aware of the fact that the translation process was a significant bottleneck in the processing of
documents for circulation.  This was not due to any lack of effort on the part of the Secretariat, but
simply a result of the extraordinarily heavy workload in this regard.  Members were well aware ofthe deadlines for submission of documents for the regular meetings of this Committee.  Not onlywere they established and announced at the last meeting of the Committee in April, but severalreminders in the form of airgrams had been sent as well.  The late submission of documents, notonly for this meeting, but also for the meetings of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation and theInformal Group on Anti-Circumvention, was simply unacceptable.  Members could not be expectedto prepare adequately for the complex and often technical discussions in these meetings without thenecessary documentation, in their preferred working language.  Late submissions significantlyreduced the ability of the Committee and its subsidiary bodies to work effectively, a situation whichshould not be allowed to continue.
7. As usual, deadlines for the submission of documents for next April's regular meeting of the
Committee, the Ad Hoc Group, and the Informal Group had been announced during the course ofthe meetings. The Chairman urged all Members to take note of these deadlines, inscribe them oncalendars, and respect them.  Given the nature of the work in question, there was no reasonMembers could not begin preparing for next April's meetings shortly after the October meetingsG/ADP/M/13
Page 4
were over, while matters were still fresh in delegates' minds.  The Chairman hoped that
submissions will be more timely in the future.
8. The Committee took note of the Chairman's remarks.
9. Turning to the substantive discussion of notifications of legislation, the Chairman noted that
questions concerning new notifications of legislation were to have been submitted to the Member
concerned and the Secretariat no later than three weeks before this meeting, that is, no later than5 October 1998.
10. The Chairman stated that, as provided for in the agreed procedures adopted by the
Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (G/ADP/W/284, 12 February 1996), Membersreceiving written questions would be asked to respond to orally to those questions today.  However,to the extent that some questions concerned only issues relating to countervailing dutyinvestigations, those questions would be raised and answered in the meeting of the SubsidiesCommittee next week.  The Chairman would note these questions when they arose.  In this regard,the Chairman asked delegates to keep the document packets distributed for today's meeting, as thequestions regarding legislation would not be included in the document packets for the SubsidiesCommittee meeting the following week.  Therefore, delegates would need the questions distributedin the document packets for this meeting in order to follow that part of the Subsidies Committeemeeting.
11. The Chairman observed that Members who received questions after the deadline of
5 October 1998 were only asked to respond to questions to the extent they were able to do so.Members would, however, be requested, in accordance with the procedures adopted by theCommittee, to answer all questions submitted in writing. The Chairman reminded Members thatfollow-up questions might be asked in this meeting.  However, such follow-up questions had to besubmitted in writing no later than 23 November 1998 if the Member posing the question wished toreceive a written answer.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing should be submittedto the Secretariat no later than 8 January 1999.
12. No questions were received regarding the no tification of Chad.  The Committee took note
of the notification and of the fact that Chad was not represented at the meeting.
13. The questions regarding the notification of Costa Rica can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/1 submitted by the United StatesThe answers provided by Costa Rica to these questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/2 to the United States
14. The questions regarding the notification of Ecuador can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/2 submitted by Turkey
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/3 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/4 submitted by Venezuela
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/6 submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/7 submitted by MexicoG/ADP/M/13
Page 5
The answers provided by Ecuador to these questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/5 to Turkey, Japan and VenezuelaNO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE AS YET BEEN PROVIDED TO THE QUESTIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.
15. No questions were received regarding the no tification of Haiti.  The Committee took note of
the notification and of the fact that Haiti was not represented at the meeting.
16. The questions regarding the notification of Korea can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/12 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/13 submitted by the Venezuela
The answers provided by Korea to these questions can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/14 to Japan
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/15 to Venezuela
17. The questions regarding the notification of Panama can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/PAN/1 submitted by Turkey
G/ADP/Q1/PAN/2 submitted by JapanG/ADP/Q1/PAN/3 submitted by Venezuela
G/ADP/Q1/PAN/4 submitted by the United States
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE AS YET BEEN PROVIDED BY PANAMA.
18. The questions regarding the notification of Poland can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/POL/2 submitted by Turkey
G/ADP/Q1/POL/3 submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/POL/4 submitted by Venezuela
G/ADP/Q1/POL/5 submitted by the United States
The answers provided by Poland to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/POL/6 to Turkey, Japan and VenezuelaNO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE AS YET BEEN PROVIDED TO THE QUESTIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES.
19. No questions were received regarding the no tification of Qatar.  The Committee took note
of the notification.
20. The questions regarding the notification of the United States can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/9 submitted by the European CommunityG/ADP/M/13
Page 6
The answers provided by the United States to these questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/11 to the European Community
21. The Chairman informed the Committee that the new notifications of Australia
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2), Benin (G/ADP/N/1/BEN/1), the Czech Republic (G/ADP/N/1/CZE/2) and
Fiji (G/ADP/N/FIJ/2) would be on the agenda of the next meeting in April 1999.  The Secretariatwould inform Members of any additional new notifications to be considered at that meeting in mid-March 1999.  The deadline for submission of questions regarding new notifications of legislation forthe meeting in April 1999 would be 8 April 1999.
- Notifications that have already been reviewed by the Committee
22. The Chairman noted that q uestions concerning a number of legislations were received and
that these questions appeared to have been intended as follow up questions to the new notifications
of legislation reviewed at the Committee's last meeting in April 1998.  However, as they werereceived by the Secretariat after the applicable deadline, they appeared instead on the agenda of thismeeting.  Thus, the late submission of these questions had resulted in a delay of several months inthe receipt of answers, which could have been avoided.  The Chairman, however, congratulatedMembers for having submitted their answers in a timely fashion.
23. The follow up questions regarding the notification of Brazil can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/8-G/SCM/Q1/BRA/8 submitted by Mexico
The answers provided by Brazil can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/9-G/SCM/Q1/BRA/9 to Mexico
24. The follow-up questions regarding the notification of Peru can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/10-G/SCM/Q1/PER/10 submitted by Mexico
The answers provided by Peru can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/12-G/SCM/Q1/PER/12 to Mexico
25. The follow-up questions regarding the notification of the United States can be found in the
following document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/7-G/SCM/Q1/USA/7 submitted by Mexico
The answers provided by the United States can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/10-G/SCM/Q1/USA/10 to Mexico
26. The Chairman thanked the Members whose notifications had been discussed for their
answers, and the Members who undertook to put questions.  As usual, the exercise had been positive,
and of benefit to all.G/ADP/M/13
Page 7
27. Finally, he noted that, in order for a previously reviewed notification of legislation to appear
on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in April 1999, questions would have to be
submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose notification is in question, no later than
15 March 1999. The Chairman hoped that this advance warning would help Members in scheduling
their internal work programmes.
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS
28. The Chairman recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the first half of 1998, to
be submitted by 31 August 1998, was circulated to the Members in G/ADP/N/41, dated
1 July 1998, and expressed disappointment at the number of semi-annual reports that were receivedlate.  Members were well aware of the applicable deadlines for submission of semi-annual reports –semi-annual reports are 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.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 fashion.
29. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified in paragraph 1 of
document G/ADP/N/41 Addendum 1, dated 19 October 1998.  In addition, Thailand submitted itssemi-annual report too late to be included in the list.  To the extent possible, the semi-annual reportshad been translated and circulated to the Committee, and were included in the documents madeavailable for this meeting.
30. In addition to the 25 Members who submitted semi-annual reports, 25 Members, listed in
paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/29 Addendum 1, notified the Committee that they had not taken
any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  Barbados, Iceland, and Zambia submitted
notifications that they had taken no actions during the period, but these were received too late to be
included in the list.  With respect to these notifications, there was no good explanation for someMembers' 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 that
this should be a relatively simple task.
31. While there had been some improvement in compliance, particularly with respect to the
submission of semi-annual reports in the agreed upon format, 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/41addendum 1 at paragraph 3.  The Chairman noted that any Member who submitted a semi-annual
report in written form  before the close of business on that day would be identified as having done so
in the Annual Report.
32. The delegate of Hong Kong, China noted that South Africa had reported anti-dumping actions
against Hong Kong, China on a number of products.  These included stainless steel hollowware,
blankets, PVC pilches, aluminium hollowware and indigo blue.  No reference to the definitive duties
on the last three products was found in South Africa's last semi-annual report.  There appeared to be a
contradiction with South Africa's previous confirmation, inter alia,  that its anti-dumping actions on
these products were directed against products originating from mainland China and did not cover
products originating from Hong Kong, China.  In particular, the entry "exported from" Hong Kong,
China in the report was confusing.  This entry raised doubts as to whether goods originating fromG/ADP/M/13
Page 8
Hong Kong, China, and from other countries that were exported through Hong Kong, China would be
subject to anti-dumping duties imposed by South Africa.
33. The delegate of Thailand noted that South Africa had reported that it had taken a measure
against float glass exported from Thailand.  His delegation sought clarification of the related
"Remarks" in the report.
34. The Chairman observed that South Africa was not represented at the meeting and suggested
that Hong Kong, China and Thailand put their questions in writing to South Africa.
35. With respect to the format of the semi-annual reports, the delegate of Australia commented
that there were problems with respect to understanding precisely what Australia was notifying in
terms of provisional measures and provisional determinations because of the nature of its internal
administrative appeal process.  Some of these problems would disappear under Australia's new anti-
dumping legislation in respect of provisional determinations, but would be exacerbated in respect of
final decisions by the Minister, which would be subject to review by the Trade Measures ReviewOffice.  Australia observed that it was considerin g inserting an additional column in its semi-annual
report in order to clarify the nature of its anti- dumping decisions and to distinguish between a final
determination and one that is subject to review.
36. The Chairman considered that he could consult with Members on the matter raised by
Australia relating to problems with the format of semi-annual reports.
37. The Committee took note of the statements made.
D. N OTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS
38. The Chairman noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received by the Committee were circulat ed to the Committee in documents G/ADP/N/39, 40,
42, 43, and 44.  As with other notification requirements, there appeared to be a lack of full
compliance in this area, as some Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating actionsin progress had not submitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  He reminded Membersthat an important aspect of the Committee's task was its role in monitoring and discussing actionstaken by Members.  If Members did not take their obligations to notify seriously and comply, theCommittee would be prevented from accomplishing its goal of considering Members' compliancewith the requirements of the Agreement.
39. The delegate of Mexico referred to the semi-annual report of Ecuador in connection with its
anti-dumping investigation on Portland cement from Mexico, which would also be dealt with under
"Other Business".  Ecuador's report did not permit Mexico to have any idea of the type of
investigation being conducted, because every column -- other than the country concerned, the type of
product and the date of initiation -- was blank.
40. The delegate of Ecuador stated that nothing was included in the other columns referred to by
Mexico because the investigation in question was ongoing.  The columns concerned referred to
subsequent stages, and data would be supplied at the appropriate time.
41. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/ADP/M/13
Page 9
E. C HAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION
42. The Chairman reported that the Ad Hoc Group had met on met on 26-27 October 1998 and
that the participation of Members, both in terms of the number of papers and proposals, and the
discussions themselves, had been 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 among Membersregarding their practices in implementing th e requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
43. In terms of progress made, the Chairman reported that the Group had arrived at a consensus
with respect to the text of a draft recommendation concerning the timing of the notification to theexporting Member required under Article 5.5 of the Agreement.  The text of the draftrecommendation, reflecting the slight modification to the text agreed upon at the meeting of theAd Hoc Group, was available at the back of the room.  He pointed out that the only change fromthe text as originally circulated, in document G/ADP/AHG/W/49, was the substitution of the word"the" for the word "any" in the second to last full line of the last paragraph.  The text agreed uponby the Ad Hoc Group thus read:  "as early as possible before the decision is taken regardinginitiation of an investigation on the basis of that properly documented application".  Given that therehad been an extensive discussion concerning this draft recommendation in the Ad Hoc Group, hehoped that the Committee could agree to adopt the draft recommendati on.  In light of the apparent
agreement of the Members of the Committee, he proposed that the Draft Recommendationconcerning the timing of the notification under Article 5.5 be adopted.
44. The Committee adopted the recommendation concerning the timing of the notification
recommendation concerning the timing of the notification under Article 5.5.1
45. The Chairman stated that, at the end of the Group's meeting, he had presented a summary
of actions that the Secretariat and/or Members were to undertake for the next meeting of the Group.
That summary was available in the room.  He drew particular attention to the items in paragraphs 4and 6 requesting Members to submit information concerning addresses of contact points for theArticle 5.5 notification, and the web-sites of their investigating and/or decision-making authorities.He asked that Members who had not done so submit this information at the earliest possible date, sothat the Secretariat could compile and circulate this useful information to Members as soon aspossible. The Secretariat would, of course, be sending a reminder to Members at a later dateconcerning any other items to be submitted for the next meeting.
46. The Group had scheduled its next meeting for the last week of April 1999, in conjunction
with the regular spring meeting of the Committee.  The deadline for submissions for that meetingwould be Monday, 15 March 1999.
47. The Chairman stated that he had been particularly encouraged by the presence of experts
from capital at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group, who bring the necessary technical knowledge oftheir own practices to the discussions, thereby making them more substantive and useful for allMembers.  He strongly encouraged Members, if at all possible, to bring technical experts fromcapitals to future meetings of the Group.  The Ad Hoc Group had had a fruitful meeting this time,the Chairman hope that Members would continue to participate actively in the work of the Group.In this regard, he noted that the future work of the Group was the next item on the agenda for thismeeting.
                                                     
1 Subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/5 (3 November 1998).G/ADP/M/13
Page 10
F. C ONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES UNDER REVIEW IN THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION
48. The Chairman reminded Members of the procedures that had been employed in deciding on
and referring topics to the Ad Hoc Group in the first instance.  After the Group had been established
in April 1996, Members had been asked to submit suggestions for topics to be discussed in the Group.
The Secretariat had circulated a list of the suggestions, and informal consultations had then been heldto discuss the suggestions.  During those consulta tions, Members had agreed on a group of ten topics
that might appropriately be referred to the Group by the Committee.  At the regular Committee
meeting in October 1996, there had been some further discussions and clarifications of the proposed
topics.  Finally, at that same meeting in October 1996, the Committee had decided on a gr oup of ten
topics to be referred to the Ad Hoc Group, as se t forth in G/ADP/W/401.  These were the topics the
Group had been discussing over the past two years.
49. The delegate of the United States said that her delegation had put this item on the agenda
because the ten topics that had been selected had been discussed several times and it was important to
have an opportunity within the Committee to discuss whether an informal process should becommenced to determine whether certain topics should be retired, permanently or temporarily, orwhether new topics should be added.  It might be c onsidered that a new "slot" for a possible new topic
had opened up due to the Committee's adoption of the draft recommendation on the timing of thenotification under Article 5.5.  Topics 8 and 9 both related to "Determinations" and the Group hadspent a lot of time talking about the public notices, both for preliminary and final determinations, aswell as initiation notices.  To some extent, it might be possible to combine these two topics into onetopic, since they seemed to be discussed together in any case.  It was also possible that the topic of"hearings" had been discussed adequately and that there might be a desire to conclude this topicwithout making any particular recommendation.  She asked the Chairman to commence the informalprocess of obtaining information and input from Members as to whether or not they wished to retiretopics from the list and/or add new topics to the list to be considered by the Ad Hoc Group.  Shefurther observed that this could be decided upon either in a special  meeting of the Committee between
this meeting and the April 1999 meeting, or formally at the April 1999 meeting.
50. The Chairman took note of the specific request by the United States and opened the floor for
discussion of this proposal.51. The delegate of the European Community expressed its support for the United States'
proposal.52. The delegate of Thailand expressed its support for the United States' request that the
Chairman discuss with Members the procedure to determine the topics to be addressed by the Ad Hoc
Group.  He also suggested a permanent procedure to determine whether the discussion on anyparticular topic in the Ad Hoc Group might be considered as exhausted, and such topic could then beput aside until Members raised it again.
53. The delegate of the Australia agreed with the United States' proposal.  The Ad Hoc Group
was providing for a useful exchange on Members' anti-dumping systems, but it became overly routine
to revisit topics repeatedly, particularly since many systems were similar and within the framework ofthe Agreement.  While reaching recommendations was useful for developing guidelines, there was noreason to assume that the goal should necessarily be to reach recommendations with respect to eachtopic, and the choice of topics for discussion should not be premised on whether a topic is suitable forreaching a recommendation.  The exchanges themselves were useful in clarifying Members' systems.G/ADP/M/13
Page 11
54. The delegate of Mexico endorsed the United States' proposal and associated itself with the
observations made by the delegate of Australia concerning the work of the Ad Hoc Group.  He also
congratulated the Chairman on the successful adoption of the recommendation on Article 5.5.
55. The Chairman stated that the topics to be discussed in the Ad Hoc Group would have to be the
subject of a decision by the Committee.  The consultations proposed by the United States and
supported by a few other delegations  would have to take place under  the auspices of the Committee.
He proposed that Members submit to the Secretariat by 1 December 1998 (a) a list of topics Memberswished to set aside or retire; (ii) new topics Members wished the Ad Hoc Group to discuss.  Oncereceived, these documents would be circulated to all Members.
2  Further steps would most likely
depend on the number of topics contained in the lists submitted.  Discussion would be conductedunder the auspices of the Committee,  and a decision might be reached by the next regular meeting in
April 1999.
56. The Committee took note of the statements made.
G. C HAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION
57. The Chairman reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met on
28 October 1998.  Members had discussed the papers submitted with interest, and numerous points
had been made.  The Informal Group had agreed to meet again on Wednesday, 28 April 1999, to
continue its discussions on the first topic for discussion under the agreed framework. He hoped that as
experience continued with the Informal Group, more Members would participate by submitting papers
on the items for discussion, and in the discussions themselves.  In this respect, he repeated concerns
he had raised yesterday at the meeting about the late submission of papers for the Informal Group.
Submission of substantive papers on such a complex and sensitive topic only a few days before the
meeting severely limited the ability of Members, and especially their capital-based experts, to preparefor a meaningful discussion.  Therefore, Members were strongly urged to prepare and submit their
papers as early as possible in the future.  He hoped that the Group's future meetings would be useful
in helping the Committee accomplish the task set by the Ministerial Decision on Anti-Circumvention.
58. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
H. I NVESTIGATION BY ARGENTINA REGARDING FIBRE OPTIC CABLES FROM THE
UNITED  STATES , SPAIN AND BRAZIL (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES )
59. The delegate of the United States expressed concern that the deadlines set in Article 5.10 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement had been surpasse d in Argentina's anti-dumping investigation
regarding fibre optic cables from the United States, Spain and Brazil.  Argentina had initiatedthe case in February 1997.  It had now been 20 months and no final determination had been
taken by the Argentine authorities.  Thus, both the one-year time-frame for the conclusion of
investigations "except in special circumstances" and the definitive eighteen-month deadline
referred to in Article 5.10 had been surpassed.  No "special circumstances" appeared to have
been communicated to the party involved, nor was any explanation given for surpassing theeighteen-month deadline.  She requested that Arge ntina explain the status of this investigation
and, in particular, why it had not terminated this investigation given that the deadlines in the
Agreement had been surpassed.
                                                     
2 A list of Members' suggestions regarding items to be deleted from and/or added to the list of topics
referred to the Ad Hoc Group was subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/W/407 (4 February 1999).G/ADP/M/13
Page 12
60. The delegate of Argentina took note of the statement by the United States and stated that
these concerns would be referred back to capital.
61. The delegate of the European Community expressed the same concerns as the United States.
In particular, the surpassing of the eighteen-month deadline in this investigation did not appear to be a
single incident in the practice of the Argentine authorities.
62. The Committee took note of the statements made.
I. EC – I NVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF
TELEVISION CAMERA SYSTEMS FROM JAPAN (ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN )
63. The delegate of Japan stated that on 9 June 1998, the European Commission had notified the
Government of Japan that it had decided to initiate an investigation concerning the alleged
circumvention of anti-dumping measures impos ed by Council Regulation 1015/94 on imports of
certain television camera systems originating in Japan.  It was alleged that anti-dumping measures
were being circumvented by the importation of modules, kits, sub-assemblies and parts from Japanwhich were allegedly used to assemble television camera systems in the European Community.  The
European Community had taken this action based upon its anti-circumvention provision in Article 13
of its anti-dumping regulation.  However, there was obviously no provision included in GATT 1994
or the Anti-Dumping Agreement which allowed Members to take anti-circumvention measures.
Japan believed that this measure taken on the basis of this regulation was inconsistent with therequirements of GATT 1994 and the Anti-dumping  Agreement because the European Commission
could impose anti-dumping duties on parts without an investigation to determine the facts of dumping
of imports, material injury to the domestic industry and causality.  Japan had communicated to the
European Community on various occasions its position that this initiation was inconsistent with the
European Community's obligations under the WTO Agreement.
64. Anti-circumvention measures had been discussed under the auspices of the Committee, but no
consensus had been reached among Members.  In light of these on-going discussions, Japan was of
the view that any anti-circumvention measures, including new investigations, were inconsistent with
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  As Japan had continually stressed, anti-dumping
measures were an exception to the basic rules of Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and had to beapplied only under the very special circumstances outlined in Article VI of GATT 1994.
Investigations should be initiated and conducted rigorously in accordance with the provisions of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Therefore, Japan regretted that the European Commission had decided to
initiate an anti-circumvention investigation.  If  the European Commission continued the procedure,
the Government of Japan reserved its right to take necessary steps in accordance with the WTO
Agreement, including the dispute settlement mechanism.
65. The delegate of the European Community stated that, with regard to the facts of the case, the
delegate of Japan had correctly reported the course of events.  The European Community had imposed
definitive anti-dumping duties on television camera systems from Japan and it had received a
complaint that these duties were circumvented through assembly in the European Community.  It was
alleged that this assembly operation was superficial and consisted only of superficial putting together
of parts imported from Japan.  As the investigation was on-going, he did not want to comment anyfurther on the case.
66. However, he reiterated the position that the European Community had maintained since the
conclusion of the Uruguay Round that the fact that the Anti-Dumping Agreement did not contain a
provision on anti-circumvention, as was foreseen until relatively late in the negotiations, did not mean
that Members were not able or had no right to conduct anti-circumvention investigations on the basisof national legislation.  The European Community believed this was confirmed by the MinisterialG/ADP/M/13
Page 13
Decision on Anti-Circumvention.  At least, this Decision recognized the problem and expressed the
desire that the approaches should be harmonized.  That is why there was a Committee to discuss this
issue.  Any attempt to derive understanding from an assertion that Article VI was an exception to
GATT 1994 or the rest of the WTO Agreement was a fruitless exercise with which the European
Community did not agree.  Article VI was an integral part of the GATT, and there was no point in
saying that it had a lower or weaker value than other provisions of this Agreement.  The EuropeanCommunity believed that this camera case was a good example to illustrate that there was a need for
anti-circumvention rules and, after the case was term inated, it would not be reticent to submit the
basic facts to the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention.  Japan certainly had a right to make use of
the WTO dispute settlement provisions if it wished.
67. The delegate of Hong Kong, China stated that she did not intend to open a debate on the
meaning of the Ministerial Decision on Anti-Circumvention.  However, Hong Kong, China had a
different understanding of that Decision than the one expressed by the European Community.Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement stated that "[a]n anti-dumping measure shall be applied
only under the circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations
initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement."  Hong Kong, China
was also the subject of another anti-circumvention investigation initiated by the European
Community.  The action was against disposable lighters consigned from Hong Kong, China to theEuropean Union, even though Hong Kong, China had had no domestic export of disposable lighters to
the European Union in the last three years.  Without going into the details, it could be observed that
this particular case showed the problem of identification of the true origin of the goods concerned.
An effective way to deal with this problem was through customs-to-customs cooperation, rather than a
resort to anti-circumvention measures, which had no status in the WTO framework, and which could
adversely affect innocent traders.
68. The delegate of Korea agreed with the position expressed by the delegates of Japan and
Hong Kong, China that any actions to impose anti-dumping duties on a product under so-called anti-
circumvention laws should be avoided.  Anti-dum ping measures were only allowed to be taken
according to the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Members had discussed this anti-circumvention issue for more than a year, but ther e was no agreement as yet.  In this situation,
continuous initiations of anti-circumvention investigation based only on domestic legislation were not
helpful for reaching an agreement on this issue.  Korea hoped that this case would be settled by
procedures based on the WTO Agreement.
69. The delegate of Japan thanked the delegates from the European Community, Hong Kong,
China and Korea for their responses and comments.  Without wanting to enter into a detailed debate,
Japan wished to express its disagreement with the position expressed by the European Commission.
For example, Japan did not agree that the Ministerial Decision on Anti-Circumvention provided a
basis for anti-circumvention measures.
70. The delegate of Malaysia voiced his country's support for the position taken by Japan, Hong
Kong, China and Korea on the interpretation of the Ministerial Decision on Anti-Circumvention.71. The delegate of the European Community stated that if Hong Kong, China wished to raise
issues regarding a certain case, it should place it on the agenda of the meeting or at least raise it under
"Other Business".  While Article 1 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement indeed stated what Hong Kong,
China had read out, the European Community was of the view that its investigation against camera
systems from Japan had taken place according to the rules.  The European Community was trying to
catch somebody that had escaped, and if you want to catch somebody who has escaped you would notnormally have a new trial.G/ADP/M/13
Page 14
72. The delegate of Hong Kong, China had no intention of getting into the details of the
disposable lighter case.  While her delegation had actually thought of raising the issue under "Other
Business", the points that would have been me ntioned would have been practically the same.
Hong Kong, China had concerns about anti-circumvention actions in the absence of multilateral rules.
The fact that Hong Kong, China was speaking under this item did not change its position on this issue.
She emphasized that, under Article 1 of the Anti-D umping Agreement, anti-dumping measures could
be applied only "pursuant to investigations initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions"
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Her reading of this provision led to a different understanding than
that expressed by the European Community.
73. The delegate of the Philippines was curious about the analogy used by the European
Community of catching a person that had escaped.  The analogy with anti-circumvention should be a
little different.  In one instance, you penalized a person for having committed certain acts and told him
not to do them again.  The other investigation would be, first, whether he was the same person and,second, whether he was doing the same thing.
74. The delegate of the United States commended the delegation of Japan for placing this item on
the agenda of the meeting, so that the delegati on of the European Community had an opportunity to
think about it in advance and to make some statements.  In this same vein, and given the sensitivity of
the topic of circumvention and the fact that there was a Ministerial Decision and an Informal Group todiscuss the question of anti-circumvention and examine that Ministerial Decision, it would seem more
appropriate and in keeping which the Committee's work for Members not to raise specific cases under
other agenda items.  It would be best for the wo rk of the Committee either to put such items on the
agenda of the meeting or to raise them, if absolutely necessary, under "Other Business".
Subsequently, the delegate of the United States clarified that the United States basic position on anti-circumvention issues remained unchanged.  In summary, the United States believes that if anti-
dumping measures are valid, reasonable measures to preserve their integrity are also valid, and that
the Ministerial Decision confirmed this view.  The United States does not believe that Article VI of
the GATT 1994 is an exception to Article I, and does not believe that either Articles 1 or 18.1 of the
Agreement prohibit anti-circumvention actions.
75. The Committee took note of the statements made.
J. O THER BUSINESS
(i) Mexico - Anti-dumping investigation by Ecuador on Portland Cement (Type II) from
Mexico
76. The delegate of Mexico stated that his delegation had a number of written questions that he
wished to submit to the Secretariat to be passed on so that, at the next meeting, the Government of
Ecuador could respond to those questions, also in writing.3  While he did not intend to read all of the
questions, he noted his delegations concern that there appeared to have been some publicity regarding
the anti-dumping measures by the Ecuadorian authorities before the investigation was initiated.
Furthermore, the Government of Mexico was not notified before the investigation was undertaken, as
provided for under Article 5.5.  In addition, Mexico believed that the authority did not have a legalbasis for not having sent the complete file (including the annexes). Neither the period covered by the
investigation, nor the information required from the parties, nor how this information was to be
provided, had been specified.  Mexico understood that there was but a single price reference and that
there were no supporting documents, and did not believe that the single reference to normal value was
representative.  There was no evidence of increases in imports or possible injury, nor was the method
                                                     
3 Mexico's questions were subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/W/405 (17 November 1998).G/ADP/M/13
Page 15
used to determine the existence of dumping specified.  Further, the Government of Ecuador appeared
to have ratified a decree which dictated the resolution of initiation together with a later decree.  The
first decree, dated 1991, on which the investigation was based, had been superseded by a second
decree dated April 1998.
77. The delegate of Ecuador thanked the representative of Mexico for having informed him the
day before, as a courtesy, that Mexico intended  to raise this item under "Other Business" and would
be posing some questions.  At that time, he had believed that the questions referred to related to the
notification of the legislation which was the subject of an earlier agenda item.  However, the questions
actually related to an anti-dumping investigation regarding Portland cement from Mexico.  Once he
received them officially, he would pass them on to his capital so that they could be examined by the
authorities in Ecuador.  As a preliminary comment, he observed that the questions, in addition to
requesting information on a particular case where an investigation had been initiated, did appear toprejudge the situation and, in fact, even the result s of the investigation.  This would be rather like
Ecuador asking a Member why they are dumping before having undertaken an investigation.  This
contrasts with the position of Ecuador, which, at the request of Mexico, had extended the deadlines
for Mexican corporations involved in the investigat ion so that they would have time to present all of
the information requested.  The position taken by the delegation of Mexico was an attempt to dissuadeEcuador from exercising its right to undertake an investigation.  He recalled that the delegation of
Mexico had raised the issue of the initiation of the investigation at the July meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body.  The delegation of Ecuador had commented at that time in the same terms as it was
commenting here.
78. The Committee took note of the statements made.
(ii) Mexico – Anti-dumping Investigation by Panama on Sugar
79. The delegate of Mexico stated that this matter concerned an anti-dumping investigation
initiated by Panama concerning sugar imports from Mexico, and from Colombia.  His delegation had
written questions concerning this matter, which he would submit to the Secretariat to be circulated, so
that, at the next meeting, the Government of Panama could respond to those questions, also inwriting.
4  His delegation was concerned in that they understood the application did not include
information concerning the identity of the alleged Mexican exporters – he noted that he did not think
Mexico exported sugar to Panama.  Moreover, it appeared that the Government of Mexico had not
been notified before the investigation was initiated on 16 July 1998, but only more than 80 days later,
on 8 October 1998.  In addition, in Mexico's view, the application did not contain sufficient evidenceto indicate that imports from Mexico were causing in jury to the domestic injury, especially in light of
his understanding that Mexico did not export suga r to Panama.  Moreover, in Mexico's view, the
Panamanian authorities had not considered the relevance of the information submitted with the
application.
80. The delegate of Panama thanked the representative of Mexico for having raised this matter.
Unfortunately,  he was not in a position to provide answers at this time, but would pass on any written
questions to his authorities in capital.
(iii) Egypt - South Africa's measures affecting Aluminium Hollowware imported or
originating from Egypt
81. The delegate of Egypt stated that on 10 Oc tober 1995, South Africa's Board of Tariffs and
Trade received a petition seeking the imposition of anti-dumping measures against aluminium
                                                     
4 Mexico's questions were subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/W/406 (17 November 1998).G/ADP/M/13
Page 16
hollowware imported or originated from Egypt.  The Board's Public notice of the initiation of the
investigation was published on 27 October 1995, and two Egyptian companies were involved in this
investigation.  The Board's preliminary finding was published on 24 May 1996, and the imposition of
provisional duties was as follows:  R 16.39/Kg. (Atlas Factory);  R 21.06/Kg. (Sally Factory);
R 17.25/Kg. (other manufacturers in Egypt).  The Board's final report was published on
5 February 1997, the imposition of final duties was as follows:  R 29.52/Kg. (Atlas Factory);R 0.22/Kg. (Sally Factory);  R 2.52/Kg. (other manufacturers in Egypt).  The anti-dumping duties
were imposed with retrospective effect from 24 May 1996.
82. On 4 September 1998, the Board on Tariffs and Trade advised that it had initiated an urgent
investigation of a proposal to increase the final anti-dumping duties imposed on aluminium
hollowware imported from or manufactured by any manufacturer other than the two companies
involved.  The notice stated that the anti-dumping duties which were imposed on the specific
manufacturers were being circumvented by certain  exporters and/or importers through the lower
residual duties.  The Board did not provide the basis on which dumping duties were being
circumvented by unnamed exporters or importers, no evidence has been provided concerning the
circumvention.  The Board did not provide any information if the unnamed exporters were new
shippers or not.  Consequently the new Egyptian exporters were restricted to practice their rights
according to the terms of Article 9.5.
83. The conduct of that investigation for increasing the existing anti-dumping final duties was
considered inconsistent with both Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Agreement on Anti-Dumping.  The Board
had not applied the review required in Article 9.5, and in Article 11 before its decision to increase the
existing anti-dumping final duties.  The Board had not replied to the Egyptian Government's request
concerning providing information about the new decision and the legal basis of the initiation of suchan investigation, which prevents the Egyptian parties to defend their interests.  Therefore, the
Government of Egypt requested the South African Authority to abolish and terminate immediately
this investigation given the full inconsistency with the following Articles of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement:  Article 1 (principles);  Article 6 (evidence);  Article 9 (imposition and collection of anti-
dumping duties);  Article 11 (duration and review of anti-dumping duties and price undertakings);
Article 15 (developing country members); and Article 18 (final provisions).  The delegation of Egypt
also reserved its right to raise the matter in the DSB.
84. The Chairman noted that South Africa was not represented at the meeting.
85. The Committee took note of the statement made.
K. A NNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
86. The Committee adopted its annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods.5
                                                     
5Subsequently circulated as document G/L/268 (5 November 1998).G/ADP/M/13
Page 17
L. D ATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
87. The Chairman noted 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 next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 26 April 1999.
In light of previously scheduled meetings of the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation and the InformalGroup on Anti-Circumvention, this Committee would therefore meet on Thursday and Friday, 29-30
April 1999.
88. The meeting was adjourned.
__________