RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/56  
 
19 July 2019  
(19-4820) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 01 MAY 2019  
CHAIR: MS KARINE  MAHJOUBI ERIKS TEIN (NORWAY ) 
1.  The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee ") held a regular meeting on 
01 May 2019.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 25: 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLA TION ................................ ................................ .............................  2 
1.1   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously  
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions not 
previously reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  2 
1.1.1    Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.10 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.13 - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4); and (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.11 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.14 - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 
1.1.2    Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
1.1.3    Madagascar (G/ADP/N/1/MDG/2 - G/SCM/N/1/MDG/1 - G/SG/N/1/MDG/2) .......................  3 
1.1.4    United Arab Emirates (G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1.1.5    Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/2 – G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1 – G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 & Corr.1)  .............  3 
1.2   Review of notifications of new or amende d legislation or regulations with outstanding  
written questions  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  4 
1.2.1    Cambodia (G/ADP/N/1/KHM/2 – G/SCM/N/1/KHM/2 – G/SG/N/1/KHM /2) .........................  4 
1.2.2    Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
1.2.3    El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 
1.2.4    Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
2   SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTI ONS (ARTICLE 16.4)  ......................  6 
3   PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING A CTIONS: NOTIFICATION S ....................  11 
4   CHAIRPERSON'S RE PORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROU P ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 12 
5   CHAIRPERSON'S RE PORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP  ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  12 
6   COLUMBIA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BE LGIUM,  
GERMANY AND THE NETH ERLANDS – ITEM REQUE STED BY THE EUROPEAN  UNION  ...... 12 
7   KENYA – NON-NOTI FICATION OF ANTI -DUM PING LEGISLATION – ITEM  
REQUESTED BY THE UNI TED STATES ................................ ................................ ..............  12 G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8   UNITED STATES – THE PARTICULAR MARKE T SITUATION DETERMIN ATION IN  
THE IMPOSITION OF AN  ANTI -DUMPING MEASUR E ON CIRCULAR WELDED  CARBON  
STEEL PIPES AND TUBE S FROM THAILAND – ITEM REQUESTED BY THAI LAND  ..............  13 
9   EUROPEAN UNION – AMENDMENTS TO THE A NTI-DUMPING REGULATI ON  
(NOTIFIED IN DOCUMEN TS G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/SU PPL.2 – G/SCM/N/1/EU /2/SUPPL.2 
AND G/ADP/N/1/EU/ 3/SUPPL.3 - G/SCM/N/ 1/EU/2/SUPPL.3) – ITEM REQUESTED  
BY THE RUSSIAN FEDER ATION  ................................ ................................ ......................  14 
10   MEXICO – "NON -MARKET ECONOMY" METHO DOLOGIES A PPLIED IN ANTI -DUMPI NG 
INVESTIGATIONS AND R EVIEWS – ITEM REQUES TED BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  ... 15 
11   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 
12   DATE OF THE NEX T REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
13   ELECTION OF OFF ICERS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  18 
 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of noti fications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)1 
1.1.1   Brazil  (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.10  - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.13  - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4) ; and (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl. 11 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.14  - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.5)  
3.  Written questions were posed regarding the first notification contained in 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.10  and can be found in document s: 
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/39  - G/SCM/Q1/BRA/39  - G/SG/Q1/BRA/8 – Submit ted by Ukraine  
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/40  – G/SCM/Q 1/BRA/40  – G/SG/Q1/BRA/9 – Submit ted by the 
United  States  ("US") 
 
4.  Brazil  provided oral responses  at the meeting . Written answers to the written questions can be 
found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/43  - G/SCM/Q1/BRA/43  - G/SG/Q1/BRA/12 – Replies to Ukrain e 
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/44  - G/SCM/Q1/BRA/44  - G/SG/Q1/BRA/13 – Replies to the US  
 
5.  Ukraine  was of the view that the requirement for personal attendance in order to acquire the 
digital certification could not be considered as transparent and does not allow foreign parties to 
defend their interests.  
6.  In response, Brazil  explained that digital certification was necessary to access the dig ital system 
in order to guarantee the authenticity , integrity  and legal validity of electronic documents . 
Foreigners , not domiciled in Brazil,  seeking to obtain the certification  could do so in line with the 
established guidelines on the website of one of the certification authorities located in Brazil, and 
following this, can submit and access documents via the internet throughout the entire 
administrative proceedings.  It is also possible for a legal representative located in Brazil to gain 
access to this system.  
7.  Written questions  were posed regarding the second notification contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl. 11 and can be found in document s: 
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/41  – G/SCM/Q1/BR A/41 – G/SG/Q1/BRA/ 10 – Submit ted by the US  
                                                
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the April/May 2019 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 3 - 
G/SCM/W/57 8 - G/SG/W/24 5. G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • G/ADP/Q1/BRA/4 2 – G/SCM/Q 1/BRA/4 2 – G/SG/Q1/BRA/ 11 – Submitted by the 
Dominican  Republic  
 
8.  Brazil  provided oral responses  at the meeting . Written answers to the written questions can be 
found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/45  - G/SCM/Q1/BRA/45  - G/SG/Q1/BRA/14 – Replies to the US  
• G/ADP/Q1/BRA/46  - G/SCM/Q1/BRA/46  - G/SG/Q1/BRA/15 – Replies to the 
Dominican  Republic  
 
9.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions and answers.  
1.1.2   Ecuador ( G/ADP/N/1 /ECU/3/ Suppl.2 ) 
10.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ ECU/18  – G/SCM/Q1/ECU/18 – Submitted by the US 
11.  Ecuador  provided oral answers at the meeting . Written answers to the written questions were 
provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ECU/19  - G/SCM/Q1/ECU/19 – Replies to the US  
12.  The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers.  
1.1.3   Madagascar  (G/ADP /N/1/MDG/2  - G/SCM/N/1/MDG/1  - G/SG/N/1/MDG/2 ) 
13.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/MDG/1  - G/SCM/Q1/MDG/1  - G/SG/Q1/MDG/1 – Submitted by the US  
14.  Madagascar  made an introductory statement at the meeting. Written answers to the written 
questions were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/MDG/2  – G/SCM/Q1/MDG/2  – G/SG/Q1/MDG/2 – Replies to the U S 
15.  The Committee took note  of the notification, statement, questions and answers.  
1.1.4   United Arab Emirates  (G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1  – G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1  
– G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  
16.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in  the following 
document : 
• G/ADP/Q1/ ARE/3  – G/SCM/Q1/ARE/3  – G/SG/Q1/ARE/3 – Submitted by the US  
17.  The United Arab Emirates  referred to its statement made at the Safeguards Committee Meeting 
held on 29 April 2019 and noted that responses to the written questions from the US were being 
prepared.  
18.  The US looked forward to receiving written responses  to its written questions . 
19.  The Committee took note  of the notification , questions  and statements .  
1.1.5   Viet Nam  (G/ADP/N/1/ VNM/ 2 – G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1  – G/SG/N/1/VNM/2  & 
Corr.1 )  
20.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document s: 
• G/ADP/Q1/ VNM/3  – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/3  – G/SG/Q1/VNM/3 – Submitted by the US  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 4 - 
 
  • G/ADP/Q1/VNM/5  - G/SCM/Q1/VNM/5  - G/SG/Q1/VNM/5 – Submitted by the 
European  Union ( "EU") 
 
21.  Viet Nam  made an introductory statement at the meeting. Written answers to the US' written 
questions were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/4  - G/SCM/Q1/VNM/4  - G/SG/Q1/VNM/4 – Replies to the US  
22.  Viet Nam  stated that it was working on the responses to the questions by the EU which will be 
submitted in due course.  
23.  The EU looked forward to receiving written  responses  to its written questions .  
24.  The Committee took note  of the notification, statements, questions and answers.  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written questions  
1.2.1   Cambodia  (G/ADP/N/1/ KHM/2  – G/SCM/N/1/KHM/2  – G/SG/N/1/KHM/2 ) 
25.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ KHM/1  – G/SCM/Q1/KHM/1  – G/SG/Q1/KHM/1  – Submitted by the US  
26.  The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee Meeting of 
October 2018.  
27.  Cambodia  stated that it was still in the process of preparing the responses which will be 
submitted in due course.  
28.  The Committee took note  of the notification , questions  and statements.  
1.2.2   Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1  – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1  – 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
29.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ CMR/3  – G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3  – G/SG/Q1/CMR/3  – Submitted by the US  
30.  The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee Meeting of 
October 2014.  
31.  Cameroon was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date.  
1.2.3   El Salvador ( G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1  - G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 ) 
32.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/SLV/8  - G/SCM/Q1/SLV/8  - G/SG/Q1/SLV/7 – Submitted by the US  
• G/ADP/Q1/SLV/9  - G/SCM/Q1/SLV/9  - G/SG/Q1/SLV/8 – Submitted by Mexico  
 
33.  The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee Meeting of 
April 2017.   
34.  El Salvador  stated that the responses are being drafted and will be submitted soon.  
35.  Mexico  looked forward to receiving written  responses  to its written questions . G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 5 - 
 
  36.  The Committee took note  of the notification , questions  and statements . 
1.2.4   Liberia  (G/ADP/N/1/ LBR/1) 
37.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ LBR/1 - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/1  – Submitted by the US  
38.  The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee Meeting of 
April 2018.  
39.  Liberia  noted that it was working on the responses which will be submitted as soon as possible.  
40.  The Committee took note  of the notification , questions  and statements .  
41.  The Chair indicated that with respect to the agenda item pertaining to continuing  review of 
legislative notifications previously reviewed by the Committee, no Member had submitted – by the 
18 March 2019  deadline – any written questions relating to such notifications. Thus , the item entitled 
"National Legislation – Continuing Review of Legislative Notifications Previously Reviewed 
by the Committee " was not on the agenda of the Committee 's spring  meeting.  
42.  The Chair informed Members that pursuant to the Committee 's agreed procedures , in order for 
a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the autumn  meeting of the Committee, 
the notification should be circulated in all three languages not later than six weeks before the 
meeting . Shortly after this date, the Secretari at will circulate a document informing Members of all 
legislative notifications to be reviewed at the next autumn meeting . 
43.  The Chair  reminded Members that pursuant to paragraph 8 of document G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1, 
all unanswered written questions pertaining to  new legislative notifications reviewed at the meeting, 
as well as the subject notifications, shall automatically be retained on the agenda of the next 
Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Committee meetings until written answers 
are submitte d. 
44.  The Chair  noted that the new legislative notification from Mauritius , as well as any others 
received and circulated by the applicable deadlines ,2 would be review ed under agenda item  1 at the 
next Committee Meeting in the autumn of 2019. Written question s concerning this, and any new 
legislative notifications should be submitted to the Member whose legislation is concerned and to 
the Secretariat not less than three weeks before the meeting.  
45.  The Chair also noted that in order to place previously -reviewed legislation on the agenda of the 
autumn meeting for further review, written questions must be submitted to the Member concerned 
and the Secretariat, not less than six  weeks before the meeting; and writt en answers to such 
questions must be submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat, not less than two  weeks 
before the meeting.  
46.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on legislation, 
particularly where all t hat would be required is a nil notification. The Chair  encouraged Members that 
had not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.  The Chair also stressed 
the importance of reviewing legislation of Members conducting AD investigat ions, reminded that 
Article  18.5 of the AD Agreement provides the relevant provision for notification of domestic laws 
and/or regulations relating to AD, and noted that any modification to laws, regulations or 
administrative procedures must also be promptl y notified. The Chair further explained that the 
notifications are to be in the form of the full texts of the relevant laws and/or regulation in English 
or French or Spanish. If a Member is unable to notify the text of existing legislation, then an 
explana tion of why such legislation is not notified should be submitted.  
47.  Furthermore, t he Chair informed Members that  the Secretariat has modified the Handbook of 
AD-related notification obligations and the mock examples for legislative notifications to be 
                                                
2 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 3 - G/SCM/W/57 8 - 
G/SG/W/24 5. G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 6 - 
 
  submitted . These can be found on the AD webpage and can add additional clarity as to how and 
when the notification obligations should be fulfilled . 
48.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.47 , the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the informat ion 
required by Article  16.5 of the AD Agreement and encouraged Members to review and update 
previously submitted information , where necessary.  
49.  The US appreciated the fact that most Members had submitted a notification concerning  their 
domestic AD legisla tion or a one -time nil notification. However, some countries which had not 
provided a notification of their legislative status had indicated in the context of their trade policy 
review reports that they had AD laws in effect. In other words, the respective  WTO Members had 
already gone to the effort of informing the WTO of their AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. 
The US, therefore, encouraged Members to review their respective situations and to make the 
appropriate notification promptly. It also  noted that notification of AD laws and revisions to these 
laws were a key element in maintaining transparency in the administration of the AD instrument . 
Accordingly, it thanked Members that had already provided legislative notifications to the Committee 
for review and urged  Members implementing relevant legislation to submit future notifications 
promptly. It encouraged Members to think creatively as to the means of improving compliance with 
notification requirements.  
50.  The US also referred to  its pr oposal in the Council for Trade in Goods  ("CTG") , circulated in 
document JOB/CTG/10/Rev.1, seeking to address the issue of missing notifications across a number 
of Committees. It noted that Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa  Rica, the EU, Japan, New  Zealand 
and Chinese Taipei had joined as co -sponsors of an updated  version of its proposal. The US 
welcomed further discussion on the proposal and noted  that it was meeting Members to discuss 
means of improving transparency.  
51.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
2  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTI ONS (ARTICLE 16.4)  
52.  The Chair  recalled that a request and a re minder for submission of semi -annual reports for the 
second  half of  2018 had been circulated in document s G/ADP/N/ 322 and G/ADP/N/322/ Suppl.1, 
respectively . Members taking no AD actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice 
per year. This woul d not apply to those Members that had already submitted a one -time notification 
under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD  Agreement.  
53.  The Chair  noted that a significant number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notif ication requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except for the 49 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification.3 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notific ation requirement.  
54.  The Chair raised concerns regarding the late submission of semi -annual reports, technical errors 
in reports submitted and slow responses  to the Secretariat 's requests for corrections, which had the 
cumulative effect of reducing transpare ncy, undermin ing the ability to maintain an updated and 
reliable database, and plac ing an unnecessary burden on the Secretariat 's limited resources. The 
Chair urged Members to comply with announced submission deadlines, to carefully review 
information in their semi-annual reports prior to submission and  to provide quick responses to the 
Secretariat's queries in this respect .  
55.  The Chair  also explained that being aware of the c hallenges facing Members in this area, the 
Secretariat has been - for a number of years - discussing how best to develop an on -line notification 
interface for semi -annual reports. The first step was to include in the MADRE case -management 
software a facili ty for generating these reports. For those Members that would want only to use this 
feature of MADRE, that is a possibility, and simply requires the one -time exercise of creating an 
Excel table with the relevant information on the measures currently in for ce, importing that 
information and then keeping it updated through the software. The Secretariat is happy to provide 
                                                
3 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 7 - 
 
  further information and explanation about this to any interested delegations. Semi -annual report 
data generated through MADRE is in a forma t that could be directly imported into the Rules Division 's 
databases. The Secretariat can provide further information on the possibility of transferring these 
data from MADRE to interested delegations .  
56.  In addition, as a separate project which has just be en launched, the Rules and the IT  Division s 
are cleaning up and redesigning the existing trade remedies databases and are developing a facility 
that Members will be able to use to submit their semi -annual reports on -line. The idea is that the 
interface wil l consist of a series of fields to be completed with all of the required information. The 
interface will be enabled with smart features, to automatically prepopulate data from prior reports 
for ongoing investigations and other actions, and to populate rela ted fields with data that appears 
in more than one table in the reports. The interface also will be programmed to try to catch the most 
common types of reporting errors that give rise to internal inconsistencies, so that data problems 
would  be minimized by  the time the report is submitted. The Secretariat would be very interested 
in hearing views from Members about the sorts of features that would make this interface as user -
friendly and useful for Members as possible and will be circulating a note to Membe rs to that effect  
in due course . The Secretariat will keep the Committee updated on progress as the project proceeds . 
57.  The Chair finally added that t his project for the revamping of the trade remedies databases and 
the on -line notification facility would fi t into the larger context of the so -called Open Trade Initiative  
("OTDI") , which is a joint project of the WTO and the International Trade Centre. The broad aim of 
the OTDI is to make readily accessible as much trade -related information as possible, includ ing on 
trade remedies. While the full outlines of the OTDI are still under discussion, the need to upgrade 
the trade remedies databases made this a good fit for the first phase of the broader project. 
Ultimately, the quality and accessibility of trade reme dies information will be significantly improved 
through these efforts . 
58.  The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the second  half of 201 8. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of  Argentina; Armenia; Australia;  Chile;  
Columbia; Costa  Rica, Dominican  Republic, Egypt, El  Salvador, India, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan; 
Republic  of Korea; Kyrgyz  Republic; Malaysia; Mexico; Morocco; New  Zealand; Oman on behalf of 
the six GCC member States, namely the Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait,  Oman, Qatar, the 
Kingdom  of Saudi  Arabia and the United  Arab Emirates ; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; 
Russian  Federation; South  Africa; Chinese  Taipei; Thailand; Trinidad  and Tobago; Turkey; Ukraine 
and Viet  Nam.  
59.  On the semi -annual report of Brazil , Ukrain e referred to the initiation of expiry  review s on 
heavy plates and on tires for passenger cars on 2 October  2018 and 16 January  2019, respectively . 
The AD  duties imposed have led Ukraine to cease exports of these products  and suspend trade 
relations with its Brazilian partners . According to Ukraine, this confirm ed that imports of these 
products from Ukraine do not cause or threaten to cause material injury. Moreover, Ukraine 
considered that the determination of  the likelih ood of the recurrence of dumping based on a 
comparison of the internalized average normal value in the Brazilian market and the average sales 
price of the like domestic product in the Brazilian market did not prove the existence of dumping. In 
this context , as per  Article  11.3 of the AD  Agreement the se measure s should lapse because there is 
no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  
60.  Brazil  noted that Article  11 of the AD  Agreement allowed countries to extend AD duties if there 
is likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Brazil 's legislation incorporated 
these provisions and further provide d the methodology for  comparison between the normal value of 
countries subject to the AD  measures with the prices of products in the domestic market  or 
comparison of internalized normal values  with prices of other sources, i.e. imports of other countries . 
Brazil stated that this was an objective methodology for the analysis of the likelihood o f recurrence 
of dumping and was i n full conformity with the AD  Agreement. It invited Ukraine to submit its views 
to the Brazilian authority in the still ongoing reviews.   
61.  On the semi -annual report of Canada , the Republic  of Korea  requested Canada for information 
on the normal value reviews in relation to Korean exports of liquid dielectric transformers and certain 
carbon and alloy steel line pipes. The Canada  Border  Services  Agency  (CBSA) had initiated these 
reviews in November  2018 and September  2018, resp ectively . Since normal value reviews had not 
normally been undertaken in Canada before  July 2018 , respondents did not have the necessary 
information to better prepare themselves for such reviews. Therefore, the Republic  of Korea G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 8 - 
 
  requested the CBSA to provide Korean exporters with clear guidelines on the procedure adopted. To 
illustrate, if exporters do not notify the investigating authority of changes in the domestic market 
situation, new normal value can be applied retrospectively. Given  that prices fluctuate frequently, 
often on a daily basis, the exporters were uncertain  as to how often they would need to report price 
changes to the relevant authority. Further, the Republic  of Korea urged  Canada to avoid imposing 
unnecessary or unreasonable burden s on businesses in the normal value reviews .  
62.  Canada  stated that the CBSA periodically conducts normal v alue reviews to ensure that normal 
values reflect market realities . Normal value review proceedings are similar to re -investigations, 
which are proceedings to update normal values, export prices or amounts of subsidy, or establish 
normal values for new exp orters or new models. However, they are conducted with respect to a 
single exporter, as opposed to all exporters. Accordingly, the CBSA applies these new administrative 
proceedings  for instance  when a significant volume of imports is sold by a single expor ter and there 
is no need to conduct re -investigation for all exporters , or when  there are new models that are 
limited to a particular exporter or limited number of exporters . Normal value reviews have the same 
procedural steps as re -investigations, including notification of interested parties, opportunities to 
provide information and disclosure of information.  
63.  On the semi -annual report of China , Japan  expressed  its concerns with respect to  China 's 
investigation s regarding  two products, namely: (i) stainless billets, hot -rolled plates and coils; and 
(ii) vertical machining centres.  
64.  In terms of stainless billets, hot -rolled plates and coils, Japan  was concerned with the 
investig ation initiated in July  2018 and the preliminary determination made in March  2019 impos ing 
AD measures. The product scope considered in the investigation and the preliminary determination 
was too broad as it included semi -final and final products. Since th e use and consumers of these 
products are considerably different, Japan was of the view that the finding s of injury to the domestic 
industry and causal link between imports and injury were flawed . In this context, Japan urged  the 
Chinese investigating auth ority to ensure that the final determination is consistent with the 
AD Agreement.   
65.  In terms of vertical machining centres, Japan  drew attention to the on -going investigation on 
this product initiated in October 2018. It was of the view that Japanese products should be excluded 
from the products under consideration, as Japanese and Chinese products are not in a competiti ve 
relations hip. Japan noted that Japanese companies manufacture and export both small and large 
models, and their physical features and use s differ. Therefore, the Chinese investigating authority 
should consider  the competiti ve relationship between Japanese and Chine se products, even if 
Japanese products are subject to investigation. Japan  requested the Chinese investigating authority 
to ensure that its findings and determination are consistent with the AD  Agreement.  
66.  In response to Japan, China  noted that the investi gations had been initiated by MOFCOM at the 
request of the Chinese domestic industry, and the investigating authorities have provided sufficient 
opportunities to all interested parties to submit questionnaire responses and comments. Presently, 
the investig ations are still ongoing . China hoped that the relevant interested parties will actively 
cooperate in the investigation and assured that the investigati ng authority will make the 
determination legally, objectively and impartially.  
67.  On the semi -annual repor t of China , the Republic  of Korea  raised its concerns in respect of the 
definitive AD duties imposed on Acrylonitrile -Butadiene Rubber, also referred to as "NBR". It noted 
that in calculating costs, the investi gating  authority had refused to use the actual cost for the input 
manufactured by the exporter. Instead, it calculated costs based on the external purchase price on  
account of the cost of self -produced material being below market or average sales price.  Accordin g 
to Korea, however, the reported  costs had been  duly established in accordance with accounting 
standards. Therefore, the Republic  of Korea submitted that it was inconsistent with Article  2.2.1.1 
of the AD  Agreement to reject the actual cost solely because  it was too low . It referred to the  
WTO Appellate  Body Report in the EU – Biodiesel  dispute  as reaffirm ing that Article 2.2.1.1 of the 
AD Agreement disallows investigating authorit ies to evaluate the reasonableness of cost . In this 
context, the Republic of Korea requested the Chinese investigating authority to full y respect and 
observe relevant WTO rules in its application of AD  measures.  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 9 - 
 
  68.  In response to Korea, China  assured that its investigations were in line with WTO rules and 
relevant Chinese law and regulations. It noted that, during the investigation, the investigating 
authority had provided ample opportunities for interested parties to present their opinions , had held 
several meetings with the Republic  of Korea  and had given  detailed explanations . It explained that 
WTO rules and Chinese laws  require  the cost record s of the company to be in accordance with the 
generally accepted accounting principles and to reaso nably reflect costs associated with the 
production and sale of the product. The same holds for intercorporate  transfer pricing and related 
purchase pricing, which may affect the  reasonab leness  and cred ibility  of the records. This is why  the 
investigating authority usually demand s exporters to provide complete and detailed accounting 
records, including inventories, consumption of inputs  and expense allocations. China stated that in 
this case the Korean exporters had not provided sufficien t evidence to demonstrate that the 
intercorporate  transfer price reasonably reflect ed the cost of production and sale of the subject 
product. Therefore, the investigating authority use d the purchase price or sale s price of the material 
to recalculate the s elf-made materials ' cost.  
69.  On the semi -annual report of the EU, the Russian  Federation  raised two concerns with respect 
to provisional AD  measures on imports of mixtures of  urea and ammonium nitrate originating , inter 
alia, in the Russia n Federation . It first raised the issue of non -application of the lesser duty rule but 
deferred to its  detailed explanation in the context of the discussion of the amendments to the EU's 
AD legislation under Agenda  Item 9. Its second concern related to the use of the cost-adjustment 
methodology  by the EU . In calculati ng normal value , the EU replaced the costs for natural gas 
actually paid by the Russian producers with the costs for natural gas at the German/Czech border  
and that  this methodology was challenged by  the Russia n Federation  in the WTO  dispute DS494. 
The Russian  Federation noted existing panel and Appellate  Body decisions on the inconsistency of 
such methodology with Articles  2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the AD  Agreement . Since the investigation was 
still ongoing, it urged the EU to take the opportunity to recalculate the normal value for Russian 
producers in a WTO -consistent manner.  
70.  The EU stressed that its legislation and practices were in full compliance with the existing WTO 
rules and dispute settlement practice . This was particularly the case of the ongoing investigation 
regarding imports of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in the Russian  Federation. 
The EU ha s, so far,  only adopted provisional measures in this investigation. With regard to the so -
called cost adjustment methodology, the EU recalled that this issue was subject to an ongoing WTO 
dispute  between the EU and  the Russian Federation , and that it would  therefore not comment on 
this issue. The EU further recalled that the deadline for comments on the adopted provisional 
measures is currently ongoing and that the Russian  Federation and exporting producers therefor e 
have an opportunity to provide comments which will be duly taken into account in the investigation.   
71.  On the semi -annual report of Indonesia , Kazakhstan  expressed its concerns with the AD  duty 
imposed on hot -rolled coil ( "HRC"). It recalled that Indonesi a, following  a sunset review  initiated 
in 2012, extended the imposition of AD  duties on  HRC imports from the Russian  Federation to those 
originat ing in Kazakhstan without ever having made any original  determination s of dumping, injury, 
and causation , as well as any subsequent determinations of likelihood of continuation or recurrence 
of dumping and injury  in respect of imports from Kazakhstan . The Indonesian Anti-Dumping 
Committee ( "KADI") had never investigated impo rts of HRC from Kazakhstan. The only justification 
given for exten ding the AD duties to imports from Kazakhstan was the existence of a customs union 
between Kazakhstan, the Russia n Federation, and Belarus.  Moreover, another sunset review of the 
AD duties  imposed on HRC from, among others, Kazakhstan initiated in 2017 , was conducted without 
a proper investigation and without any  determination of material injury from dumped imports. KADI 
justified the continued application of the measure against Kazakhstan based on concerns of anti -
circumvention. In this review , Kazakhstan had explain ed that the Customs Union, and thus the 
absence of internal borders,  could not change the origin of goods and thus not lead to any 
circumvention . Moreover, Kazakhstan was of the view that the Essential Facts Report failed to 
demonstrate that the  requirements were satisfied for the continued imposition of the AD measure 
on HRC .  
72.  Kazak hstan  noted that the AD measure  on HRC  could not be prolonged , as the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the AD Agreement had not been fulfilled  on several grounds. First, WTO 
and domestic law s neither  permit the application of  AD measure s without determinations of 
dumping, injury and causal link nor based on alleged circumvention , absent a proper circumvention 
investigation. Second, imports from Kazakhstan had never been investigated  and a sunset review 
of such imports without any original determin ation of dumping and injury does not comply with  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Article  11.3 of the AD Agreement . Third, the disclos ure of essential facts was flawed as it remained 
unclear what data had been  used to conclude that dumping margins exist with regard to producers 
of Kazakhs tan. Further, Kazakhstan pointed to certain facts which contradicted, in its view, the 
determination of the likelihood of recurrence or continuation of dumping and injury but which had 
been disregar ded by KADI.  Fourth, Kazakhstan reiterated that any anti-circumvention concerns 
could have been  addressed through customs control  of the national certificates of origin, instead of 
the extension and continued application of the AD measures at issue. Accordingly, Kazakhstan 
encouraged Indonesia to terminate the application of the AD measure on imports of HRC.  
73.  Indonesia  stated that KADI had provided the notice of initiation and a  non-confidential version 
of the complaint to Kazakhstan on 21  December  2017. Interested parties had 70  days to respond 
but KADI did not receive any response s from interested producers in Kazakhstan and,  therefore , 
had the right to use best information available . Further, in response to a letter from the Minister of 
National Economy of the Government of Kazakhstan, KADI had provided  explanations in its letters 
dated 19  February, 14  March  and 1  August  2018. The AD duty currently imposed  on imports from 
countries including China, India and Kazakhstan was put in place by the Minister of Trade on 
19 March  2019 and came into effect in April  2019. Indonesia  reiterated that dumping from the 
investigated countries lead to  injury, and the investigation itself was conducted in line with the 
AD Agreement and Indonesian law.  
74.  On the semi -annual report of the US, the Republic of Korea  reiterated its concerns regarding  
the determination of a particular market situation ( "PMS") and the use of adverse facts available 
("AFA") by the US , and their application to Korean exporters. It noted that despite raising this issue 
at the last meeting, the US had not ceased its  practices , but rather had taken new additional 
measures in line with such practices.  
75.  In terms of the US ' determination of PMS, the Republic of Korea  noted that it had raised 
concerns since April 2017 when PMS was applied in the first annual review for Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (" OCTG "). Nevertheless, t he US had subsequently expanded the application of PMS to  other 
cases . The Republic  of Korea  stated that in these cases the investigating authority had failed to 
provide a reasonable explanation of the grounds for its assessment that PMS exist ed. In the first 
annual preliminary review determination on OCTG, the authority had initially held that PMS did not 
exist. Yet, after the definitive review , it reversed the decision and held that PMS did exist , without 
giving any  substantive explanation . In subsequent reviews, the determination on OCTG was 
automatically adopted, except for one instance in February  2019. The Republic  of Korea was of the 
view that its steel market was not particular enough to justify an affirmative determination of PMS. 
In its view, the application of PMS  to Korean exporters was discriminatory and  inconsistent with 
Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement .  
76.  Regardi ng the US' use of AFA, the Republic  of Korea  pointed out that the US had often resorted 
to the use of AFA and drew adverse inferences without regard to the obligations set forth in 
Article  6.8 and Annex  II of the AD Agreement. When  Korean exporters alleged ly fail ed to provide 
the required information  to determin e dumping margins, the relevant US investigating authority had 
selectively chosen facts available, rather than using the best information available. This practi ce 
often leads to punitively high dumpi ng margins. Further,  the Republic  of Korea stated that its 
exporters were under a heavy administrative burden to supply necessary documentation to the 
US authority, in the absence of objective criteria in relation to the circumstances and manner of 
applica tion of AFA. While Korean exporters have recently sought to provide as much evidence and 
information as possible to avoid the use of AFA, the US authority did not  provide sufficient 
opportunities for exporters to defend their interests. As an example, the Republic of Korea mentioned 
a case, already referred to in the last meeting , in which the US used total AFA to impose AD duties 
of 60.81%  based on a discrepancy between the documents submitted by the petitioner and by the 
respondent but  did not take into account  information submitted after the preliminary determination 
as well as a request for verification.  The Republic  of Korea, quoting paragraph 5 of Annex II of the 
AD Agreement,  requested the US investigating authority to use AFA in a WTO consistent manner, 
not to apply  AFA that exceeds reasonable expectations of sincerely cooperating exporters, and to 
provide  sufficient opportunities for exporters to have their voices heard in order to avoid AFA.  
77.  In respond ing to Korea 's statement on P MS, the US referred  to Section  504 of the Trade 
Preferences Extension Act  2015 which provide s for the concept of PMS. The US noted that in 
April 2017, the US Department of Commerce  ("USDOC ") had announced the first final determination 
addressing this issue and subsequently had received a number of new allegations on PMS  under this G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 11 - 
 
  new statutory provision. Currently, the USDOC had reached several additional final determinations 
addressing PMS allegations, of which some were affirmative, while some were negative. In the case 
of affirmative results, the USDOC  had made adjustments to costs of inputs in question used by the 
respondents to account for these distortions. Interested parties were able to review all the record 
evidence leading to the USDOC 's findings and were provided with adequate opportunities to make 
comments and submit evidence to defend their interests. Further, in all cases, the USDOC had based 
its determination on facts on the rec ord of the investigative proceedings which are reflected in the 
relevant Federal Register notices and accompanying decision memorand a. 
78.  The US also noted that it was inappropriate to comment on the issue of the use of AFA, as the 
matter was currently subjec t to dispute settlement proceedings at the WTO.  
79.  No comments were made with respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not 
previously reviewed due to late circulation.  
80.  The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, statements, questions and answers.  
3  PRELIMINARY AND FINA L ANTI -DUMPING ACTIO NS: NOTIFICATIONS  
81.  The Chair referred to the notifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by Members 
since the Committee 's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/ 320, 321, 323, 324, 325 and 3 26. 
During this period Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Egypt; El  Salvador; the EU; the GCC 
member States, namely the Kingdom of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia 
and the United  Arab Emirates; India; Indonesia; Japan; Ka zakhstan; Korea; the Kyrgyz  Republic; 
Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; the Russian  Federation; South  Africa; Chinese  Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine 
and the US notified preliminary and/or final AD actions, which were listed in these documents. Since 
document G/ADP/N/ 326 was circulated, Argentina ; Australia;  Brazil;  Chile; the EU; Indonesia; 
Israel; Kazakhstan; the Kyrgyz  Republic; Mexico; the Russian  Federation; Turkey; Ukraine and the 
US have submitted such a notification, which would appear in the next list circulated by the 
Secretariat.  
82.  The Chair drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with this notification 
requirement. These reports are a key element of the required transparency concerning Members ' 
AD actions, and the Committee cannot effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions 
if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard. The Chair  strongly urged all Members taking 
AD actions to provide these notifications of preliminary and final actions, consistent ly and in a timely 
fashion. The minimum information format for these notifications adopted by the Committee in 
October 2006 and revised in October 2009 (document G/ADP/2/Rev.2), contain s important guidance 
as to the kinds of actions that should be notified  and the information that should be provided.  
83.  The Chair noted that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc  notifications 
pertaining to certain AD actions via different means; i.e. electronically, by fax and post. In certain 
instances, certain Me mbers, while submitting new ad hoc notifications, also tended to resubmit 
previously notified actions and in some cases provided electronic links that did not correspond to the 
notification the Member submits. In addition, some of these notifications were not submitted to the 
Centre of Registration and Notification ( CRN) directly, but to the Rules Division Secretariat which 
had to resend it to CRN for registration. The Chair  reminded all Members that a  given ad hoc 
notification, as in case of all other notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to CRN 
with a copy to the Secretary of the Committee and that any previously submitted notifications should 
not be resubmitted. The Chair  also requested Members, instead of providing electronic links to 
general website s, to attach directly the relevant document containing the action they wish to notify 
in WORD or PDF formats. Members are also able to consult presentation audios ' and interactive 
presentatio ns made by the Secretariat at the 2015 workshop on notifications, which are made 
available on the AD page on the WTO website. The Chair  stressed the need to avoid any confusion , 
repetition or duplication as these notifications were the source of necessary information contained 
in Annex D of the Committee 's annual report.  
84.  There were no statements or questions raised by Members under this Agenda Item.  
85.  The Committee took note  of the statement made .  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4  CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEET ING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON  
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
86.  The Chair recalled that the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention met on 1 May 2019. Australia  
made a detailed presentation of its experience regarding the conduct of anti -circumvention 
investigations , followed by an  interesting and live ly discussion, with Members posing questions and 
offering comments. The approach adopted in spring 2015 will be followed to determine whether the 
informal group will meet in autumn  2019.  
87.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
5  CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEET ING OF THE WORKING G ROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
88.  The Chair indicated that the Working Group on Implementation met on 25 and 26  October  2018 
in which it discussed two  dumping -related issues: the methodology to determine the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in sunset reviews; and institutional structures of 
the investigating authority . Ms Carina  Janse van Vuuren of South  Africa, serving as discussant for 
the meeting, had circulated a road map of the  issues in advanc e of the meeting to assist delegations 
in their work. The Chair noted that there was a good discussion with representatives of many 
investigating authorities sharing practices and posing questions to each other about experiences of 
Member s. 
89.  The Chair  reminded Members that the Working Group would meet on 2 and 3  May 2019 to 
discuss two injury -related issues: the gathering and examination of evidence for the determination 
of a causal relationship between dumped imports and injury to the domestic industr y; and the 
assessment of the domestic industry 's economic indicators in threat of injury analysis. 
Ms Christina  Bas of Chile, serving as discussant for the meeting, had circulated an outline  of issues 
in advance of the meeting in document RD/ADP/WGI/ 13 to assist delegations . The Chair encouraged 
all Members to attend and to participate actively in the discussions.   
90.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6  COLUMBIA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON FROZEN FRIES FROM BE LGIUM, GERMANY 
AND THE NETHERLANDS – ITEM RE QUESTED BY THE EUROP EAN UNION  
91.  The EU expressed its concerns regarding the application of AD measures  by Columbia  on frozen 
fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands  despite significant administrative and procedural 
shortcomings, which had been raised at all levels and throughout the investigation. In terms of the 
dumping margin calculation, the EU stated that Columbia had not conducted the required fair 
comparison be tween normal value  and export price  and had failed to apply the necessary 
adjustments.  Moreover, the EU pointed to methodological inconsistencies in the injury and causality 
analyses . The EU requested the measures to be revoked  and noted that if the review  proceedings 
failed to lead to revocation, it would resort to other  measures, including dispute settlement.  
92.  Columbia  noted that it had already held informal bilateral discussions  with the EU  and that given 
the technical nature of the matters raised, it wo uld be more practical to  continue bilateral discussions 
on this matter. It also noted that exporters had initiated  ongoing domestic administrative procedures 
to review the measure  and that many of the concerns raised will be addressed in these procedures. 
Columbia welcomed further engagements with the EU to understand and respond to concerns.  
93.  The Committee took note  of the statements  made.  
7  KENYA – NON-NOTIFICATION OF ANTI -DUMPING LEGISLATION – ITEM REQUESTED BY 
THE UNITED STATES  
94.  The US noted that Kenya  had recently notified its AD legislation  and stated that it would review 
and submit any questions, if necessary . It added that this item was originally placed on the agenda, 
as at the time, Kenya had an AD legislation, but had yet to submit a notific ation to the WTO.   G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 13 - 
 
  95.  Kenya  explained that its Trade Remedies Act was enacted on 21  July 2017 providing for the 
establishment of the Kenya Trade Remedies Agency , as well as  procedures and guidelines for trade 
remedies investigations. While the law came into effect on 16  August  2017, it has yet to be 
operationalized and the investigating authority is yet to be established. Kenya noted that plans are 
underway to set up the agency and it would be seeking support from Members and the Secretariat 
to build -up the capacity of  this institution. It further noted that it had submitted the notification to 
the WTO.  
96.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  UNITED STATES – THE PARTICULAR MARKET SI TUATION DETERMINATIO N IN THE 
IMPOSITION OF AN ANT I-DUMPING MEASURE ON  CIRCULAR WELDED CARB ON STEEL 
PIPES AND TUBES FROM  THAILAND – ITEM REQ UESTED BY THAILAND  
97.  Thailand  noted that it had specific concerns  regarding the USDOC 's October  2018 determination  
to impos e AD duties on Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes ("CWP"). It further noted that 
this particular determination and recent developments in the manner how Members interpret and 
apply the AD Agreement also gave rise to systemic concerns which should be addressed in th is 
Committee. The main issue concern ed the interpretation of PMS and ordinary course of trade. 
Thailand was of the view that both phrases do not permit investigating authorities to use every 
market circumstance affecting prices in market -based economies. Accordingly, the  recent approach 
of the USDOC and certain other investigating authorities went beyond what was intended in the 
Uruguay Round negotiations . Such an interpretation could  provide investigating authorities with a 
broad discreti on to rely on PMS to replace normal market -based costs with higher costs, determined 
by the investigating authority and not the market forces  themselves .  
98.  In this context, Thailand  noted that it had identified certain systemic legal concerns. First,  while 
accepting that significant government control can give rise to specific concerns,  Thailand considered 
that such concerns should not change the treatment of exporters from countries , such as Thailand,  
where prices are not controlled by the government . Second, the PMS and ordinary course of trade 
should not be interpreted to include every factor affecting prices within a Member 's market , 
especially when those factors affect markets globally and may simply reflect normal trends in 
business cyc les and conditions . Third, the extent to which an exporter 's government has imposed 
trade remedy measures is not an appropriate aspect to be taken into account when analysing the 
exporter 's pricing practices in an AD investigation. Fourth, AD investigation s are intended to 
investigate the pricing practices of exporters  and do not permit investigating Members to determine 
normal values  based on what they consider those values would be in an ideal ized world of perfect 
competition, rather than in the actual ly prevailing competitive conditions. Fifth, Thailand referred to 
the USDOC 's reference to subsidies by the Government of Thailand,  as part of the justification for 
its AD determination and stated that the SCM  Agreement provides remedies for injurious 
subsidi zation. Thailand  noted that the different disciplines of AD and countervailing  measures should 
be respected and that the trade remedy disciplines should  not be expanded through overly -broad 
interpretations that would go  beyond the purpose of such rules.  
99.  Thailand  called upon Members to discuss and reach an understanding on the notions of PMS 
and ordinary course of trade  to ensure that such approaches are used in limited circumstances 
involving very significant distortions. It also noted that this issue was being considered in dispute 
settlement proceedings but considered it important to have open discussions about it at the  
Committee 's level as well.  
100.  The US referred to Section  504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of  2015 and noted that 
the concept of PMS had been added to the list of examples to illustrate the statutory term "ordinary 
course of trade ". Referring to the relevant legislative provision, the US stated that it had received a 
number of allegations of a PMS in AD proceedings, as well as in the case of CWP from Thailand, 
resulting in the cost of production of CWP being distorted. It further noted that the finding was based 
on the cumulative effects of several factors which is publicly available in the publishe d Federal 
Register notice and accompanying decision memorandum. The US also noted that interested parties 
were able to review the record evidence and were given adequate opportunities to defend their 
interests.  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 14 - 
 
  101.  The Republic of Korea  noted that it shared m any points raised by Thailand concerning the 
application of the concept of PMS. It hoped that an open discussion in the Committee could help 
resolve the issue.  
102.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  EUROPEAN UNION – AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI -DUMPING REGULATION (NOTIFIED  
IN DOCUMENTS G/ADP/N /1/EU/3/SUPPL.2  – G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/SUPPL .2 AND 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/SUPPL .3 - G/SCM/N/1/E U/2/SUPPL.3) – ITEM R EQUESTED BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
103.  The Russian  Federation  reiterated its concerns regarding recent amendments to the 
EU AD legislation . The recent legislative amendment regarding the lesser duty rule  had already been 
applied  in the AD investigation on imports of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia, in 
the Russian  Federation. Despite  injury margins being calculated for Russian producers, higher 
provisional duties had been established at the level of dumping margins calculated based on a WTO-
inconsistent cost -adjustment methodology.   
104.  The Russian Federa tion was also of the view that the EU had exceed ed the bounds  of 
permissible conduct under WTO rules and noted specific instances in this regard. First, the EU 
requests excessive information from authorities of exporting countries, for example in respect o f 
information on how prices in the markets were established. Second, while AD investigations are 
designed to examine pricing behaviour of exporters, the EU punishes exporters for market 
circumstances beyond their influence. It noted that  the EU's decision to prepare a report on 
significant distortions in the Russian Federation  was a cause for concern. The broad discretion of the 
EU authorities in applying these amendments can result in exports of any Member being subject to 
artificially high AD duties. In this context, the Russian  Federation inquired as to when  the above -
mentioned  report would be published, requested the EU to cease its practices based on the revised 
AD legislation and to adhere to its WTO obligations.  
105.  The EU reiterated  that its legislation, including recent legislative modifications, were in line 
with existing WTO rules and WTO jurisprudence and stressed that the  legislative changes were not 
discriminatory. Further, the EU stated that the  notified  law was not intended to address the pricing 
policy of States, but rather the pricing practices of exporting producers. Concerning  the lesser duty 
rule, the EU noted that  the AD Agreement does not make its application mandatory , nor that it  
prescribe s any methodology for its application. In this regard, the notified legislation requires the 
investigating authority to take into account the existence of any distortions on ra w materials with 
regard to the product concerned, when  assessing whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping 
would be sufficient to remove injury caused by distortions in raw materials. Regarding  the right of 
the EU to request information from relevant  authorities, the EU stated that the AD Agreement does 
not prevent investigating authorities from providing concerned WTO Members  with the opportunity 
to rebut, modify or supplement  information contained in the case file on raw materials distortions. 
There fore, all parties have ample opportunity to exercise their rights. The final decision is based on 
the totality of evidence submitted in the investigation.  
106.  Further, with respect  to the query regarding the publication of the country report on the 
Russian Federation , the EU stated that research was currently underway,  and that it expects the 
report to be released later this year.  
107.  China  also raised concerns regarding the new rules for establishing normal valu e in case of the 
so-called significant distortion s in the market of an exporting country. According to China, WTO rules 
do not envisage the concept of significant market distortion s, which therefore lacked any legal basis. 
China  further stated that it was an unusual practice to issue questionnaires to the exporting country  
and to publish the so-called market distortion reports on certain Members and certain industr ies. 
This amounted to a de facto discrimination against certain Members and industries.  China  urged the 
EU to comply with  its WTO obligations and to adopt a non -discriminatory approach towards all 
Members .  
108.  The EU was of the view that this Committee  was not the forum to discuss whether legislation 
is in line with WTO rules. It also stressed that its legislation on significant distortion appli es to all 
Members when there is suffici ent evidence of that situation  in the relevant case.  The existence of  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 15 - 
 
  report s on certain WTO Members does not mean that the EU will not apply the same  methodology 
to other Members when  sufficient evidence is presented in a particular case by relevant parties.  
109.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  MEXICO – "NON-MARKET ECONOMY " METHODOLOGIES APPLIED I N ANTI -DUMPING 
INVESTIGATIONS AND R EVIEWS – ITEM REQUES TED BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  
110.  The Russian Federation  expressed its concerns regarding Mexico 's application of non -market 
methodologies. The Russian  Federation referred to  four AD measures imposed by Mexico on steel 
products of Russian origin  which were introduced in the 1990s and early 2000s and were still in 
force. It noted that the AD duties had  been based on dumping margins which were calculated long 
before the accession of the Russian  Federation to the WTO, based on surrogate country data. 
However, non -market economy methodologies continued to be used in the sunset reviews conducted 
by the Mexican authorities, even after the accession of the Russian  Federation to the WTO in 2012. 
Referring to Articles  2.1, 2.2 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement, the Russian  Federation highlighted the 
need to adhere to WTO provisions in conducting investigations and re views on products from WTO 
Members . The Russian  Federation was of the view that derogat ion from the prescribed normal value 
calculation by using non-market methodologies is permissible only if provided for in the Member 's 
protocol of accession to the WTO, which is not the case for the Russian Federation, or under the 
conditions of the second supplementary provision to paragraph  1 of Article  VI in Annex  I to the 
GATT , which are not met in  the Russian  Federation 's case.  
111.  The Russia n Federation  also recalled that contrary to what Mexico 's investigating authority had 
claimed , the Russian exporters ' non-participation in the sunset reviews can  only lead to the use of 
facts available, but not the application of surrogate country data.  Even in case of non -participation 
of foreign exporters, the investigating authority must calculate normal value  based on domestic 
sales, costs of production in the country of origin or export prices to the appropriate third country 
market. Accordingly, the Russia n Federation requested the Mexican authorities to withdraw all 
AD measures currently in force against Russian products.  
112.  Mexico  noted that the AD measures were indeed applied to exports of certain steel products 
from the Russian Federation  based on investi gations conducted a long time ago, with the last of the 
investigations concluding in 2005. Accordingly, it has been almost 13 years since the surrogate 
country methodology was used for the last time in investigations involving Russian products . Mexico 
subm itted that the Russia n Federation 's statement that its economy is no longer a non -market 
economy was contrary to the statement of the Russian Minister of Economy on 24  June 2005. The 
Russian Minister had stated that the Russian economy still did not functi on as a market economy 
and was facing difficulties in achieving this status. Mexico accepted that transforming into a market 
economy is a long proce ss and noted that the Russian  Federation  itself had recognized that it was 
not a market economy, even after the imposition of the original measures. This status has never 
been refuted by the Russian Federation  or its exporters during the  proceedings. Thus, the lack of 
information provided by  the Russia n Federation  prevented Mexico from assess ing the Russian 
concerns raised here.  
113.  Mexico  also referred to several bilateral discussions with the Russian  Federation  in which it 
had explained in detail these matters . While the Russian  Federation  expresses its concerns at 
meetings, it does not do so in the actual proceedings and , therefore, the investigating authority is 
unable to take these arguments into account.  In the most recent meeting, the Russian  Federation  
had requested  the measures to be automatically withdrawn, w hich would be outside the technical 
and legal process. Mexico explained that such actions are contrary to due process  and that it  is 
important to adhere to the appropriate procedures to ensure  a proper evaluation of all issues and to 
give all  interested pa rties an opportunity to defend their interests. In order for the Mexican 
investigating authority to take into account the concerns raised by the Russia n Federation , Mexico 
stressed that it w as necessary for the Russian Government and exporters to actively participate in 
the proceedings and to provide information to support their claims.   
114.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 16 - 
 
  11  OTHER BUSINESS  
115.  The Chair encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under the agenda 
item 'other business ' to provide sufficient notice to the Member concerned prior to the meeting in 
order to ascertain whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting . 
116.  The Republic of Korea  suggested that Members  share experiences and practices in the 
application of the concept  of PMS during the next Committee meeting. The Republic of Korea noted 
that the interpretation of PMS varied among different Members , and variou s practices and 
procedures for constructing normal value  are emerging . It further noted that while Members have a 
certain level of discretion in determining the existence of PMS and in constructi ng normal value, it 
was also necessary to ensure th at such  practices do not restrict  trade and do not undermine the 
predictability of the application of AD rules and procedures. The Republic of Korea clarified that the 
purpose of the proposal for Members to exchange views and share practices was not to reach a 
consensus on what should be the best practices to follow with regard to PMS or to develop any 
guidelines or recommendations. Instead, the objective is to obtain a deeper understanding of PMS 
and to better operationalize and implement this concept.  
117.  Taking note of the comments made by Korea, the US stated that it was not clear how the 
Republic of Korea proposed to deal with this issue in the c ontext of the regular Committee meetings, 
given that this is an issue currently subject to dispute settlement . The US doubted that separate 
discussions on the topic would be productive and requested the Republic of Korea to provide more 
clarity on its prop osal.  
118.  Thailand  agreed that Members should have an open discussion in the Committee with a view 
to achieving a common understanding of the notions of PMS and ordinary course of trade.   
119.  China  expressed support for the Republic of Korea 's proposal .  
120.  Brazil  also agreed that it would be an interesting topic for discussion . Given the sensitivit y of 
the topic, Brazil  suggested to hold an  initial discussion on the matter in the Working Group on 
Implementation.  
121.  Australia  noted  that past regular  Committee meetings had not been the venue for discussi ng 
Member s' practices . The Working Group on Implementation  has been used as the forum for 
discussing various practices  and Members decide the topics for discussion in this group by c onsensus. 
Australia  further noted  that several dispute settlement cases concerned the concept of PMS  and that 
this topic should therefore be treated in the same manner as other issues taken up in dispute 
settlement.  
122.  Mexico  agreed with Australia that such discussions ha d previ ously not taken place during  
regular  sessions of the Committee . It was also concerned about discussing issues which were 
currently challenged in  dispute settlement .  
123.  The EU agreed with the concerns raised by Australia and Mexico and emphasized the sensitive 
nature of issues currently pending under dispute settlement. Therefore, the EU  preferred to refrain 
from discussi ng this topic at this stage.  
124.  Argentina  shared  the concerns raised by other  Members  and stated that such discussions 
should not be held in the Committee , but in informal  groups.  
125.  The Republic of Korea  noted that it fully understood the sensitivity of the topic  but considered 
such discussion to be of value. Given that the Committe e is about AD practices, it was of the view 
that the regular Committee would be the suitable forum for discussion . The Working Group on 
Implementation, as proposed by Brazil, is more appropriate for procedural and technical issues, 
while the regular C ommit tee deal s with more substantive issues such as the interpretation of 
provisions. The Republic  of Korea noted that it would revert to the Committee with further 
clarification  on its proposal.  
126.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.   G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 17 - 
 
  127.  Turkey  raised two concerns regarding the AD investigation initiated by Israel against imports 
of low voltage copper cables from Turkey. First, Turkey addressed the time period in which the 
investigation had been conducted. The investigation was initiated on 27 J une 2017 and the final 
decision announced on 1 April 2019, which was beyond the 18 -month time limit set out in 
Article  5.10 of the AD Agreement and adjudicated upon in the Panel report in Morocco – Anti-
Dumping Measures on Certain Hot Rolled Steel from Tur key (WT/DS513). Second , Turkey referred 
to the all -others rate of 14.5%. Turkey stated that this rate was not based on any calculation relating 
to Turkish exporters, but instead was the rate applied as the provisional duty during the early stages 
of the in vestigation. Turkey concluded by stating that there were many flaws in the investigation 
and final decision and that it reserved all its rights under  the WTO Agreements.  
128.  In response to Turkey, Israel  stated that the investigation and final determination w ere in 
accordance with the Israeli legislation and WTO rules. The final determination had been published 
on 1 April 2019, was made available on the website of the Ministry of National Economy and Industry  
and was also notified to the WTO. Israel requested Turkey to provide a written copy of the statement 
made at the meeting and to share comments in advance in future  meetings  in order to adequately 
respond to the  concerns  raised . Israel  further noted that it was open to bilateral discussions on the 
matter.  
129.  Turkey  took note of Israel 's request to provide comments in advance. Further, Turkey  clarified 
that it agreed with Israel that the investigation had been initiated on 27  June 2017 and concluded 
on 1 April 2019, but the concern was that the time between initiation and conclusion was well beyond 
the 18-month  time limit.  
130.  Second , Turkey  raised concerns with regard to Canada 's AD investigation on imports of certain 
OCTG  originating in Turkey. It noted that the investigation was initiated on 21  July 2014 and the 
final determination was dated 18  March  2015. Canada had calculated a 0% dumping mar gin for one 
of the respondent companies in the investigation , and yet it had not terminated the investigation for 
that specific respondent company, contrary to Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement. Turkey recalled that 
a similar issue had arisen in the Canada – Carbon Steel Welded Pipe dispute  initiated by 
Chinese  Taipei, in which Canada had terminated the measure, following the Panel ruling, for certain 
Chinese  Taipei exporters with de minimis margins of d umping. Canada had notified the Dispute 
Settlement Body ("DSB") on 10  January  2018 that it had complied in this case with the 
recommendations and rulings by way of legislative amendments and an amended final 
determination. Turkey argued that despite Articl e 5.8 of the AD Agreement and the rulings of the 
DSB, Canada still expected Member s to specifically request the terminat ion of the investigation for 
de minimis exporters . Turkey also noted that it had made such a request in a letter dated 
13 February  2019 and that Canada has not responded so far.  
131.  In response to Turkey, Canada  noted that it had complied with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in Canada – Carbon Steel Welded Pipe . Accordingly, it had amended the Special Import 
Measures Act with respect to  the treatment of exporters with de minimis margins of dumping. 
Further, the Minister of Finance had also requested the CBSA and Canada International Trade 
Tribunal to conduct a review, in light of the DSB ruling, under Section 76.1 of the Special Import 
Measures Act. In terms of the other exporters subject to measures pre-dating the amendments, the 
review should be conducted pursuant to  a request by the Ministry of Finance. Canada  noted that  the 
Ministry of Finance is currently considering the request made  by Turkey for such a review, and 
further information will be provided in due course.   
132.  The Chair  raised the issue of the deadline for requesting items to be placed on the final agenda. 
The Chair reminded Members that the deadline for requesting items to b e placed on the final agenda 
is indicated at the end of the annotated draft agenda which is  made available several  weeks prior to 
the meeting . The Chair  urged Members to observe the specified deadlines . 
133.  The Committee took note  of the statements  made.  
12  DATE  OF THE NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
134.  The Chair  recalled that the proposed date for the autumn  meeting was the week of 
21 October  2019. At the AD Committee meeting held in 1995, it was agreed that the Committee 
meetings will be held twice a year in the last weeks o f April and October of each year. However, G/ADP/M/56  
 
- 18 - 
 
  during this spring 's meetings of the Safeguards and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
Committees  on 29 and 30 April, respectively,  Members had agreed ad referendum to hold both 
Committees meetings in the week of 4 November  2019, pending approvals from capitals . The Chair 
therefore proposed to schedule ad referendum the next regular meeting of the AD Committee, along 
with the Informa l Group on Anti -Circumvention and the Working Group on Implementation, for the 
week of 4  November  2019, provided the Secretariat does not receive any written objection from any 
Member by 8  May 2019.  Following that date, the three outgoing Chairs of the Committees would  
send a communication confirming the date of 4  November  2019 as the week in which the 
three  Committees and subsidiary bodies will hold their meetings. The usual reminder document4 
reflecting the 4th of November week, setting different deadlines for legislative notifications, 
questions, answers, subsidies notifications and submissions would  also be circulated to Members.  
135.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
13  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
136.  The Chair explained that  the election of the new Chair and Vice -Chair for the AD Committee 
cannot take place  at this meeting , as discussions were still underway in the CTG. The Chair noted 
that the Secretariat would send a communication to Members  once the CTG has compl eted its work, 
indicating the name of the new Chair appointed  by the CTG. The new Chair would be deem ed to be 
elected by the Committee absent any objection. The Chair proposed to postpone the election of the 
Vice-Chairperson until the new Chair is appointe d. 
137.  Since a new Chair was not elected, it was agreed that the outgoing  Chair open s the Working 
Group on Implementation meeting on the next day .  
 
__________  
 
                                                
4 G/ADP/W/50 3 - G/SCM/W/57 8 - G/SG/W/24 5.