RESTRICTED   
  
G/ADP/M/58  
 
29 January 2021  
(21-0811) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 2020  
CHAIR: MS LENKA ŠUSTROVÁ (CZECH REPUBLIC)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
28 October  2020. 
2. The Chair recalled that some participants were joining the meeting in person and others online 
via Interprefy. The Chair recalled the technical arrangement s that therefore applied to the meeting, 
which were also described in the "Organizational and Technical Arrangements Note " sent to Members 
on 20 October 2020.  
3. The Committee adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 30: 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ .........................  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  Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.10 - G/SCM/N/1/ARG/Suppl.9)  ............................  2 
1.1.2  Bolivia, Plurinational State of  
(G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 - G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 - G/SG/N/1/BOL/2)  ................................ ....................  2 
1.1.3  Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3/Suppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1.1.4  Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ............................  3 
1.1.5  Lao, People's Democratic Republic ("LAO, PDR")  
(G/ADP/N/1/LAO/2 - G/SCM/N/1/LAO/1)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
1.1.6  United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1 and 
supplements 1 to 11)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
1.1.7  United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.26 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.25 to 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.30 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.29)  ................................ .....................  4 
1.1.8  Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/3 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/2 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/3)  .......................  4 
1.2 Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations  
with outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
1.2.1  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 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE  
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  5 
2.1 Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.10)  ................................ ................................ .............  5 
2.2 Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ................................ .. 5 
2.3 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.4 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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/335 AND G/ADP/N/342)  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATIONS  ................  14 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  17 
7 MEMBERS' PROCEDURES DURING COVID -19 – ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA 
AND THE UNITED STATES ................................ ................................ ...............................  18 
8 MEXICO – ANTIDUMPING MEASURE IMPOSED ON IMPORTS  
OF BOND PAPER – ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  ................................ ............................  18 
9 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 
10 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 18 
11 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ANTI -DUMPING PRACTICES TO T HE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  ................................ ...........................  19 
12 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ........................  19 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
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)1 
1.1.1  Argentina  (G/ADP/N/1/ ARG/1/Suppl. 10 - G/SCM/N/1/ARG/Suppl.9 ) 
4. No written or oral questions were posed regarding the notification of Argentina.  
5. Argentina  stated that it  has adjusted its trade remedy system in order to respond to preventive 
measu res taken in the context of the COVID -19 pandemic and the resulting need for social 
distancing. Argentina added that  these changes would  not affect the rights of parties to make their 
submissions in procedures regarding international trade.  
1.1.2  Bolivia , Plurin ational State of  (G/ADP/N/1/ BOL/3 - G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 - 
G/SG/N/1/BOL/2 ) 
6. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ BOL/4 - G/SCM/Q1/ BOL/4 - G/SG/Q1/ BOL/1 – Submitted by the United States  
7. Bolivia  referred to its statement at the meeting of the Committee on Safeguards  and indicated  
that it was in the process of  considering the questions posed by the United States . 
8. The United States looked forward to receivin g written responses to its written questions.  
9. No written answers had been received to date . 
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the October 2020 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/506 - 
G/SCM/W/581 - G/SG/W/250.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.3  Costa Rica  (G/ADP/N/1/ CRI/3/Suppl.1  - G/SCM/N/1/ CRI/4/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/1/ CRI/4/Suppl.1 ) 
10. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ CRI/15 - G/SCM/Q1/ CRI/15 - G/SG/Q1/ CRI/9 – Submitted by the United States  
11. Written answers to the U nited States' written questions were provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ CRI/16 - G/SCM/Q1/CRI/16 - G/SG/Q1/CRI/10 – Replies to the United States  
12. Costa Rica  pointed out that it has submitted replies to the questions posed by the 
United  States  and that it looked forward to following up once the United States  had the opportunity 
to review the replies.  
1.1.4  Ghana  (G/ADP/N/1/ GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2 ) 
13. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GHA/1 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/1 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/1  – Submitted by the United States  
14. Ghana  explained that the questions posed by the United States  have been transmitted to 
capital and that it would provide replies as soon as possible.  
15. The United States  looked forward to receiving written responses to its written questions.  
16. Written answers to th e United States ' written questions were subsequently provided and can 
now be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GHA/2 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/2 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/2  – Replies to the United States  
1.1.5  Lao, People's Democratic Republic  ("LAO, PDR") (G/ADP/N/1/LAO/2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/LAO/1)  
17. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ LAO/1 - G/SCM/Q1/LAO/1 - G/SG/Q1/LAO/1  – Submitted by the United States  
18. Written answers to the United States ' written questions were provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ LAO/2 - G/SCM/Q1/LAO/2 - G/SG/Q1/LAO/2  – Replies to the United States  
19. Lao, PDR  stated that the law on antidumping  ("AD")  and countervailing duty measures 
comprised of 69 articles and has been adopted by the General As sembly on 14 September 2019 and 
notified on 15 November 2019.  
1.1.6  United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1 
and supplements 1 to 11 ) 
20. Written questions regarding three of these notification s were posed and can be found in 
document s: 
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/1 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/1 - G/SG/Q1/ GBR/1 – Submitted by the United States  
and were posed with respect to the notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 4 - 
 
  • G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/2 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/2 – Submitted by the United States  and were posed 
with respect to the notification contained in document G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2.  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/ GBR/3 - G/SG/Q1/ GBR/2 – Submitted by the United States  
and were posed with respect to the notification contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4.  
21. In its introductory remarks, the United Kingdom  ("UK") explained that it has put in place its 
own trade reme dies system. The UK also indicated that it has commenced enacting elements of the 
legislation putting in place its trade remedies system, including safeguards, subsidies and 
AD legislation, in March 2019 in preparation for the UK leaving the European Union  ("EU"). The UK 
has notified the majority of its trade remedies legislation and the competent authority in 
February  2020 following the UK's departure from the EU, with subsequent notifications in March and 
August  2020. The UK's notification reviewed under this agenda item concerned the primary and 
secondary legislation related to the UK trade remedy system passed by the UK Parliament to date. 
The UK referred to its presentation of the operation of the UK's trade remedies system at this week's 
meeting of the  Committee on Safeguards. The UK indicated that it was preparing written replies to 
the questions posed by the United States , which it would be able to discuss in more detail at the 
next meeting of this Committee.  
22. The United States  looked forward to receiv ing written responses to its written questions.  
23. No written answers had been received to date . 
1.1.7  United States ( G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.26 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.25 to 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.30 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.29 ) 
24. No written or oral questions were posed regarding the notifications of the United States .  
1.1.8  Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/3 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/2 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/3)  
25. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ VNM/9 - G/SCM/Q1/ VNM/9 - G/SG/Q1/ VNM/9 – Submitted by the United States  
26. Written answers to the United States ' written questions were provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ VNM/10 - G/SCM/Q1/VNM/10 - G/SG/Q1/VNM/10  – Replies to the United States  
27. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
1.2 Review  of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding written questions  
1.2.1  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 ) 
28. 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 United States  
29. The Chair  noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee Meeting of 
October 2014.  
30. Cameroon was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, 
nor had written answers been received to date . 
31. The Committee took note  of the no tification and questions.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
2.1 Japan  (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.10)  
32. Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/JPN/18 - G/SCM/Q1/JPN/18 – Submitted by Canada  
33. Written answers to Canada's written questions were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ JPN/19 - G/SCM/Q1/JPN/19  – Replies to Canada  
34. Japan  explained that b efore the notified legislative amendm ent has been made , recourse to a 
sampling method was conditional on the fact that the number of known suppliers from the exporting 
country exceed ed 20. Japan's  investigating authorit y has further clarified that a sampling method 
may nevertheless be applied when the number of suppliers is 20 or less provided that the number 
of suppliers that have expressed their intention to cooperate  exceeds the number of suppliers that 
can be reasonably investigated . 
2.2 Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N /1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  
35. Written follow -up questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6 - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6 - G/SG/Q1/KEN/5 – Submitted by the United States  
36. Kenya  explained that the COVID -19 pandemic has dela yed the written replies which would be 
provided in due course. Kenya noted that its investigating authority is still not yet operational but 
that plans are underway to operationalise it. Kenya would notify WTO Members once this agency 
becomes operational.  
37. The United States  looked forward to receiving written responses to its written questions.  
38. No written answers had been received to date . 
2.3 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/L BR/1)  
39. Written follow -up questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/3 – Submitted by the United States  
40. Liberia was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date .  
2.4 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) 
41. A written follow -up question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ARE/5 - G/SCM/Q1/ARE/5 – G/SG/Q1/ARE/5 – Submitted by the United States  
42. A written answer to the United States ' written question was provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ARE/6 - G/SCM/Q1/ARE/6 - G/SG/Q1/ARE/6 – Reply to the United States  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 6 - 
 
  43. The Chair informed Members that, pursuant to the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a ne w legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the April 2021 meeting of the 
Committee, the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 1 5 March 202 1. Shortly 
after this date, the Secretariat will circulate a document informing Me mbers of all legislative 
notifications to be reviewed at the next Committee meeting in April 202 1. 
44. 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 notific ations 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 submitted.  
45. The Chair noted that new legislative notifications from Brazil, Canada and Georgia , as well 
as any others received and circulated by the applicable deadlines2, would be on the agenda for 
review at the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2021.  
46. The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that 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.  
47. Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.53, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and encouraged Members t o review and 
update previously submitted information, where necessary.  
48. The United States  appreciated  the fact that most Members have submitted a notification with 
their domestic AD legislation or a one -time notification that they do not have an AD legisla tion. 
However, some countries which have not provided a notification of their legislative  status have 
submitted TPR reports indicating whether they have AD laws in effect. In other words, the respective 
WTO Members have already gone through the effort of i nforming the WTO of their AD legislation 
status, albeit in another forum. The United States  encouraged Members to review their situations 
and make the appropriate notification promptly. It added  that the notification of AD laws and any 
revisions to those l aws are a key element in maintaining transparency in the administration of AD 
remedy. It encouraged all Members to submit future notifications promptly following the 
implementation of the relevant legislation . The United States  also encouraged Members to think 
creatively as to how compliance could be improved with notification requirements. It indicated that 
the Council for Trade in Goods ("CTG") continues to consider the proposal entitled "Procedures to 
Enhance Transparency and Strengthen Notification Requ irements Under WTO Agreements ". The 
proposal emphasizes that transparency and notification requirements constitute fundamental 
elements of a properly functioning WTO system, and thus of Members' obligations. A revised version 
of the proposal was introduced  at the CTG meeting in June 2020. The United States  explained that 
the revised proposal now exempts LDCs from administrative measures provided they request 
technical assistance to meet their notification obligations. The United States  also indicated that i t 
remains willing to discuss this proposal bilaterally with any Member and welcomes all constructive 
feedback.  
49. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) (G/AD P/N/335 
AND G/ADP/N/342)  
50. The Chair  recalled that a request and a reminder for submission of semi -annual reports for 
the second half of  2019 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/335 and G/ADP/N/335/Suppl.1, 
respectively. Also, a request and reminder for  submission of semi -annual reports for the first half of 
2020 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/342 and G/ADP/N/342/Suppl.1, respectively. 
Members taking no AD actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This would 
 
2 Relevant deadlines can b e found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 6 - G/SCM/W/5 81 - 
G/SG/W/2 50. G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 7 - 
 
  not apply  to those Members that had already submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 
and 16.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement .  
51. The Chair noted that a number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notification requi rement applied to all Members, whether or not they had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except for the 51 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification.3 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notification requir ement.  
52. The Chair explained that while Members are free to raise at the Committee's meetings any 
questions that they wish regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports, Member s may 
agree that raising issues that are subject to dispute settlemen t proceedings may be better pursued 
in depth in other WTO dedicated fora.  
53. The Chair also recalled that the Rules and the IT Divisions have been cleaning up and 
redesigning the existing trade remedies databases and are developing a facility to enable Member s 
to submit their semi -annual reports on -line. The new interface will consist of a series of fields to be 
completed with all of the required information and will be enabled with smart features that will make 
its use easier. It will also be programmed to tr y to catch the most common types of reporting errors, 
so that data problems will be minimized by the time the report is submitted. The Secretariat is 
seeking to make this interface as user -friendly and useful for Members and is hoping that all these 
effort s would lead to significant improvements in the quality and accessibility of trade remedies 
information.  
54. That said, the Chair announced that the Secretariat is now ready to embark on a soft launch 
of the new online portal for submission of AD semi -annual reports. The Chair indicated that following 
this Committee's meeting, the Secretariat would provide a pres entation of the prototype, indicate 
the deadline by which the portal will be accessible to Members, and provide information pertaining 
to the training sessions the Secretariat will be organizing virtually in all three WTO languages for the 
benefit of all M embers.   
55. The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the second half of 2019 and first half of 
2020. No Member raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; the 
member States of the Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia, Kazakhs tan, Kyrgyz Republic and the 
Russian Federation); Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; 
El Salvador; India; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Korea, Republic of ; Madagascar; Malaysia; Morocco; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; 
Ukraine; the member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council "GCC" (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, 
the State of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Qatar and United Arab Emirates) and Viet Nam.   
56. On the semi -annual  report  of China , Japan  expressed its concern regarding the final 
determination made in July 2019 and the continued imposition of the AD duties regarding Japan's 
stainless billets, hot -rolled plates and coils. Throughout the investigatio n, Japan has continued to 
express its serious concern that the product under consideration (PUC) is overly broadly defined and 
includes semi -final and final products, and that the findings of injury to the domestic industry and 
causal link between the impo rts and injury have been made inappropriately because the uses and 
consumers of these products are considerably different. In this light, Japan requested the Chinese 
investigating authority to make findings and determinations which are consistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. However, Japan regretted that the Chinese investigating authority has 
made the final determination without considering any of Japan's concerns. In particular, Japan 
deemed as problematic that the Chinese authority conducted a cumula tive assessment of the effects 
of Japanese products together with the imports from other countries, including Indonesia, in the 
injury assessment although this was not appropriate in view of the competitive relationship. Japan 
explained that it closely fol lows the impact of the determination and the imposition of the AD duties 
on the Chinese companies that are users of the subject products as well as on the Japanese 
exporters. Japan also requested that the Chinese investigating authority review the determin ation 
in accordance with WTO rules.  
57. Australia  indicated that t his was Australia' s first occasion to respond to an AD duty 
investigation conducted by China 's competent authority  and subsequent imposition of AD duties on 
 
3 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 8 - 
 
  imports of Australian barely. Austral ia raised  a number of concerns about the procedures and 
analysis of this investigation.   
58. In terms of Australia's  procedural concerns, in Australia 's view this investigation was 
improperly initiated . The domestic industry was not properly identified; the le gal standing of the 
applicant was not properly established; and  the product under investigation was not properly 
identified, with products included that were not exported from Australia to China. There were 
significant procedural and due process deficienci es which disabled Australian exporters from 
defend ing their rights. The deficiencies in procedure s became apparent during the course of the 
investigation.  Australia noted that  there are thousands of barley growers and exporters in Australia. 
No sampling wa s undertaken by China, despite Australia's  requests for clarification on how China 
would manage this investigation.  Following an initial registration process, around 18 Australian 
producers, exporters and grain associations completed exporter questionnaire s. The Australian 
Government also completed the questionnaire in so far as it related to the allegation that there were 
non-market economic conditions in Australia . The process appeared to end  there . Australia  heard 
no more from China 's investigating autho rity. There were no follow -up communications indicating 
any deficiencies in the information supplied or seeking further information , and there were no 
verification visits to Australian respondents nor to the Australian Government.  From March 2019 
until the  issuance of China's Ministry of Commerce (" MOFCOM")  of the disclosure report on 
8 May 2020, n either  Australian producers /exporters, nor the Australian Government were advised 
that there were any deficiencies in the extensive information submitted.  On issu ing its disclosure 
report, M OFCOM  provided a 10 -day comment period.  The disclosure report revealed that M OFCOM  
had made recourse to 'facts available ' – this is without advising respondents and thereby misapplying 
the use of 'facts available '. China appear ed to have misapplied the necessary procedures and proper 
justification for recourse to facts available.  China also appear ed to have used this to just ify 
constructing the normal value in its determination of dumping.  On 18  May 2020, M OFCOM's  final 
determination was issued before the end of the 10 -day comment period of the disclosure report – 
clearly not taking into account any of the comments provided o n the disclosure report by the 
Australian Government.  Finally , in this AD investigation into Australian barley, even if the applicant 's 
normal value estimate was used, the dumping margin should have been negative 3 %, i.e. no 
dumping. Instead, China applied  AD duties of 80.5 % on Australian barley.  Despite Australia's  
concerns, Australia  remain ed open to further discussions with China on this case, in order to find a 
mutually beneficial solution.  
59. In response  to Japan, China  explained that China's investigatin g authority has always used 
the principle of transparency and conducted trade remedies investigations for steel products in 
accordance with China's laws and regulations as well as WTO rules.  
60.  In response to Australia, China explained that it took note of Australia's concerns, referred to 
the bilateral meeting between China's investigating authority and the Australian Embassy in China, 
and stated that it would not comment further.  
61. In response to China, Australia  explained that it had applied for administrat ive review and that 
an administrative review decision has been issued on 28 October 2020, receipt of which is awaited 
by Australia.  
62. China  added that it has no additional information at this stage on the outcome of the 
administrative review but that it wou ld follow up after this meeting.  
63. On the semi -annual report of Egypt , Turkey  regretted the unexpected initiation of 
AD investigations concerning Turkish exports of pre -stressed concrete steel strands and machine -
made carpet and other floor coverings, on 16 April and 29 June 2020, respectively. Turkey referred 
to Article 12.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and indicated that in the investigation on pre -stressed 
concrete steel strands, Turkey received the notice of initiation on 5 May 2020, which was 18 days 
after the initiation of the investigation. Similarly, regarding the investigation on machine -made 
carpet and other floor coverings, Turkey received the notice of initiation on 22  July 2020, which was 
23 days after the initiation of the investigation. The lat e submissions of the notices of initiation have 
caused confusion about the deadlines regarding the investigations not only for the Government of 
Turkey but also for cooperating Turkish companies. Turkey underlined the importance for interested 
parties to r eceive such notifications in order to defend their rights properly and noted that it is the 
investigating authority's obligation and responsibility to make such notification in a timely manner.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 9 - 
 
  64. In response to Turkey, Egypt  stated that it would convey the m essage to capital for 
consideration and that it would revert on this matter as soon as appropriate.4 
65. On the semi -annual report  of the European Union ("EU") , China  voiced its concern 
regarding the findings made by the EU since 2019 in a series of AD cases including but not limited 
to Chinese steel wheels and glass fiber fabrics products. In these cases, the EU found that there are 
"significant distortions " in the ma rket. China reiterated its firm belief that the EU's legislation and 
practices regarding serious distortions in one particular market are inconsistent with relevant WTO 
principles and rules.  
66. First, China noted that the EU had so far only issued two report s on significant distortions in 
two markets, specifically the Chinese market and the Russian market. There were no evaluations 
concerning any other markets outside the EU or reports about the EU's internal market situation. 
China considered this to be de facto discrimination against specific countries. With respect to four 
recent cases against Chinese products, China noted that the country report was not only the most 
important piece of evidence for the EU applicants, but also the main basis for the 
Europea n Commission to find that such significant distortions existed. China claimed that this 
approach violated the basic principle that the investigating authority shall conduct investigations 
objectively and impartially.  
67. Second , China explained that since 1 J anuary 2018, in all AD investigations initiated by the 
European Commission against Chinese products, the European Commission has applied 
Article  2.6(a) of the EU's AD Regulations against Chinese producers based on the petitioners' 
allegation of significant  market distortions. As a result, the investigated producers have been 
required to submit materials and documents going far beyond the requirements in normal 
AD investigation procedures. In China's view, this violated the principle of due process and place d 
an unnecessary burden on the Chinese respondents.  
68. Third, on 24 July 2020, the WTO circulated the panel report in EU – Cost Adjustment 
Methodologies  and Certain Anti -Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia (Second Complaint) 
(DS494) . In this report, the p anel found that the EU had violated Article 2.2.1.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping  Agreement when using "government control" or "artificially low prices" as reasons for 
refusing the Russian producer's data. Although the panel report did not make findings regarding 
Article 2.6(a) of the EU's AD regulations, China has witnessed the same pattern in the EU's refusal 
to use the data from Chinese producers because of significant market distortions. Just like the 
methods identified in DS494, the significant market distortion  method is in clear violation of 
Article  2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
69. Fourth, according to the EU's own legislation, in case of significant market distortions, the 
European Commission shall use the costs of production and sale reflecting undistor ted prices or 
benchmarks in constructing normal value. However, the EU has never made any determinations 
regarding whether there were so -called "significant market distortions" in the EU, or in the markets 
of other Members, nor has it established in the in vestigation that the data it used from representative 
countries reflected undistorted prices and benchmarks. Moreover, the Appellate Body in EU – AD 
Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (DS473)  and the panel in DS494 both determined that the 
investigating authority is obliged to ensure that the information and data used must result in 
determining the cost of production in the country of origin. China opined that the EU's new AD 
methodology in the cases against Chinese products is inconsistent with that requ irement. China 
urged the EU to take actions to bring its practices in line with its international obligations.  
70. The Russian Federation  also expressed several concerns. The Russian Federation recalled that 
it has raised the issue of the December 2017 and Jun e 2018 amendments to the EU's Basic 
Regulation on numerous occasions in this Committee. However, in the Russian Federation's view 
subsequent developments have shown that the concerns remained and even grew.  
71. The Russian Federation recalled that when the EU' s Regulation 2017/2321 was published in 
2017, the European Commission had announced the preparation of the report on so -called 
"significant distortions " in the Russian Federation. The report was published on 23 October 2020. 
The Russian Federation expresse d its deep disappointment in this respect. Instead of strictly 
 
4 This statement was read by the Chair. Due to technical issues, Egypt could not connect remotely and 
asked the Chair to read out its intervention.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 10 - 
 
  complying with its WTO obligations, the EU has developed new excuses to maintain its inconsistent 
practices, in particular in respect of adjusting the exporters' costs based on out -of-country p rices.  
72. The Russian Federation explained that it failed to see any grounds in the WTO rulebook for 
the EU's quasi -investigation conducted in the country report. As it has been noted repeatedly by the 
Appellate Body, "dumping" is "the result of the pricing b ehaviour of individual exporters or foreign 
producers" of the product under consideration. Nevertheless, according to the Russian Federation, 
the EU has been drifting away from an objective analysis of such exporters' or producers' behaviour, 
punishing the  Russian Federation for what is beyond its control.  
73. Furthermore , the Russian Federation stated that WTO rules do not permit to construct the 
normal value based on the cost of production outside of the country of origin of the product 
concerned. This has be en confirmed repeatedly by panels and the Appellate Body. Although it was 
appealed by the EU into the void, the report of the panel in DS494 provided another confirmation 
thereof.  
74. Additionally, the Russian Federation stated its concerns regarding the poten tial combination 
of the adjustment of costs due to "significant distortions " and the non -application of the "lesser duty 
rule" due to so -called "raw material distortions ", as per Regulation 2018/825. Specifically, the 
European Commission may apply the cost  adjustment methodology and at the same time deny 
Russian companies lesser duties. The Russian Federation opined that it expected further double 
punishments of Russian exporters for factors that were beyond their influence. The 
Russian  Federation stated th at it would welcome if the EU could clarify the difference, if any, between 
what can be called a "significant distortion " and a "raw material distortion " under EU law.  
75. Further , the Russian Federation explained that it was still reviewing the content of the  EU's 
findings in its country report on the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation stated that even at 
this early stage of its examination it was extremely impressed by the quality of this document, but 
not in a good way. This report provided an abunda nce of self -contradictions, misquotes, references 
to information from unreliable sources, references to the documents; including legal acts, that have 
never existed, situations that have never happened, multiple translation errors that have affected 
dramat ically the substance of what has been translated and basic factual errors. It added that, even 
if the WTO rules allowed for the applicants to use such compilations of their own governments for 
the purpose of the initiation of AD investigations, the Russian  Federation could not imagine how 
anyone could rely on the substance of this report as it was completely detached from reality. The 
Russian Federation understood this "country report " may not be the last one to be produced by the 
EU. As it could be seen fr om the latest semi -annual report of the EU, the Russian Federation and 
China were not the only countries whose products were subject to AD measures in the EU. Following 
the Russian Federation and China, an equal number of measures were applied in respect o f products 
from India and Korea. Therefore, the Russian Federation wondered when to expect the EU's reports 
regarding those countries or any others. The Russian Federation urged the EU to respect WTO rules. 
The application of the EU's legislative amendment s not only contradicted the relevant provisions of 
the WTO agreements, but also ran counter to basic WTO principles, such as non -discrimination.  
76. Finally , the Russian Federation referred to the panel decision in DS494 . The panel in that 
dispute had found that the initiation of the previous expiry review of the AD measure on ammonium 
nitrate was inconsistent with Article  11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The ongoing expiry review 
has been initiated in the same manner. The European Commission has failed to establish that the 
normal value in the request for review was based on the cost of production in the country of origin, 
i.e. the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation urged the EU to terminate the review without a  
WTO-inconsistent extension of the measure.  
77. In response to China and the Russian Federation, the EU mentioned that it has already 
provided replies concerning questions on the compatibility with WTO rules of the significant 
distortions' methodology and the so-called "modernization package". The EU state d that the lesser 
duty rule still applie d and remained mandatory in all cases.  The only difference concerned a 
modulation in the application of this rule in cases of raw material distortions in the exporting c ountry . 
Such distortions were reflected in the OECD list of export restrictions.  
78. Regarding the application of the significant distortions' methodology, the EU explained that 
the application of this methodology was not automatic; whether the existence of si gnificant G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 11 - 
 
  distortions would be investigated depended on the facts of each case and the presence of sufficient 
prima facie  evidence. Moreover, whenever the EU has sufficient evidence for initiating a case based 
on the allegation of a significant distortion,  the EU would provide  all interested parties with the 
opportunity to rebut or contest the information , including if a country report has been placed on the 
record.  
79. Regarding the country report on the Russian Federation , the EU clarified that the methodolog y 
introduced in December 2017 provided the possibility for an investigating authority to issue a report. 
Indeed, on 22 October  2020, the European Commission  had published  a report  on significant market 
distortions in the Russian Federation . The report was the second that the European Commission has 
prepared  following the publication of a first report on China in 2017. The EU explained that the 
Russian Federation had been  selected for the second report as it was the subject of the most AD 
activity after China . As per October 2020, of a total of 100 AD measures in force, ten concerned the 
Russian Federation. Moreover, country reports were technical facts -based documents which drew on 
many sources, including official public records in the countries concerne d. They did not pass 
judgment on the political  or economic  system  of the countries in question.  They were drafted for  the 
sole purpose of trade defence investigations. The existence of a report for any given country did not 
imply that an alternative AD cal culation methodology would be used  automatically. Rather, e ach 
case would  be assessed on its own merit s. 
80. The EU reiterated that country reports were part of the record of the investigation and that 
interested parties, including the countries concerned, in that case ; the Russian Federation or China,  
may rebut the information in the report. The EU also clarifie d that n o other  country has so far  been 
selected for a report.  However, other reports might be prepared, and countries could be selected 
based on the same criteria used in selecting China and the Russian Federation; namely, their relative 
importance in the  use of AD activity , and indications that distortions related to government 
intervention may exist in the economy.  
81. Concerning the l atest expiry review  on ammonium nitrate that the Russian Federation referred 
to, the EU indicate d that this review aim ed at determining  whether the expiry of the measure would 
lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union 's industry. The findings of  
the investigation have been  disclosed to  all interested parties . Since the conditions for extending the 
measure had been met, the European Commission has also examined if the continuation of the 
measure would be in the Union's interest. The findings of the investigation have been  disclosed to 
all interested parties, i ncluding to the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the 
European  Union on 25 September 2020. All interested parties had an opportunity to comment on 
these findings. The EU explained that the European C ommission is currently reviewing  the comment s 
from the interested parties, including the Russian Federation.  The EU opined that the  investigation 
has been conducted in accordance with WTO rules and dispute settlement practice . The EU 
considered that Russian exporting producers would resume unfair tr ade practices causing material 
injury to the Union 's industry  should the measure lapse. These findings have been  made in the most 
transparent manner. The cooperating Russian producers and their association, together with the 
representatives of the Russian Federation ha d ample opportunity to exercise their procedural rights 
as well as to comment on the disclosed findings.  
82. Finally, regarding the panel report in DS494, the EU indicated that the findings in this report 
had no bearing o n the topic discussed in this Committee . The panel's findings were subject to an 
appeal by the EU for which reason the  EU declined to comment.  
83. In response to the EU, the Russian Federation  referred to the EU's statement that the country 
reports do not pass judgment on the political  or economic system of the countries in question. In 
this respect, the Russian Federation called upon the EU to read carefully the horizontal part of the 
report s and assess whether they indeed did  not pass such judgment. To the Russian Federation's 
underst anding, it was quite the opposite. The Russian Federation added that the quality of 
information contained in the report  was below benchmark. The Russian Federation stated that it 
would  continue these discussions bilaterally and perhaps multilaterally.   
84. On the semi-annual report of Mexico , Ukraine  explained that Mexico conducted several AD 
reviews with respect to Ukrainian products, in particular imports of hot -rolled sheet, alloy and non -
alloy carbon steel plate in sheets and bars as well as rods of iron or non -alloy steel. Ukraine was of 
the view  that the AD measures that had been imposed 15 or even 20 years ago were out dated and 
no longer reflected the current situation in the Mexican and Ukrainian markets. Ukraine believed G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 12 - 
 
  that the expiry of the measures would not result in the recurrence of du mping and injury to the 
Mexican industry due to the considerable reduction of steel production and export capacity in Ukraine 
since 2014. Ukraine emphasized the importance of compliance with WTO rules and provisions in 
these review proceedings. Ukraine hop ed that the reviews would result in the termination of the AD 
duties on Ukrainian products.  
85. Kazakhstan  expressed its concern with the continued application of an AD measure by Mexico 
on cold -rolled sheet originating in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan explained that  the original AD measure 
had entered into force on 30 June 1999. Since the initial application of the AD measure, Mexico has 
carried out three sunset reviews of the measure and has extended the measure as a result of such 
reviews. In this connection, Kazak hstan addressed several concerns with respect to this AD measure 
that has been applied for over 20 years.  
86. First, in the original investigation, Mexico had applied a non -market economy methodology 
against producers and exporters of Kazakhstan by using surro gate values from Spain in its 
determination of normal value. In subsequent sunset reviews, Mexico has continued to apply 
discriminatory treatment and has calculated normal value on the basis of data pertaining to Brazil 
as a surrogate country. Kazakhstan s tated that this approach lacked any legal foundation under the 
WTO Agreement, since nothing in Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
justified disregarding the data of the exporter or exporting country and using a different country's 
data instead.  
87. Second, in the original investigation, Mexico had made its determination on the basis of threat 
of injury. In this respect, Kazakhstan considered it important that actual material injury had never 
been caused by imports originating in Kazakhst an. Even if the existence of threat of injury had been 
proven in the original investigation, Kazakhstan found it difficult to understand that the domestic 
industry of Mexico, after more than 20 years of protection, was still experiencing the likelihood of 
continuation of alleged dumping and threat of injury. In this regard, Kazakhstan believed that factors 
other than the alleged dumped imports and the alleged threat of injury have not been adequately 
considered as part of the sunset reviews.  
88. Third, on 20 Ju ne 2019, the Mexican authority has initiated a sunset review of the AD measure 
and extended the measure for another five years. However, Kazakhstan had never been notified by 
the Mexican investigating authority of the initiation of this review. Thus, Kazak hstan considered that 
Mexico has failed to follow proper procedural requirements, including with regard to the notification 
and the procedures for providing a full opportunity to defend one's interests, and more generally 
that Mexico has failed to apply th e measures in a proper manner, specifically with regard to the 
application of the measures for only a period of time that is necessary to counteract injurious 
dumping. Kazakhstan called upon Mexico to find an acceptable solution on a bilateral basis withou t 
the need for recourse to the WTO dispute settlement system.  
89. In response to Ukraine a nd Kazakhstan, Mexico  stated that it had taken note of the statements 
which it would relay to its investigating authority.  
90. On the semi -annual report of the Philippines , Turkey  stated that the Tariff Commission of 
the Philippines has been imposing an AD measure against imports of Turkish wheat flour since 
9 January 2015 and that it has conducted an expiry review regarding this measure. On 
9 September  2020, the Commission pu blished its final report and concluded to extend the measure 
for another three years.  
91. In this context, Turkey raised concerns regarding the calculation of the AD duties for Turkish 
exporters with de minimis  margins in the original investigation. Turkey ref erred to Article 5.8 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and to the panel and Appellate Body reports in several disputes, such as 
Canada – Welded Pipe , Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate  and Mexico – AD Measures on Rice , which  have 
concluded that the determination of du mping margins for de minimis  exporters was incompatible 
with Article 5.8. Turkey, therefore, considered that the Tariff Commission's practice was in violation 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and contrary to the findings in relevant prior dispute settlement 
reports.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 13 - 
 
  92. Turkey explained that it had conveyed its views on this issue to the Tariff Commission but that 
it has not yet received any response. Turkey requested the Philippines to re -examine its decision 
with a view to finding a bilateral solution.  
93. In respon se to Turkey, the Philippines  stated that it had noted Turkey's concerns which it 
would convey to capital.  
94. On the semi -annual report  of the UK, the Russian Federation  expressed its concern over the 
UK's initiation of the transitional review of an AD measu re on certain welded pipes and tubes from 
the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation failed to see any legal or economic grounds to 
continue the application of th at measure once the UK has left the EU. First, the UK's authorities had 
initiated the review on their own initiative following the "call for evidence ", whereby they have 
collected information on the support for, or opposition to the continued application of the measure. 
However, interested part ies have not been informed of the results of this information gathering. 
Therefore, it remained unclear whether the standing test established by Article 5.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping  Agreement has been satisfied. Second, Article  5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
establishes that the authorities may initiate an investigation ex officio  only if they have sufficient 
evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link  within the meaning of  Article 5. 2 of the 
Anti-Dumping  Agreement . The Russian Federation stated that it was  still unaware whether the UK 
had such evidence, since it has never been provided to the interested parties for consideration. Thus, 
the review procedure did not appear to be sufficiently transparent for the interested parties to fully 
exercise their right  to defend their interests, contrary to the requirements of Article 6.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
95. Moreover, the Russian Federation was of the view that the UK had to undertake a 
comprehensive analysis in line with the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Artic le VI of the GATT 1994 
in order to apply the measure in its territory. In that context, the presence of dumped import s in 
the UK as well as  injury and causation  with regard to the industry  of the UK , not that of the EU, 
would have to be  established.  The Ru ssian Federation noted that Eurostat data indicated the absence 
of imports of welded tubes in the UK market for the period from 2000 to 2019. It was, therefore, 
difficult to understand how dumping, injury and causation could be established, and thus, what 
grounds the UK could have to apply the measure.  
96. The Russian Federation cautioned against the application by the UK of the cost adjustment 
methodology that has been applied by the EU in the previous expiry review of its measure on the 
same product. Panels a nd the Appellate Body have found such methodology to be WTO -inconsistent. 
Although appealed, the report of the panel in DS494 confirmed that the EU's application of the 
methodology was inconsistent with WTO rules. The Russian Federation  urged the UK to make an 
objective analysis and to terminate this review without application of the measure.  
97. China  commented on the UK's trade remedy measures after Brexit. The EU's existing 
measures had been imposed based on the EU's trade remedy legislation and information and data 
regarding the EU's domestic industry. Brexit would trigger major changes to core elem ents in these 
cases, such as the dumping margins, injury margins, causation, and the public interest. With no new 
or interim reviews, and without issuing any questionnaires and conducting on -spot verifications to 
collect and verify information, the UK main tained the EU measures, which would potentially be 
inconsistent with Article 1 and Article 11.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
98. China opined that the UK's transition reviews entailed significant uncertainty for the exporting 
companies. The transition revie ws appeared to be similar in nature to sunset reviews. They 
encompassed the review of the situation concerning the market, industry, and companies under the 
influence of an existing measure. However, unlike a sunset review, a transition review was initiate d 
by the UK's investigating authority on its own, making it difficult for the companies to predict the 
time of initiation and limiting their meaningful participation. Significant duties combined with the 
uncertain timing of the initiation adversely affecte d potential new exporters in planning their export 
activities to the UK. Given the large number of expected transition reviews, companies may face 
uncertainty for a long time after Brexit. Therefore, China urged the UK to terminate all existing EU 
trade re medy measures instead of maintaining them without proper investigations. As per the WTO 
rules, the UK could decide to impose measures only based on a proper petition, initiation and 
investigation.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 14 - 
 
  99. In response to the Russian Federation and China, the UK stated that its government was 
committed to maintaining definitive EU trade defence measures if the UK producer's interest test 
was satisfied. The existing measures applied to the EU's territory, including the UK, would be applied 
in the UK until the end of t he transition period. A ll measure s the UK maintained would  undergo a 
review to reflect the situation in the UK's market . The UK noted that it has an online digital service 
where interested parties could register their interest, access the public files and participate in the 
cases.  
100.  On the semi -annual report of the  United States , China  expressed concern regarding the 
administrative review in the matter of Chinese exports of frozen warmwater shrimp. In March 2013, 
the United States  Department of Commerce ("USD OC") had made its Section 129 determination of 
the AD duty order in this matter and had found that the dumping margin of a Chinese respondent, 
Shantou Red Garden, was zero. As a result, the USDOC revoked the AD order with respect to Red 
Garden, among other s. However, when specifying the full names of Red Garden and its affiliated 
exporters in a footnote of the public notice, the USDOC made a clerical error. The correct full name 
of one exporter should have been "Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. ", while the first 
word "Shantou ", which stands for the location of the company, was omitted by mistake.  
101.  Unfortunately, neither Red Garden nor the United States  Government agencies, including the 
USDOC and the United States  Customs, have noticed this error  at that time and in the following six 
years. Red Garden continued to export to the United States  under its correct name "Shantou Red 
Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd. ", without any AD duty being levied.  
102.  However, in July 2019, the USDOC required Red Garden to respond to an administrative 
review because its name was not the same as published in the 2013 notice. Despite Red Garden's 
objection and explanation, on 28 February 2020 the USDOC preliminarily determined an AD rate of 
58.61% for Red Garden.  
103.  China stat ed that the error in the 2013 notice was easily identifiable. It also noted that in the 
following six years neither the United States  Customs nor any other government agency had 
informed Red Garden that this error would prevent the company from being exemp ted from the AD 
duty order . After all these years, Red Garden was suddenly deprived of the zero AD rate and now 
faced a serious economic loss and grave burden due to this arbitrary determination.  
104.  China acknowledged and expressed its understanding that mis takes may happen, but stated 
that mistakes should then be corrected in time. Companies ought not to be blamed for and bear the 
adverse consequences of such mistakes. Therefore, China urged the United States  to correct its 
clerical error in the 2013 notice,  terminate the on -going review with respect to Red Garden as soon 
as possible, and exclude it from future AD orders, if any.  
105.  In response to China, the United States  stated that it had taken note of China's statement 
which it would convey to the USDOC. The United States  also encouraged China to communicate 
directly with the USDOC on this matter.  
106.  No comments were made with respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not 
previously reviewed due to late circulation.  
107.  The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed, and the answers provided.  
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATIONS  
108.  The Chair  referred to the notifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members sinc e the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/336, 337, 338, 
339/Rev.1, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346 and 347. During this period Argentina; Armenia; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; China;  Dominican Republic;  Egypt; European Union; India; Israel; Ja pan; 
Kazakhstan; Korea , Republic of ; Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; Morocco;  New Zealand;  Pakistan;  
Philippines ; Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; 
United States and Viet Nam notified preliminary and/or final AD  actions, which were listed in these 
documents. Since document G/ADP/N/347 was circulated, Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; 
Dominican Republic; European Union; India; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz Republic; Madagascar; Mexico ; G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Morocco ; New Zealand; Pakistan; Russian Federation; South Africa  and the United States  have 
submitted such a notification, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat.  
109.  The Chair drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full c ompliance with this notification 
requirement. These reports are a key element of the required transparency concerning Members' 
AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions 
if Members did not fulfil t heir obligations in this regard. The Chair strongly urged all Members taking 
AD actions to provide these notifications of preliminary and final actions, regularly, consistently 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), contains 
important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified and the information that should 
be provided.  
110.  The Chair noted that some Members we re 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 Members, while submitting new ad hoc notifications, also tended to resubmit 
previous ly 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 t o 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 S ecretary 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 websites, 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 
presentations 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.  
111.  The EU raised concerns  regarding an AD review investigation con ducted by South Africa  with 
respect to imports of frozen chips and chips from Belgium and the Netherlands. The EU considered 
that the essential facts issued by the International Trade Administration Commission were 
insufficient. They neither contained any information or evidence of a possible recurrence of injury in 
case the measure would lapse, nor any assessment of the likelihood of continuation of dumping. 
Moreover, the domestic industry did not suffer injury during the investigation period. To the contr ary, 
based on the complaint, the situation of the domestic industry has improved significantly. The EU 
stated that it has raised these issues at the stage of the initiation of the investigation. But 
unfortunately, the essential facts have not addressed its  concerns. The EU urged South Africa not to 
continue with the imposition of the AD duties. South Africa  did not take the floor in response.  
112.  The EU also referred to the AD review investigation by Canada  regarding refined sugar from 
Germany, the Netherlands , the UK and Belgium. Canada had decided to initiate yet another expiry 
review, the fifth in this proceeding, in which measures have been in place for 25 years. The EU 
explained that even though there is no legal limitation on the number of expiry reviews,  having 
measures in place for more than 25 years is outside the economic reality and particularly unjustified 
in this case because during this period the situation of the sugar market in the EU has changed 
significantly. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy  has undergone a profound reform and the sugar 
regime has ended in 2017. Consequently, minimum prices no longer apply and the cross -
subsidization from the production of quota sugar to the production of out -of-quota sugar has ceased. 
The elimination of the sugar regime combined with the restructuring of the sector in the EU has 
changed the price and cost situation in the market. The EU's sugar prices are now in line with world 
market prices and are expected to remain at that level in the future. Moreover, if  the Canadian 
measure were to expire, it would be unlikely that EU exports would resume in significant quantities 
to cause injury to the domestic producers. The EU's sugar industry has restructured and reduced 
production capacities and production volumes. The EU considered that the measure should now be 
terminated and allow the market to adjust without unwarranted protection. Therefore, the EU urged 
the Canadian authorities to terminate the AD measure on refined sugar.  
113.  In response to the EU, Canada  explaine d that on 2 October 2020, the Canadian International 
Trade Tribunal has initiated an expiry review. These investigations are being conducted on an arm's -G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 16 - 
 
  lengths basis by the authorities. Canada encouraged the EU to participate in the expiry review 
process.  
114.  The EU also expressed concern regarding provisional AD duties imposed by the United States  
on imports of common alloy aluminium sheet originating in seven EU member States. According to 
the EU, the wide geographical scope of the investigation casted doubt  on the USDOC's standard of 
initiation of the investigation. The EU stated that the Anti -Dumping Agreement requires evidence of 
dumping and injury for the initiation of an AD investigation. To the EU, it seemed inconceivable that 
so many countries were dum ping. The EU argued that this was apparently confirmed by the USDOC's 
preliminary determination, given that many dumping margins for cooperating producers were found 
to be very low and close to the de minimis  level. The EU added that the scope of this inve stigation 
seemed to target all aluminium supplying countries to the United States . Therefore, the EU called 
on the United States  authorities to rely on the AD instrument in a more targeted way. According to 
Article 9.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, it is desirable that the AD instrument remains limited to 
those origins causing injury.  
115.  Furthermore, the EU was concerned about the level of the preliminary duties applied to certain 
European exporters. For example, one exporter has been attributed a duty of 350 % which is 10 
times higher than the alleged dumping margin in the petition submitted by the United States  
industry. Such a high level of duty was the result of resorting to adverse facts available ("AFA"), 
alleging insufficient cooperation. The EU's export ers have, however, cooperated to the best of their 
ability. In fact, the company which faced the highest 350% duty seemed to have fully cooperated in 
the investigation. Other companies were faced, in addition to replies to the initial questionnaire, 
unreas onable numerous follow -up supplemental questions to be answered within very short time 
limits. They have often faced situations in which it was impossible and/or extremely costly to provide 
all the requested information.  
116.  The EU stated that  resorting to AF A and seeking the most adverse facts rather than 
representative facts available violated paragraph 7 of Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. 
Moreover, it seemed that the company in this case has not been informed forthwith of the reasons 
for relying on AFA and has not been given the opportunity to provide further explanations during 
the investigation. This violated paragraph 6 of Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The EU 
therefore called on the United States  authorities to apply duty rates that are not completely lacking 
any economic reality, also in the context of AFA. The EU and the companies concerned would 
intervene during the investigation and hoped that the concerns raised would be duly considered and 
that the USDOC's assessment would be correc ted in the final determination.  
117.  Norway5 raised concerns regarding the provisional measure on imports of common alloy 
aluminium sheet imposed by the United States  and referred to by the EU. Norway stated that 
Norwegian Hydro ASA is a Norwegian aluminium producer with 35,000 employees worldwide. It is 
Norway's second largest corporation, second only to Equinor. Norway expressed concerns that the 
USDOC has recently announced its temporary decision to impose an AD duty on common alloy 
aluminium sheet produced by Norwegian Hydro ASA's subsidiary in G ermany, Hydro Aluminium 
Rolled Products GmbH. Norway was particularly concerned by the fact that the USDOC has 
determined an AD duty of 352.7% on Hydro's products. This was by far the highest AD duty imposed 
on any company involved in this investigation. N orway explained that it would be following this case 
closely and that it planned to raise the issue with the USDOC in close cooperation with the EU and 
Germany.  
118.  In response to the EU and Norway, the United States  stated that it would be inappropriate to 
comment on an ongoing investigation. The United States  encouraged the EU and interested parties 
to make their comments on the record of the investigation. The United States  stated that the USDOC 
intends to issue the final determination by 1 March 2021.  
119.  The Russian Federation  expressed concern about the initiation by Australia  of the expiry 
review of the AD measure on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation. 
The review has been initiated based on an application by the Australian indus try in which the 
applicants used the average gas costs at the European border to construct the normal value of 
ammonium nitrate in the Russian Federation. This was based on the alleged "particular market 
 
5 This statement was read by the Chair. Due to technical issues, Norway could not connect remotely and 
asked the Chair to read out its intervention.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 17 - 
 
  situation " due to government influence in the Russia n Federation which was supposed to be resulting 
in artificially low raw material gas input prices. The Russian Federation stated that Article 2.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement requires constructing the normal value based on the cost of production in 
the co untry of origin. However, the normal value of ammonium nitrate constructed based on the 
average gas costs at the European border could not be deemed to be based on the cost of production 
in the country of origin, i.e. the Russian Federation. In the Russian  Federation's view, it appeared 
that what the Australian authorities have accepted as evidence of dumping contradicted the 
definition of dumping in Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The Russian Federation considered 
that such a petition could not be  a sufficient basis on which to initiate a review. The Australian 
authorities have thus acted inconsistently with Article  11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The 
Russian Federation urged Australia to terminate the review immediately without extension of th e 
measure. It called on Australia not to adjust the costs incurred by Russian producers using out -of-
country costs.  
120.  In response to the Russian Federation, Australia  stated that on 20 August 2020, the Australian 
Anti-Dumping Commission had initiated a conti nuation inquiry with regard to ammonium nitrate 
from the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation has since provided a government submission 
in this case which is being considered and Australia would respond in due course. Australia noted 
that the statem ent of essential facts was due on 8 December 2020 with a due date for a final report 
to the Industry Minister on 2 January 2021. Australia offered to discuss with the Russian Federation 
its concerns but reiterated that the Russian Federation's submission p rovided to the Anti -Dumping 
Commission was currently under consideration.  
121.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
122.  The Chair  recalled that as foreshadowed in the annotat ed draft agenda sent to all Members 
on 18 September 2020, a meeting of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention was not held this 
time due to the heavy agenda of the Committee. As for the Committee Spring meeting of 2021, the 
approach agreed in the Spring of 2015 would be applied in deciding whether the Informal Group will 
meet. 
123.  No statements  were made by any Member.  
124.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
125.  The Chair  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation held a meeting on 
21 November  2019 at which the Group discussed issues relating to verification procedures; 
treatment of financial expenses and financial income in dumping margin calculations/sales below -
cost test; and determination of the base price for the below -cost test. Ms Jill Pollack of the 
United  States served as discussant. Ms Jill Pollack had circulated a roadmap of issues in advance of 
the meeting to assist delegations in their work. The Group ha d a good discussion at which 
representatives of many investigating authorities shared their practices and posed questions to each 
other about their experiences.  
126.  The Chair explained that due to the heavy agenda, the Working Group would not meet this 
fall. T he Chair noted that the topics and discussant of the next meeting of the Working Group have 
not yet been determined by Members. This issue would be taken over by the incoming Chair of the 
Committee.  
127.  No statements were made by any Member.  
128.  The Committee took note of the report made.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 18 - 
 
  7 MEMBERS' PROCEDURES DURING COVID -19 – ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA AND 
THE UNITED STATES  
129.  Australia  stated that it had requested this agenda item  to identify and share with other 
Members the respective responses in light of the COVID -19 pandemic . Australia's request had been 
triggered by its public  announcement to temporar ily suspend international onsite verification in AD 
and CVD investigations. Australia expressed its interest in understanding the approach taken by  
other Members in accommodat ing for the circumstances resulting from the COVID -19 pandemic, 
such as travel restrictions. Australia  acknowledged that Members had different approaches to 
regulations and practices. Australia  considered the discussion under this agenda item  as an 
opportunity for Members to share information on whether any adjustments to  their laws or practices 
have been  made in this respect . 
130.  The discussion was held in an informal mode . 
131.  The Committee took note of the statement made during the formal mode.  
8 MEXICO – ANTIDUMPING MEASURE IMPOSED ON IMPORTS OF BOND PAPER – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  
132.  Brazil  referred to an AD  measure imposed by Mexico  on imports of bond paper. Brazil 
explained that it had received replies from Mexico to its technical questions, but that doubts  and 
concerns  remained regarding the sunset review  at issue. This concerned, in particular, (1) the 
assessment of the impact of imports from other origins in the analysis of likelihood of injur y, (2) the 
reasons for the Mexican authorities' rejection of the information provided by Brazilian producers, 
(3) the impact of the  potential  substitution of bond paper imports by paper rolls imports in the  
likelihood of injury analysis, and (4) the use or  not of data from domestic production sales of paper  
rolls in the analysis of apparent national consumption and the  performance of domestic market and 
industry. Brazil stated that it would send additional written questions regarding these issues to the 
Mexican delegation and that it looked forward to continuing bilateral discussions with Mexico.  
133.  In response to Brazil, Mexico  confirmed that it had provided written replies to Brazil and stated 
that it had taken note of Brazil's statement, which it would conv ey to capital.  
134.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9 OTHER BUSINESS  
135.  The Chair  encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to give sufficient notice to the Member s concerned prior to the meeting in order to  ascertain 
whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting . 
136.  Japan  expressed systemic concern with regard to sunset review procedures. Japan noted that 
Article  11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated i n 
five years unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the measure, 
namely that the elimination of the AD duty would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury. However, many AD measures by Members seem ed to have been improperly 
imposed for more than five years and some of them even for decades. In Japan's view, it may not 
be clear whether the practice by some Members regarding sunset reviews has been consistent with 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Japan opi ned that Members must strictly apply Article 11.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and that they must perform proper reviews in accordance with the WTO 
rules. Japan encouraged the relevant industries to actively participate in the sunset review 
procedures in order to achieve early termination. While Japan would continue its efforts in this 
regard, it would also continue to closely monitor the practice by other Members as regards sunset 
reviews and to request termination of AD measures which in its view have be en in place for too long.  
137.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
10 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
138.  The next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 26 April 2021.  G/ADP/M/58  
 
- 19 - 
 
  11 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ANTI -DUMPING PRACTICES TO THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  
139.  The Committee adopted  its 2020 Annual Report to the CTG .  
12 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
140.  The Chair recalled Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure which provides that the 
election of the new Chair shall take place at the first regular meeting of the year and that the election 
shall take effect at the end of that meeting. The first regular meeting of the year was supposed to 
be held in April 2020, but due to the COVID -19 pandemic, it never took place such that the meeti ng 
in October 2020 became the first regular meeting of 2020. Accordingly, the election of the new 
Chair, and subsequently the new Vice -Chair took place under this agenda item. 
141.  The Committee elected by acclamation Ms Maarit Keitanen (Finland) as Chair and Mr Craig 
Barrington Douglas (Jamaica) as Vice -Chair to hold office until the end of the Committee's first 
regular meeting of 2021.  
__________