RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/57  
 
15 January 2020  
(20-0468) Page: 1/20 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 20 NOVEMBER 2019  
CHAIR: MS LENKA ŠUSTROVÁ (CZECK REPUBLIC)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
20 November  2019. 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 28: 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ ........................  2 
1.1   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Commit tee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2 
1.1.1  Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ....... 2 
1.1.2  Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/1/Suppl.10)  ................................ ................................ ........  3 
1.1.3  Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ............................  3 
1.1.4  Lesotho (G/ADP/N/1/LSO/1)  ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
1.1.5  Mauritius  (G/ADP/N/1/MUS/3 - G/SCM/N/1/MUS/3)  ................................ ..................  4 
1.2 Review of notifications of new or amended le gislation 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 
1.2.5  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 
1.2.6  Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/2 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 & 
G/ADP/N/1/VNM/2/Corr.1 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1/Corr.1 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/2/Corr.1)  ....................  5 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW  OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIO USLY REVIEWED BY THE  COMMITTEE  ................................ ....... 5 
2.1 Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
2.2 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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 
2.3 Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/2 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 & 
G/ADP/N/1/VNM/2/Corr.1 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1/Corr.1 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/2/Corr.1)  ....................  6 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTI ONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/328) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  7 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINA L ANTI -DUMPING ACTIO NS: NOTIFICATIONS  ...............  16 G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 2 - 
 
  5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF T HE INFORMAL GROUP ON  
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 17 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF T HE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  17 
7 TURKEY – ANTI -DUMPIN G MEASURES ON UNBLEA CHED KRAFT LINER  
PAPER – ITEM REQUEST ED BY BRAZIL  ................................ ................................ ..........  18 
8 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 19 
9 DATE OF THE NE XT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................  20 
10 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COMMITTEE ON ANTI -DUMPING PRACTICES TO  
THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  ................................ ...................  20 
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  Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.3)  
3. No written questions were posed regarding the notification of Canada.  
4. Canada  stated that o n 27 September  2019, it notified amendments to the Speci al Import 
Measures Regulation relating to the conduct of antidumping  ("AD")  investigations. Changes were 
made to ensure  that an appropriate level of AD duties can be applied to goods that are dumped into 
Canada, specifically addressing situations where pri ce distortions may affect the foreign producers ' 
cost of production in an AD investigation. The amendments provide Canada Border Services Agency  
("CBSA ") with the flexibility to address distortions in production costs when inputs are supplied by 
parties af filiated to producers and with alternative methodologies to determine the cost of inputs if 
such costs are distorted due to a particular market situation  ("PMS")  in the country of export. The 
amendments relating to PMS provide a hierarchy of alternatives t o be used to determine the cost of 
inputs with price adjustments – to be made as necessary – to reflect the actual cost of input s in the 
country of export . 
5. Korea  expres sed the view that Canada 's amendments pertaining  to associated parties and the 
PMS are inconsistent with the Anti -Dumping Agreement  ("AD Agreement"). Article 2.2 of the 
AD Agreement permits the investigating authority, under certain applicable conditions, to disregard 
domestic sales and to use the cost of production to calculate the normal va lue. Article 2.2.1.1 of the 
AD Agreement further provides the specific conditions under which the investigating authorities may 
deviate from actual cost records. However, it regarded the  Regulation as allowing the investigating 
authority to deny the actual cost records  in a disregard  to the requirements stipulated in the 
AD Agreement.  It added that t he Korean Government had raised the issue before the amendment 
process was finalized , yet the amendment took effe ct. Korea  encourage d the Canadian Government 
to take caution in applying the amendment to avoid the violation of the relevant WTO agreements . 
6. The European Union  ("EU") requested more information on  the hierarchy of alternat ive sources 
that Canada can use in case of a PMS to replace costs .   
7. China  requested  more information on the PMS issue and additional elaboration by  Canada on 
the alternative PMS methodologies and how such methodologies would be used.  
8. In response to Korea, Canada  noted that it is a strong supporter of the rules -based 
international trading system and has been careful to ensure that the measures taken to improve 
Canada's trade remedy system are consistent with Canada's rights and obligations under its trade 
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the November  2019 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 4 - 
G/SCM/W/57 9 - G/SG/W/24 6. G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 3 - 
 
  agreements. Canada emphasized that it follows WTO jurisprudence on PMS closely, as it develops, 
which has informed Canada's approach .  
9. In response to the EU, Canada  referred to the regulation s where  the hierarchy is laid out. 
Essentially, it starts with price  reference points within the country of export; first being, the price of 
the same or substantially the same input produced in the country of export and sold to the exporter 
or other producers in that country; the price of the same or substantially the sam e input produced 
in the country of export and sold from the country of export to a third country; the price of the same 
or substantially the same input determined on the basis of published prices of those inputs in the 
country of export; the price of the s ame or substantially the same input produced in a third country 
and sold to the exporter or other producers in the country of export (adjusted to ensure 
comparability); and the price of the same or substantially the same input determined on the basis 
of published prices outside the country of export (adjusted to ensure comparability) .  
10. In response to China, Canada  indicated that t he alternative  methodologies referred to involve 
the list just read out  in response to the EU's question.  
1.1.2  Japan ( G/ADP/N/1/JPN/1/Suppl.10 ) 
11. No written or oral questions were posed regarding the notification of Japan.  
12. Japan  explained that prior to  the amendment, an implementation requirement of a sampling 
method for investigati ons in the Guideline for Procedures Relating to Anti -Dumping Duty  was: "the 
number of known suppliers from the exporting country exceeds 20 ". In the context of the 
amendment, t he Japanese investigating  authorit y added that a sampling method may still be us ed 
in case the number of said suppliers – who have expressed their intention to cooperate in the 
investigation – exceeds the number of those who can reasonably be investigated even if the number 
of those  suppliers are 20 or less in addition to the said req uirements. At the time of the previous 
amendment in 2014, the number of said suppliers who cooperate d was very few compared to the 
number of all suppliers themselves. The authorities took said circumstances into consideration and 
made a decision that it  would be  practicable to reasonably investigate in case the number of all 
suppliers is 20 or less because it means that the actual subjects to be investigated are within the 
reasonable number.  However, recently, there occurred cases in which the number of the  said 
suppliers who cooperate d was beyond the expectation which  indicate d that there might be a risk not 
to complete investigation s during the predetermined period of investigation. In order to avoid such 
risk, the authorities add ed the description which made  it possible to use a sampling method in case 
the number of said suppliers who cooperate d exceeds the number of suppliers  whom  the authorities 
can reasonably investigate , even if the number of said suppliers is 20 or less in addition to said 
requirements . 
1.1.3  Kenya ( G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3  - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3  - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2 ) 
13. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be f ound in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/4  - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/4  - G/SG/Q1/KEN/3 – Submitted by the United States 
("US")  
14. Written answers to the US' written questions were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ KEN/5  - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/5  - G/SG/Q1/KEN/4 – Replies to the US  
15. Kenya  explained that it had notified its legislation only. The Institution provided for in the law 
to implement trade remedies  in Kenya is under formation in accordance with Kenya 's regulations 
governing the establishment of new Government Institutions. When the Institution is ready and 
operational, it would  be notified to the Committee.  
1.1.4  Lesotho  (G/ADP/N/1/ LSO/1) 
16. No written or oral questions were posed with respect to this notificat ion. No statements were 
made regarding this notification.  G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.1.5  Mauritius  (G/ADP/N/1/MUS/3  - G/SCM/N/1/MUS/3)  
17. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ MUS/4  - G/SCM/Q1/MUS/4  – Submitted by the US  
18. Written an swers to the US' written questions were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ MUS/5  - G/SCM/Q1/MUS/5  – Replies to the US  
19. Mauritius  indicated that i n line with Section 77 of the Trade (Antidumping and Countervailing) 
Measures Act, some regulations  have been drafted with the view to facilitate the implementation of 
the Act and these pertain to  the definition of domestic industry, procedures for post investigations, 
reliance on information available, new -shipper review, public interest, refunds, suns et review, and 
definition of subsidy and marginal subsidy . It added that such regulations are still undergoing 
national procedures for adoption . 
20. 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  Cambodia (G/ADP/N/1/KHM/2  - G/SCM/N/1/KHM/2  - G/SG/N/1/KHM/2)  
21. 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  
22. Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ KHM/2 - G/SCM/Q1/ KHM/2 - G/SG/Q1/ KHM/2 – Replies to  the US  
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 ) 
23. 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  
24. 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 ) 
25. Written questions were posed regard ing this notification and can be found in the following 
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  
26. Written answers were provided and can be found in  documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ SLV/10 - G/SCM/Q1/ SLV/10 - G/SG/Q1/ SLV/9 – Replies to  the US  
• G/ADP/Q1/ SLV/11 - G/SCM/Q1/ SLV/11  - G/SG/Q1/ SLV/20 – Replies to Mexico  
27. El Salvador  explained that the special law on trade remedies  aims to establish the mechanism 
and procedures of protection and remedy  against unfair trade practices and to introduce safeguard G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 5 - 
 
  measures to counteract imports of goods in such quantities or under such conditions as to cause or 
threaten to cause serious or material injury to domestic producers of the like or directly competitive 
products . 
1.2.4  Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  
28. 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  
29. Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/2 – G/SCM/Q1/LBR/2  – Replies to  the US  
1.2.5  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)  
30. Written questions were posed regarding this noti fication and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ARE/3 – G/SCM/Q1/ARE/3 – G/SG/Q1/ARE/3 – Submitted by the US  
31. Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ARE/4 – G/SCM/Q1/ARE/3 – G/SG/Q1/ARE/4 – Replies to the US  
1.2.6  Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/ 1/VNM/2  - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1  - G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 & 
G/ADP/N/ 1/VNM/2/Corr.1 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1/Corr.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/VNM/2/Corr.1)    
32. Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/5 – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/5 – G/SG/Q1/VNM/5 – Submitted by the EU  
33. Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/7 – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/7 – G/SG/Q1/VNM/7 – Replies to the EU  
34. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and ans wers.  
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW  OF LEGISLATIVE NOTI FICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
2.1 Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3/Suppl.2)  
35.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ECU/20 – G/SCM/Q1/ECU/20 – Submitted by the US  
• G/ADP/Q1/ECU/21 – G/SCM/Q1/ECU/21 – Submitted by the Dominican Republic  
36. Written answers were provided and can be found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ECU/22 – G/SCM/Q1/ECU/22 – Replies to the Dominican Republic  
• G/ADP/Q1/ECU/23 – G/SCM/Q1/ECU/23 – Reply to the US  
37. In response to the US, Ecuador  explained that the different procedures for investigations and 
application of AD measures in the previous regulation did not cover all the procedural, legal and 
administrative issues for thi s type of investigation. This is why it was believed it would be necessary 
to have a new national regulation that covers new investigation procedures to permit the G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 6 - 
 
  investigati ng authority to carry out investigations and protect the domestic industry . Based on these 
procedures, t he investigating authority would  determine who must be treated as interested part ies. 
It is also necessary to take into account Article 9.1.2 of the national regulation as well as Article  6.11 
of the A D Agreement. Ecuador reiter ated that its notified regulations took into account the 
procedures established by the WTO.  
38. In response to the Dominican Republic, Ecuador  indicated that the  public authorities that are 
mentioned in Article 56.2 would be, for example, those  with informati on on the different production 
sectors of the country such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries or other authorities that have statistics 
that may be useful for the investigation. On the other hand, if it is necessary and depending  on the 
matter in question , Ecuador  could  have the support of specialized technician s in order to carry out 
a specific task on the basis of their knowledge so that the investigating authority may be able to 
confirm that the information given in that investigation is complete and ex act. This info rmation  would  
be provided  to the companies and the enterprises with respect to  which these investigations are 
being carried out . 
2.2 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)   
39. A written question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/Q1/SLV/12 – G/SCM/Q1/SLV/12 – G/SG/Q1/SLV/11 – Submitted by the US  
40. The written answers provided can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/SLV/13 – G/SCM/Q1/SLV/13 – G/SG/Q1/SLV/12 – Reply to  the US  
2.3 Viet Nam ( G/ADP/N/ 1/VNM/2  - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1  - G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 & 
G/ADP/N/ 1/VNM/2 /Corr.1  - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/1 /Corr.1  - 
G/SG/N/1/VNM/2 /Corr.1 ) 
41. A written question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/6 – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/6 – G/SG/Q1/VNM/6 – Submitted by the US  
42. The written answer provided can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/8 – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/8 – G/SG/Q1/VNM/8 – Reply to the US  
43. The Chair informed Members that, pursuant to the Committee's agree d procedures, in order 
for a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the April meeting of the Committee, 
the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 16 March 2020. Shortly after this date, 
the Secretariat will circula te a document informing Members of all legislative notifications to be 
reviewed at the next Committee meeting in April 2020.  
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 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 submit ted. 
45. The Chair noted that a new legislative notification from Lao People's Democratic Republic , 
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 2 020. 
 
2 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 4 - G/SCM/W/57 9 - 
G/SG/W/24 6. G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 7 - 
 
  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.50, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement and encouraged Memb ers to review and update 
previously submitted information, where necessary.  
48. The US appreciate d the fact that most Members submitted a notification with their domestic 
AD legislation or a one -time notification that they do not have an AD legislation. However, some 
countries which have not provided a notification of their legislation status have submitted TPR reports 
indicating whether they have AD laws in effect. In other w ords, the respective WTO Members have 
already gone through the effort of informing the WTO of their AD legislation status, albeit in another 
forum. The US  encourage d Members to review their situations and make the appropriate notification 
promptly. It adde d that t he notification of AD laws and any revisions to those laws are a key element 
in maintaining transparency in the administration of AD remedy. It encourage d all Members to 
submit future notifications promptly following the implementation of the relev ant legislation  and to 
think creatively as to how compliance with notification requirements  could be improved . It indicated 
that the  Council for Trade in Goods ( "CTG") continues to consider the proposal entitled Procedures 
to Enhance Transparency and Stren gthen Notification Requirements 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.  Since the most 
recent CTG meeting, the co -sponsors have continued outreach efforts to obtain additional and 
substantive feedback from Members. The United States also indicated that it 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 ACTI ONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/328)  
50. The Chair  recalled that a request and a reminder for submission of semi -annual reports for 
the first half of  2019 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/328 and G/ADP/N/328/Suppl.1, 
respectively. Members taking no AD actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per 
year. This would not apply to those Members that had already subm itted a one -time notification 
under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD  Agreement.  
51. The Chair noted that a number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not the y had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except for the 50 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification .3 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement.  
52. 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 transparency, undermining the ability to maintain an updated 
and reliab le database, and placing 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 qu ick responses to the 
Secretariat's queries in this respect.  
53. The Chair  also explained that being aware of the challenges 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 facility 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 force, 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/57  
 
- 8 - 
 
  further information and expl anation about this to any interested delegations. Semi -annual report 
data generated through MADRE is in a format that could be directly imported into the Rules Division 's 
databases. The Secretariat can provide further information on the possibility of tran sferring these 
data from MADRE to interested delegations .  
54. In addition, as a separate project which has just been 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 will consist of a series of fields to be completed with all of the required information. The 
interface will be enabled with smart features, to autom atically prepopulate data from prior reports 
for ongoing investigations and other actions, and to populate related 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 ty pes 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 Members to that effect  
in due course . The Secretariat will keep the Committee updated on progress as the project proceeds . 
55. The Chair  finally added that t his project for the revamping of the trade remedies databases 
and the on -line notification facility would fit  into the larger context of the so -called Open Trade 
Initiative  ("OTDI") , which is a joint project of the WTO and the Internat ional Trade Centre. The broad 
aim of the OTDI is to make readily accessible as much trade -related information as possible, 
including on trade remedies. While the full outlines of the OTDI are still under discussion, the need 
to upgrade the trade remedies d atabases made this a good fit for the first phase of the broader 
project. Ultimately, the quality and accessibility of trade remedies information will be significantly 
improved through these efforts . 
56. The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the f irst half of 2019. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; Australia; Chile; Colombia; 
Costa  Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; Israel; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Madagascar; 
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); Malaysia; Morocco; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Trinidad and 
Tobago ; Turkey and Viet Nam.  
57. On the semi -annual report of the member States of the Eurasian Economic Union 
(Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation) , Ukraine  expressed its 
concerns regarding the results of the AD  investigation on imports of zinc plated or coated flat -rolled 
steel products originating , inter alia , in Ukraine. Ukraine opin ed that the conclusions of the 
investigating authority in the investigation lack ed objectivity and credibility. Under the established 
period of investigati on, there was no increase in imports . On the contrary, the share of the imported 
product decreased while the share of the domestic industry increased. Furthermore,  decrease in 
several indicators pertaining to the  domestic industry was caused by other facto rs, which were not 
completely taken into account by the investigating authority. Therefore, there was no sufficient 
evidence of material injury to the domestic industry caused by imports within the meaning of 
Article  3 of the A D Agreement. Moreover, the investigating authority based its conclusions on the 
period not included in the initially established period of investigation , which Ukraine considered to 
be inconsistent with WTO provisions as within this period dumping was  not determined. Ukraine 
requested an explanation as to why the investigating authority had relied in  its injury analysis on 
the data not included in the period of investigation . It urged the member  States  of the Eurasian 
Economic Union to abide by the WTO rules when using trade remedies and terminate the 
investigation without imposition of AD measures . 
58. In response to Ukraine, the Russian Federation  explained that all  the interested parties 
including Ukrainian importers and producers were given  every  opportunit y to provide comments  and 
gain access to all the information including the conclusions of the investigating authority. All the 
comments and data provided by the Ukrainian interested parties were taken into account by the 
investigating authority. The analysis relating to the comments was included in the conclusions which 
could be found in the respective report. The report with the results was provided to the Ukrainian 
interested parties and all the comments with respect to the report would also be taken into ac count 
in the final determination. It could not agree with all the comments made by the  Ukrainian interested 
parties but underline d that all the information was taken into account and all the information which G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 9 - 
 
  was provided by the Ukrainian companies was used for the calculation of dumping. With respect to 
the injury side, the data from the industry was taken into account not only for the initially established 
investigation period , but also for the period beyond the investigation period up  to the date of the 
final determination due to the fact that the situation  of the market was rapidly changing . The 
investigating authority has taken the decision to take into account all of this data , but the conclusions 
were established mainly on the basis of the data for th e investigation period . 
59. On the semi -annual report of Brazil , Ukraine  address ed the issue of review of the 
AD measures on the imports of tyres for passenger cars originating , inter alia , in Ukraine. According 
to the recent Disclosure of the Essential Facts of the investigation, there was a conclusion on the 
absence of likelihood that Ukraine would resume dumping exports to Brazil if the measures were 
allowed to lapse. Therefore, Ukraine believe d that the AD measures on tyres for passenger cars from 
Ukraine should be terminated pursuant to Article s 11.1 and 11.3 of the A D Agreement . 
60. Brazil  explained that t his investigation is still ongoing and that  the Ukrainian Government and 
the interest ed parties still have time to provide the information which would be taken into account 
in accordance with  WTO rules .  
61. On the semi -annual report of Canada , Korea  raised two issues. First, it noted that on 
10 September 2019, the CBSA released the result of a normal value review on certain carbon and 
alloy steel line pipes imported from Korea. Korea expressed  the view that the result of the review is 
inconsistent with the WTO rules.  Korea submitted that t he Cana dian authority did not provide clear 
reasons for the initiation of the review. The review was on the determination of the original 
investigation, which was concluded just eight months before the review was initiated. Moreover, the 
Korean exporter cooperate d faithfully in the entire investigation process.  However, the CBSA denied 
all the information submitted by the Korean exporter and applied the dumping margin rate that had 
been applied to the exporters who refused to cooperate in the original investigatio n. As a result, the 
dumping margin rate for the Korean exporter increased from 4 % in the original determination to 
88% in the review conducted  eight months  later. Korea believe d that such a result of the review is 
inconsistent with Article 6.8 and Annex II  of the A D Agreement.  Also, Korea note d that on 
19 July 2019, the Canadian authority released a policy memorandum on the normal value review 
process. However, the memorandum allow ed the investigating authorit y excessive discretion, which 
undermine d predict ability vis-à-vis the exporters . 
62. Second, Korea express ed concerns regarding the final determination of the two AD 
investigations on certain hot -rolled steel plate and oil country tubular goods  ("OCTG") . The CBSA 
determined that the Korean exporters of the two products had de minimis  dumping margins. 
However, AD measures have been applied to these Korean exporters. As the panel ruled in Canada -
Welded Pipe (DS482) , applying AD duty on exporters with de minimis  margin is inconsistent with 
Article 5.8 of the AD  Agreement. However, Canada was of the view that a domestic process is 
required to terminate the measures which had been determined before the panel ruling. In early 
June 2019, Korea's  Trade Minister sent a letter to the Canadian Finance Minister request ing the 
initiation of the domestic process. Since then, Korea has not been informed of  any updates on the 
progress. Korea urge d Canada to terminate the measure at issue without delay . 
63. Canada  explained that w ith respect to the normal value review process, it did provide some 
information on this process at the last meeting. In June 2018, CBSA began conducting normal review 
proceedings. These were similar to reinvestigation processes that already existed in Cana da which 
update d normal value, subsidy or export prices and are a necessary process to keep Canadian AD 
findings up -to-date in Canada's prospective normal value duty assessment system. It explained that 
normal value reviews were different in two ways from a reinvestigation process ; i.e. only normal 
value is updated, and they are conducted with respect to a single or limited number of exporters 
rather than all exporters. With respect to the case referred  to by Korea, this investigation is currently 
subject t o judicial review at the Federal Court of Appeals and Canada would  not wish to comment 
further at this stage. On the second issue, under Canadian law, the review of determinations and 
findings made by the CBSA and the Canadian International  Trade Tribunal for the purposes of 
implementing a WTO ruling or recommendation may only be initiated following a request by the 
Minister of Finance. Canada  acknowledge d the request made by Korea in this regard and ha s been 
in touch with officials regarding progress on th at. However,  following the recent Canadian election, 
it is expected that a new cabinet would  soon be formed, and the matter would  be considered by the 
Minister of Finance after his appointment .  G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 10 - 
 
  64. On the semi -annual report of China , Korea  reiterate d its conc ern on China 's practice of 
refusing to accept the actual cost of self -producing material. This practice was applied again to the 
recent AD duty investigation on phenol imported from Korea. The Chinese investigating authority 
refused to use the actual cost for the input that was manufactured by the exporter. Rather, China 
calculated the costs based on the external purchase price, on the grounds that the cost of self -
produced material is below the market price or average sales price. However, such cost had be en 
duly established in accordance with accounting standards. Korea believed  that denying the actual 
cost solely for the reason that it is too low is inconsistent with WTO rules, in particular Article 2.2.1.1 
of the A D Agreement. It stated that s uch conviction is shared by the Appellate Body, as it confirmed 
in the EU-Biodiesel  case that the latter part of Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement does not allow 
the investigating authority to evaluate the reasonableness of cost . 
65. Korea submitted that the Chinese investigating authority has continued to deny the actual 
cost of self -producing material in a series of China 's final determinations on the products from Korea 
such as Methylisobutul Ketone ( "MIBK") of March 2018, Styrene Monomer  ("SM") of June 2018 and 
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber ( "NBR") of November 2018. Being concerned that this practice may 
become permanent, Korea request ed the Chinese investigating authority to fully respect and observe 
the relevant WTO rules in taking any  AD measures . 
66. Japan  express ed its concern on the investigation initiated by China in July 2018 and the 
preliminary determination made in March 2019 regarding Japan's stainless billets, hot -rolled plates 
and coils.  Throughout the investigation, Japan ha d continued to express its serious concern that the 
product under consideration ( "PUC") was too broad as the PUC include d semi-final and final products, 
and that the finding of the injury to the domestic industry and causal link between the imports and 
injury have been made inappropriately because the use and consumers of these products are 
considerably different. In this light, Japan strongly requested the Chinese investigating authority to 
make finding s and determination s consistent with the AD Agreement. How ever, the Chinese 
investigating authority made the final determination without considering any of Japan 's concerns. 
Japan added that it would pay close attention to the impact of the determination and the imposition 
of the AD duties on the Chinese companie s that are users of the subject products as well as on the 
Japanese exporters. Japan urged  the Chinese investigating authority to review the determination in 
accordance with the AD Agreement . 
67. Japan also raise d the matter regarding the on -going investigatio n on its vertical machining 
centres which was initiated in October 2018 and then extended till April  2020. In this investigation, 
because there is no competition relationship between the Japanese and the Chinese products, Japan 
believe d that Japanese products should be excluded from the PUC. As Japanese companies 
manufacture and export both small and large models, and their physical features and use are 
different, the Chinese investigating authority, in finding the injury and causal link , must take into 
account the likeness of the products and competition relationship between Japanese and Chinese 
products, even if Japanese products would be subject to the investigation. Japan request ed the 
Chinese investigating authority to make findings and determination s consistent with the 
AD Agreement . 
68. In response to Korea, China  reiterate d that it is China's consistent position that trade remedy  
measures should be applied prudently, and it carried out the investigation s in accordance with WTO 
rules an d the related Chinese laws and regulations. The AD case s which Korea referred to, NBR, 
MIBK and Phenol, are different cases with different circumstances . Even within the same  
investigation, different exporters have different situations. According to the WT O rules and Chinese 
domestic laws, the records show costs established in accordance with generally accepted accounting 
principles and also reasonably reflect the cost associated with the production and sale of the PUC. 
In practice, the inter - corporate tra nsfer pricing is the same situation as the affiliate sale pricing 
which may distort the reasonabl eness  of the record. As a consequence , the investigating authority  
may ask the exporters to provide a complete and detailed accounting record and provide suffi cient 
time and opportunities to submit evidence and comments. In some cases, the exporters did not 
provide reasonable evidence to demonstrate that inter -corporate transfer pricing reasonably 
reflect ed the cost of production and sale of the subject product.  So, the investigating authority used 
alternative methodology to recalculate the cost . 
69. In response to Japan's query regarding the steel  case, China indicated that it had  provided 
opportunities during the investigation period to consider these  questions and  have conducted several 
meetings including hearings to discuss Japan's  views  and comments. In the case of vertical G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 11 - 
 
  machining centres, it stated that the investigation is ongoing , that it would conduct the investigation 
as per WTO rules and Chinese law and make determinations objectively and impartially . 
70. On the semi -annual report of the EU, the Russian Federation  express ed its concerns regarding 
the EU 's initiation of an expiry review of the AD measure on imports of ammonium nitrate of Russian 
origin , which has been in force for more than 20 years.  In this case, AD measures that should provide 
temporary relief from imports have been extended almost automatically every 5 years. The Russian 
Federation request ed the EU to carefully review the grounds for the  application of this AD measure, 
and to specifically  consider  recent findings of the panel and the Appellate Body in the dispute Ukraine 
– Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate  pertaining to the  inconsistency of the cost 
adjustment methodology with Art icles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement.   
71. The Russian Federation also raised concern s relating to the definitive AD measures on imports 
of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating, inter alia , in the Russia n Federation , Trinidad 
and Tobago and t he United States. The main concern was connected to the use of the cost -
adjustment methodology. It noted that the use of such methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.2 
of the AD Agreement, which was highlighted in the recently concluded dispute Ukraine – Ammonium 
Nitrate , in particular, in para . 6.83 of the Appellate Body Report . 
72. Moreover, the Russian Federation indicated that  during the  EU investigations into Russian 
imports, the European Commission does not investigate imports from each and every country with 
regard to distortions on raw materials for the purpose of lesser duty rule application. Although the 
lesser duty rule is not mand atory, the Russian Federation submitted that even discretionary rules 
can be applied in such a manner that could  violate WTO obligations of a Member  and that this  is 
what actually happened in this case. Moreover,  it added that i n the application of its AD methodology , 
the EU may pick and choose the countries and limit imports from them as the EU itself wishes. As a 
result, goods from one WTO Member can be allowed to access the EU market, and products from 
another Member can be deprived from fair access to i t. Thus, by means of these methodologies the 
EU can deprive a WTO Member from its due benefits accrued under  the most -favoured -nation 
treatment  obligation . The Russian Federation  failed to see any provisions in the AD Agreement or in 
the GATT enabling the use of AD measures in such a way and for such purpose . 
73. In addition, the Russian Federation  reiterate d its systemic concerns regarding t he application 
of AD measures by the EU which has  deviated far from its original goal of remedying  injury to 
domestic ind ustry caused by  dumped imports. The first amendment introduced by 
Regulation  2017/2321  introduces the concept of the so-called "significant distortions ", which enables 
to use the data on costs acquired from countries other than the country of origin of the  exported 
product. The European Commission enjoys a very large discretion determining the presence of 
significant distortions.  Moreover, the European Commission intends to publish reports on significant 
distortions in the exporting countries , but it is  still unclear  when it will be published with respect to 
the Russian Federation , and whether the Commission intends to publish  reports concerning other 
countries  as well.  
74. The Russian Federation added that the second amendment introduced to the Basic Regulation 
by Regulation 2018/825  envisages the right of the European Commission not to apply the lesser 
duty adequate to remove injury. In practice, i t is worth to mention that some of the examples of 
such raw mate rial distortions may equally fall under the definition of significant distortions 
established in the first amendment. Thus, in certain cases the Commission may decide to punish the 
exporters twice for the same thing.  It emphasized that although the AD investigations are designed 
to look into pricing behaviour of exporters , the EU blurs these fundamental aims. Neither Article VI 
of the GATT, nor the AD Agreement were intended to address pricing policies of States.  It called 
upon the EU to eliminate any unfai r or discriminatory approach to Russian exporters, based on those 
new items of its AD legislation, and to adhere to its WTO obligations . 
75. In response , the EU explained that in case of the expiry review, the review  has just been 
initiated , the Russia n Federa tion will have a chance to make submissions , and the EU will take them 
into account. On the other set of questions, it indicated that it  had already provided replies on the 
compatibility  of the new methodology and also on the so-called modernization packag e with the 
WTO rules. It restate d that the lesser duty rule still applies and is still mandatory in all cases. The 
only difference is that there is a modulation in the application of this rule in cases of raw material 
distortions in the exporting country a nd these distortions are sanctioned in the OECD list of export 
restrictions. In these cases, there is a modulation in the application of the rules which is linked to G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 12 - 
 
  this factor. Thus, there is no discrimination as discrimination only arises where the situ ations are the 
same or similar and the EU  treats them differently or vice -versa when the EU  treats different 
situations  as alike , which is not the case when there are export restrictions in raw materials in only 
one exporting country which is the object of  the investigation . 
76. On the report concerning the Russia n Federation , the EU explained that the new AD 
methodology provides the possibility that the investigating authority may issue reports that address 
the issue of whether  there are significant distortions in a certain exporting country. It added that 
Commissioner Maelstrom announced in December 2017 that when issuing a report about a country, 
the Commissioner would look into whether there are distortions. The analysis is still ongoing, and it 
is not clear in practice, when a report on the Russian Federation will be released. When the report 
is released, the Russian Federation and all parties will have full opportunity to submit comments, 
rebut the evidence, findings and conc lusions in the report because the report will be published on 
the website and will be open to all parties. So , the Russian Government will have the option to make 
its voice heard in general and also in specific investigations should these reports conclude that there 
are significant distortions . 
77. On the semi -annual report of India , Japan  expressed  concern regarding the on -going 
investigation on Japan 's coated/plated tin mill flat rolled steel products, which was initiated in 
June 2019. Japan indicated that it  would be paying  close attention to this proceeding and future 
determination so that this AD investigation and its result s would  comply with the relevant provisions 
under the AD Agreement.  In particular, Japan request ed the Indian investigating authority t o include 
an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the 
industry in accordance with Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement and to carefully examine any known 
factors other than the dumped imports which at the same  time are injuring the domestic industry in 
accordance with Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement. Furthermore, as Article 3.3 of the AD Agreement 
stipulates that a cumulative assessment of the effect of the imports must meet the prerequisite that 
there is a com petitive relationship between the imported products and the like domestic products, 
Japan request ed the Indian investigating authority to appropriately examine whether there were a  
relationship and conditions of competition and to provide reasoned and adeq uate explanation on the 
appropriateness of a cumulative assessment .   
78. India indicated that it is  aware of the concerns raised by Japan in this investigation  and that 
it is planning, in December 2019 , to conduct on -site exporter verification and look into all the issues 
raised . It assure d Japan  that its concerns will be properly addressed . 
79. On the semi -annual report of Mexico , Kazakhstan  express ed its serious concerns over 
continued application of an AD measure by Mexico on cold -rolled sheet s originating in Kazakhstan.  
The original AD measure entered into force on 30 June 1999 and a first decision to extend it for five 
more years was already taken on 30 November 2005.  Since the initial application of the AD measure, 
Mexico carried out 2 five -year reviews of the measure and an extension based on the results of such 
reviews. The AD measure that has been applied for 20 years in relation to cold -rolled sheet 
originating in  Kazakhstan raises certain serious conce rns. 
80. First, Kazakhstan submitted that  in the original investigation on cold -rolled sheet, Mexico 
applied a non -market economy methodology against producers and exporters of Kazakhstan by 
using surrogate values pertaining to Spain in its determination of no rmal value. In subsequent sunset 
reviews, Mexico continued to apply discriminatory treatment and calculated normal value on the 
basis of data pertaining to Brazil as a surrogate country. Kazakhstan highlight ed that this approach 
lacks any legal foundation under the WTO Agreement, since nothing in the AD Agreement provides 
legal justification to disregard the data of the exporter or exporting country, using a completely 
different country 's data.  It pointed out that in cases where domestic sales prices could not be used  
for the purposes of determining dumping, the only provision in the AD Agreement that allows the 
investigating authority to determine the normal value based on other than the data of the exporter 
is Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement . 
81. Thus, Article  2.2 of the AD Agreement allows the investigating authorities to determine the 
normal value on the basis of either: (i) the cost of production in the country of origin plus a 
reasonable amount for "selling, general and administrative costs and profits "; or (ii) the export prices 
to an appropriate third country, so long as those prices are representative.  However, even under 
each of these two circumstances normal value is still determined using home market costs or prices 
– either the producer 's own cost of production (or the cost of production in the home market of the G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 13 - 
 
  exporting country), or the producer 's own export prices to a third country.  The Appellate Body in 
EU – Biodiesel (Argentina)  also stated that the obligation under Article 2.2.1.1 o f the AD Agreement 
was n arrower than that under Article 2.2. Therefore, the obligation to calculate the cost of production 
in the country of origin continued to apply even if the investigating authority did not have information 
from the investigated export er4. In this connection, Kazakhstan strongly stress ed that the 
method ology for determining normal value, therefore, should be grounded in an assessment of the 
prices and costs in the exporting country, or, in other words, the producer 's home market prices or 
costs. 
82. Second,  Kazakhstan indicated that in the original investigation, Mexico had made its 
determination on the basis of threat of injury that was supported by the information that the 
"combined effect of market closures and the financial crisis in Kaz akhstan is forcing the country's 
metallurgical industry, which is under investigation, to strengthen unfair trade practices in order to 
penetrate alternative export markets, including the Mexican market. " To confirm , a copy of the 
editorial notes "Producti on falls on Ispat Karmet -Asia" of 10 December 1998; "Kazakhstan is 
considering new proposals for quotas in the EU" of 15 October 1998; was provided for the 
investigating authority's attention.  It should be noted that this is the main information on the basis 
of which the investigating authority of Mexico made its final determination of the threat of injury in 
the original investigation. Although the  situation in Kazakhstan is absolutely differen t now, Mexico 
is still continuing to apply AD measure s based on the possible threat of injury. Kazakhstan recall ed 
that Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement establishes that "a determination of a threat of material injury 
shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. The change 
in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must be 
clearly foreseen and imminent ". 
83. Kazakhstan added that e ven if at the initial investigation the exist ence of threat of injury was 
proved with necessary evidence, it inquired whether the domestic industry of Mexico, after 20 years 
of protection, is still experiencing the likelihood of continuation of alleged dumping and injury. In 
this connection, it refer red to  the panel in US – DRAMS  which described the requirement in 
Article  11.1 of the AD Agreement whereby AD duties "shall remain in force only as long as and to 
the extent necessary" to counteract injurious dumping, as "a general necessity requirement"5. It 
also referred to what the same panel said with respect to  assessing the essential character of the 
necessity involved in Article 11.16. From this perspective, Kazakhstan indicated that the original AD 
measure was imposed under the determination of thre at of injury. In this respect, it is important 
that actual material injury has never been caused by imports originating in Kazakhstan. In fact, any 
injury to the domestic industry of Mexico could not have been caused by imports originating in 
Kazakhstan du e to the sporadic and insignificant volumes of imports from Kazakhstan in 1996 and 
1998.  In this regard, Kazakhstan believe d that this situation in itself begs to conclude that other 
factors besides the alleged dumped imports and the alleged threat of injury affecting the domestic 
industry in Mexico were not adequately considered and studied in the framework of all reviews and 
the initial ly impos ed measure, if Mexico's domestic industry, after 20 years of protection, is still 
experiencing the likelihood of continuation of alleged dumping and injury . 
84. Third,  the Mexican authorities – on 20 June 2019 – had meanwhile initiated a sun set review 
of the definitive AD duty imposed on imports of the subject goods from Kazakhstan and the Russian 
Federation. However, Kazakhstan was never notified by the Mexican investigating authority of the 
initiation of this review. This, among other thing s, violates the fundamental obligations of 
transparency, as stipulated in Article 5.5 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, Article 53 of the Mexico 's 
Foreign Trade Act requires that "Starting from the day following the publication in the Diario Oficial 
de la Fed eración of the resolution to initiate an investigation, the Ministry shall notify the interested 
parties of which it is aware, so that they may appear in order to make whatever statement they see 
fit." Article 84 of the same Act establishes that "the notif ications referred to in the Act shall be 
transmitted to the interested party or his representative personally at his domicile by registered mail 
with acknowledgement of receipt or by any other direct means such as a specialized messenger 
service or electro nic mail. The notifications shall enter into force on the working day following the 
day on which they were issued ". In this regard, in Thailand – H-Beams , the panel considered that a 
notification required under Article 5.5 can be made orally. However, Kaza khstan did not receive 
notification of the initiation of the five -year review, either orally or in writing, and was thus  unable 
 
4 Appellate Body Report, EU – Biodiesel (Argentina) , para. 6.73.  
5 Panel Report, US – DRAMS , para. 6.41 . 
6 Panel Report, US – DRAMS , para. 6.42. G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 14 - 
 
  to defend its interests in a timely and full manner , in the sense of Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement.  
With these considerations in mind, Kazakhstan requested Mexico to terminate the five -year review 
of the AD measure on cold -rolled sheet s from Kazakhstan without extension of this measure.  
85. In response, Mexico  took note of the concerns mentioned by Kazakhstan and indicated that 
the aforementioned investigation was carried out in line with the AD Agreement. It confirmed that 
comments made by Kazakhstan would be relayed to the investigating authority  to give a more 
detailed explanation regarding this  investigation . 
86. On the semi -annual re port of Ukraine , Kazakhstan  stated that Ukraine has launched and is 
conducting an AD investigation regarding rolling bearings originating in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, 
having studied the essential facts regarding this investigation, expressed a number of concerns. In 
the essential facts released by  the investigating authority of Ukraine, rolling bearings identified as 
the object of investigation are divided into four types of symbols (PCN 1  - PCN 4). Meanwhile, in 
section 4.3.2 of the essential facts, the investigating authority of Ukraine determines the normal 
value of the products on the basis of production costs in Kazakhstan, with an increase by a 
reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and a reasonable amount of profit, 
referring to the provision of Article 7 of the Law of Ukraine, where it is established that the normal 
value is determined on the basis of prices establ ished during ordinary course of trade between 
independent buyers in the country of export, and the volume of domestic sales is not less than 5 % 
of sales in Ukraine. At the same time, in order to determine the normal cost, the authorized body of 
Ukraine too k into account only the volumes of products sold by EPK -Stepnogorsk JSC ("EPK") in the 
domestic market of Kazakhstan, conditionally designated as PCN 1 and PCN 3. Taking into account 
only PCN 1 and PCN 3 is justified by the fact that EPK exports only such products to Ukraine. It noted 
that the use of information to determine the normal value of the products with PCN 1 and PCN 3 
symbols, while proving material injury to the domestic industry of Ukraine and its causal link with 
the alleged dumping import s by using data on products with symbols PCN 1, PCN 2, PCN 3 and PCN 
4 is unreasonable and unlawful according to the requirements of the AD Agreement, in particular its 
Article 3.6.  
87. Moreover, the panel in Mexico – Corn Syrup  addressed the issue of allowing the  determination 
of injury on the basis of the portion of the domestic industry's production sold in one sector of the 
domestic market7. So, the evidence presented in the essential facts of the alleged material injury to 
the Ukrainian industry and the causal  link between the alleged dumped imports and the material 
injury suffered by the Ukrainian industry as a result of  such imports cannot be supported , since the 
products for which information was taken when exporting from Kazakhstan to Ukraine (PCN 1 and 
PCN 3) and the products for which the data are presented in order to demonstrate the existence of 
injury to the domestic industry of Ukraine (PCN 1, PCN 2, PCN 3 and PCN 4) are different.  Thus, the 
use of data on similar products produced by the domestic indu stry on a wider nomenclature (type) 
than the exported products is inconsistent with the requirements of the AD Agreement . 
88. In this regard, Kazakhstan added that the investigating authority of Ukraine needs to bring 
calculations or data on injury in line wit h WTO standards. In particular, if the investigating authority 
of Ukraine - in determining the normal value - based its determination on data provided by the EPK 
for the same products for which injury was determined, then the margin level would be indicate d at 
the level of de minimis . Also, if the applicant's data in determining the existence of injury was taken 
into account for the same products that are exported to Ukraine from Kazakhstan, the figures 
presented would change significantly.  Thus, the incorrect use by the investigating authority of 
Ukraine of products for which data are used to determine the existence of material injury casts doubt 
on the reasonableness or objectivity of the assessment required by Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement8. 
89. Kazakhstan concluded that the data presented in the essential facts demonstrate that the 
investigating authority of Ukraine made errors in determining the normal value. This error directly 
affects the evidence of material injury, and accordingly the causal link between dumped imports and 
material injury in the understanding of the AD Agreement. Kazakhstan urged Ukraine  to terminate  
this investigation without taking any action .  
 
7 Panel Report, Mexico – Corn Syrup , para. 7.157. With respect to the issue of a market segment 
analysis under the Safeguards Agreement, see the Section on Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
8 Panel Report, Russia – Commercial Vehicles , para. 7.115.  G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 15 - 
 
  90. The Russian Federation  expressed concern regarding the definitive AD duty on impo rts of 
cement and the emerging practice of Ukraine to conclude the AD investigations in a manner 
favourable to the Ukrainian industry in violation with the WTO rules. During the AD investigation on 
imports of cement, the Russian exporters cooperated to the  best of their ability throughout the 
procedure, fulfilled questionnaires and arranged for verification visits. However, information of the 
exporters was disregarded in whole or in part and the AD duties were established at the level of 
114.95%. To begin w ith, at various stages of the investigation, the Ukrainian authorities 
inconsistently used data for two different types of goods – cement and clinker, the latter of which 
was used as a material for the production of the former. Use of the data for these tw o different 
products for dumping and injury determinations has led the Ukrainian authorities to violation of 
different provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, the normal value was 
calculated inconsistently with Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1. 1 of the AD Agreement. Ukraine disregarded the 
actual gas prices paid by the investigated producers, despite the fact that these prices were in 
accordance with the GAAP and reasonably reflected in the records and replaced them by the price 
data from outsid e the country of origin. It should be noted that inconsistencies with Article 2 of the 
AD Agreement led to an excessive dumping margin. Since the level of duties were determined on 
that basis, Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement was also violated. Additionally , evaluation of the impact 
of Russian imports on Ukrainian industry was flawed. Most financial and economic factors and indices 
having a bearing on the state of the industry demonstrated significant growth. Nevertheless, 
Ukrainian authorities made affirmat ive determination of material injury, inconsistently with 
Articles  3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement. The Russian Federation urged Ukraine to reconsider its 
approach and to conduct AD investigations and impose measures in strict compliance with its WTO 
obligations.  
91. In response to Kazakhstan, Ukraine  indicated that  the investigation referred to has been 
conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation of Ukraine and the relevant WTO provisions. 
The investigation is still ongoing. During the investigation , the Ukrainian investigating authority  has 
carried out on -site verification of Ukrainian producers and all interested parties were given the 
opportunity to express their view s. The main findings and conclusions of the Ukrainian investigatin g 
authority wil l be sent to all interested parties including the competent authority of Kazakhstan.  
92. In response to the Russian Federation, Ukraine stated that on 2 July 2018, Ukraine took a 
decision on the application of AD measures on imports of cement originating in Belarus, Moldova 
and the Russian Federation into Ukraine. During the investigation, all interested parties were given 
the opportunity to participate and express their view s including the competent authorities of the 
Russian Federation. On the requests of the  interested parties, public hearings were held. The main 
findings and conclusions of the investigatin g authority were sent to all interested parties including 
the competent authorities of the Russian Federation. During the investigation, the fact of dumpin g 
that caused injury to the domestic industry was established. Thus, Ukraine acted in complian ce with 
the AD Agreement . 
93. On the semi -annual report of the US, Korea  raised two different regulations or practices 
adopted by the US investigating authority, namely PMS and adverse facts available (" AFA"). Korea 
indicated that  it had raised these issues several times at previous Committee  meetings , but such 
concerns have not been addressed. Rather, with regard to PMS, the US recently adopted a new and 
WTO-inconsistent analysis which has aggravated these  concerns . 
94. With respect to the issue of PMS , Korea expressed its concerns on PMS since its application 
by the US investigating auth ority in April 2017 to the case of the first annual review of OCTG. Despite 
such concerns, the US investigating authority subsequently expanded the application of PMS to 
various cases, including a follow -up review on OCTG, circular welded non -alloy steel p ipe, welded 
line pipe, heavy -walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, large diameter welded 
pipe, and corrosion resistant steel.  Furthermore , the US petitioners recently requested the 
application of PMS based on a global regression model , and the US investigating authority accepted 
the petitioners ' regression analysis in the recent preliminary determinations on heavy -walled 
rectangular carbon steel pipes and tubes, cold -rolled flat steel and OCTG.  However, by relying on a 
global regression mo del, the US industry 's analysis essentially concedes that there is nothing 
particular about the market situation in Korea. By applying a global regression model to adjust the 
cost of steel, the analysis of the US industry does not remedy any issue unique t o Korea, but instead 
calculates a theoretical global hot -rolled steel value. This analysis would appear to be applied to all 
countries and the entire global industry, contrary to the fundamental concept that the market 
situation needs to be particular to a  specific market. Korea believe d that the Korean steel market is  G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 16 - 
 
  not particular enough to justify the determination that PMS exists. In Korea 's view, applying the PMS 
while denying the evidence provided by Korean  exporters is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the 
AD Agreement. Furthermore, this could be regarded as a de -facto discriminatory measure with no 
substantiated legal ground.  In this vein, Korea request ed the US authority to review the evidence 
from all interested parties in an objective manner and t o make a reasonable determination with 
regard to PMS . 
95. On the issue of AFA , Korea submitted that t he US investigating authority has often resorted 
to the use of facts available, which, in Korea's  view, is inconsistent with Article 6.8 and Annex II of 
the A D Agreement. When the required information is allegedly not provided by the exporters, the 
US investigating authority has used the available facts which is adverse  to the exporters, rather than 
using the best information available. This AFA practice has a p unitive nature and causes heavy 
administrative burden on Korean exporters to supply necessary documents as there seems to be no 
objective criteria on under which circumstances and how AFA is applied. Recently, the exporters 
wished  to provide the US authori ty with as much evidence or information as possible to avoid the 
use of AFA. However, the US authority in some cases has failed to give sufficient opportunities to 
the exporters to defend their interests, which is contrary to the AD Agreement.  Korea reques ted the 
US investigating authority to be WTO -consistent when applying AFA particularly as stipulated in 
para. 5 of Annex II of the A D Agreement. Korea indicated  that AFA which fails to meet reasonable 
expectations should not be applied to those Korean exporters who have cooperated to their full  
ability  with the authority in the process of the investigation. Also, sufficient opportunities, as required 
by the A D Agreement, should be provided to the exporters to have their voices heard, so as to avoid 
the use of AFA .   
96. In response to Korea, the US expressed disappointment  with Korea's intervention . It indicated 
that it is the long -standing practice of th e Committee that items subjec t to litigation are not raised 
by Members. It added that Korea is aware of this practice and is also aware of the litigation since 
the Korean respondents and the Korean G overnment are litigating. The US emphasized that it has 
no intention to violate this l ong-standing practice and therefore cannot comment further on this 
issue.  
97. No comments were made with respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not 
previously reviewed due to late circulation.  
98. The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports,  the statements made, the questions 
posed, and the answers provided.  
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINA L ANTI -DUMPING ACTIO NS: NOTIFICATIONS  
99. The Chair  referred to the notifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeti ng listed in documents G/ADP/N/327, 329, 330, 331, 332, 
333 and 334. During this period Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Egypt; 
El Salvador; European Union; India; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea , Republic of ; 
Kyrgyz  Republic; Madagascar; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; Peru; Russian Federation; South Africa; 
Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine; United States and Viet Nam notified preliminary and/or final 
AD actions, which were listed in these documents. Since document G/ADP/N /334 was circulated, 
Argentina; Australia; Egypt; Morocco and Viet Nam  had submitted such a notification, which would 
appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat.  
100.  The Chair  drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with thi s 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 their obligations i n this regard. The Chair strongly urged all Members taking 
AD actions to provide these notifications of preliminary and final actions, 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.  
101.  Ukraine  expressed its concern regarding the ongoing review of AD measures on forged work -
rolls from Ukraine, where  the AD  measures are maintained by the member States of the 
Eurasian  Economic  Union (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Russian  Federation) . According to  the case records, significant part of the dome stic producers 
refused to cooperate with the investigating authority and have not duly submitted answers to 
questionnaires. Moreover, given the lack of sufficient disclosure of information it is not substantiated 
that the p etitioner has met the criteria of  standing ; i.e. represents 25% of total production in the  
Union.  In the absence of the domestic industry interest, Ukraine believe d that it is hardly possible 
to establish continuation or recurrence of injury that is  a mandatory precondition for extension of 
AD duties according to Article  11.3 of the AD Agreement. It requested a clarification as to  how the 
investigating authority is going to analyse injury in this sunset review . 
102.  In response to Ukraine, the Russian Federation  explained that t he investigation  is ongoing. 
The interested parties from Ukraine have been given the full ability to defend their rights  to provid e 
comments, hav e access to information , etc. With respect to the standing of  the domestic industry, 
it underline d that the domestic industry a nd the complainant have provided the investigating 
authority with  the requested information and that the results of this analysis would be included in 
the final determination which would be available to the Ukrainian interested parties .   
103.  The Chair noted that some Members are still submitting the same Ad hoc  notifications 
pertaining to certain antidumping actions via different means; i.e. electronically, by fax and post. In 
certain instances, certain Members, while submitting new Ad hoc notification s, also tend 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 are not submitted to CRN 
directly, but to the Rules Di vision 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 th e 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. 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.  
104.  The Committee took note  of the statements made, questions posed, and answers provided.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF T HE INFORMAL GROUP ON  
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
105.  The Chair recalled that the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention met on 20 November  2019.  
The US made a presentation  regarding its recent duty evasion investigation. A discussion followed 
with Members posing questions and offering comments. As for the Spring of 2020 meeting, the 
approach agreed in the Spring of 2015 would be applied in deciding whether the Informal Grou p will 
meet in the Spring . 
106.  No statements were made by any Member.  
107.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF T HE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
108.  The Chair indicated that the Working Group on Implementation met on 2 M ay 2019 back -to-
back with the May Committee meeting at which the Group  discussed issue s relating to gathering 
and examining of evidence for the determination of a causal relationship between the dumped 
imports and the injury to the domestic industry and as sessment of domestic industry's economic 
indicators in threat of injury analysis. Ms. Christina Bas from Chile served as discussant  and 
circulated a roadmap of issues to officials before the meeting to assist delegations in their work. A 
good discussion took place at which representatives of many investigating authorities shared their 
practices and asked questions to each other about their experiences .  
109.  The Chair reminded Members that the Working Group would hold a meeting on 
21-22 November  2019, to discuss  issues relating to: (i) verification procedures; (ii) treatment of 
financial expenses and financial income in dumping margin calculation/sales below cost test; and G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 18 - 
 
  (iii) determination of base price for the below cost test. Ms. Jill Pollack of the US , serving as 
discussant , circulated an outline of issues for discussion in document RD/ADP/WTI/14.  
110.  Finally, the Chair  noted that the topics and discussant of the next Working Group have not yet 
been determined by Members. The Chair  will contact Members in the next few weeks in order to 
identify the next topic s and a discussant to assist the Group  in its Spring  2020 meeting . 
111.  No statements were made by any Member.  
112.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
7 TURKEY – ANTI -DUMPIN G MEASURES ON UNBLEA CHED KRAFT LINER PAP ER – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  
113.  Brazil  submitted that on 7 June 2019, through the publication of Communiqué No.  2019/ 19 in 
the Official Gazette No. 30794, the Turkish Ministry of Trade made effective the suspension, for at 
least 9 months, of the definitive AD measure applied to certain imports of Kraft liner paper originating 
in the US. Brazil recalled that, through the Communiqué No. 2018/12, published in the Official 
Gazette No. 30396 of 19 April 2018, a similar AD measure entered into force against imports of Kraft 
liner paper originating in Brazil, Finland, Poland and the Russian Federation, based on the 
assumption th at imports from these countries represented a threat of injury to the Turkish domestic 
industry. The Government of Brazil expressed its concern with the suspension of the applied measure 
only for the imports from the US and not for those from other origins  that are also subject to 
AD measures. Brazil expressed the view that such conduct is in contradiction with the dispositions 
of Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement. The suspension of the measure only for the US discriminates 
against other producers/exporters i n the Turkish paper market and are subject to similar measures. 
The Turkish Ministry of Trade argued that the suspension of the measure applied to imports 
originating in the US is due to changes in market conditions. In this regard, the Government of Brazi l 
pointed out that such changes are valid not only for imports from the US, but also for imports from 
other sources, including Brazil. Despite the application of an AD measure, the US has remained the 
main supplier of Kraft liner paper to the Turkish marke t, representing a 54.4% share of the total 
imports of the said product by Turkey in 2018, according to data collected by the Turkish Statistical 
Institute (TÜIK). Imports of Kraft liner paper originating in Brazil, in contrast, represented 3.5% of 
total Turkish imports of the product. Brazil requested the Turkish Ministry of Trade to suspend the 
application of the AD measure imposed on imports of Kraft liner paper originating in Brazil, thus 
extending to Brazil treatment as favourable as that accorded to th e US, pursuant to the principle of 
non-discrimination enshrined in Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement. Finally, Brazil commended the 
Turkish investigating authority for its openness to clarify such concerns in the context of bilateral 
meetings and further con versations.  
114.  In response to Brazil, Turkey  explained that it does not consider that  suspension of measures 
against only US paper violates the non-discrimination principle s of Article 9.2 of AD Agreement.  
During the implementation of the measures, additiona l financial liability has been imposed only on 
US' Kraft liner paper which changed the market condition for the US, but not for others ; i.e. it 
eliminate d injury caused by the US' imports as long as it remain ed in force. In order to clarify 
changes in market condition, it is necessary to look at the implementation of measures over time. 
AD measures on US paper and Brazil paper are imposed at different times by means of different 
investigations. Turkey first star ted to implement AD measures on US ' Kraft liner paper on 
14 July 2015 (Communiqué 2015/28) . Following an interim review in 2016, measures were amended 
accordingly on 7 March 2017  (Communiqué 2017/1). Amended measures were between 12,24 % 
and 19.96 %. AD meas ures were then imposed on Kraft  liner paper originating in Finland, the 
Russia n Federation , Poland and Brazil on 19 April 2018 . 
115.  Turkey added that w hile all AD measure s were in force,  the US started to implement additional 
duties on Turkish iron and steel b ased on national security reasoning. In order to react to this under 
the relevant  WTO rules, by means of Decree on  the "Application of Additional Financial Liabilities on 
the Importation of Certain Products  of US Origin " published in the Official Gazette o n 25 June 2018,  
Turkey beg an to implement an additional 10% financial liability for Kraft liner paper originating in 
the US, together with other products  which are  still in force. Turkey 's domestic legislation "Decree 
on The Prevention of Unfair Competition in Imports " allows suspension of the measure due to 
temporary changes in the market condition s. Based on the examination, it is concluded that there G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 19 - 
 
  is a temporary change in market conditions due to additional financial liability of 10 % for US origin 
papers. AD measure s on US origin Kraft liner paper ha ve been temporar ily suspended for 9 months , 
effective 7 June 2019 by t he Communiqué 2019/19 published in Official Gazette on 7 June 2019. 
According to this Decree, suspension can only be extended for a further 1 year. Measures may be 
reinstated if the reason for suspension is no longer applicable ; which in this case was the imposition 
of financial liability for paper  originating in the US . The temporary change in market conditions is 
only valid for  US products due to the additional financial liability imposed by Turkey. Therefore, 
suspension of the measure is only applicable to the  US in this case . 
116.  Brazil  indicated that it would continue this discussion bilaterally with Turkey.  
8 OTHER BUSINESS  
117.  The Chair  encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under 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 . 
118.  Turkey  submitted that Canada  has initiated an AD investigation against imports of certain 
OCTG originating in Turkey on 21 July 2014 . In its final determination dated 18 March 2015 , Canada 
calculated zero percent  dumping margin for one of the respondent companies in that investigation. 
However, contrary to Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, Canada did not terminate the investigation 
for that specific respondent company. This practice was challenged before the Disput e Settlement 
Body ("DSB") by Chinese Taipei, and the panel in Canada - Welded Pipe  decided that: "Canada 
violated the second sentence of Article 5.8 by failing to immediately terminate the investigation in 
respect of two Chinese Taipei exporters with de mi nimis margins of dumping. " Later, Canada 
terminated the measure with respect to certain Chinese Taipei exporters who were found to have 
de minimis  margins of dumping in the original investigation. On 10 January 2018, Canada informed 
the DSB that it had com plied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings through legislative 
amendments . However, Canada still expects Members  to make a special request for terminating the 
investigation with respect to  companies for which de minimis  dumping margin s are calculated . It 
added that although Turkey has made this request by letter dated 13 February 2019 , no response 
from Canada regarding this issue  has been received . Turkey underline d that it would  closely follow 
this issue and reserve d all its rights stemming from the relevant WTO Agreements.  
119.  In response to Turkey, Canada  explained that u nder Canadian law, the review of 
determinations and findings made by the CBSA and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for 
the purposes of implementing a WTO ruling may only be ini tiated after a request by the Minister of 
Finance. Finance has engaged with the Turkish Government on the issue since the request was made 
for such a review. Following the Canadian election, the Cabinet would be sworn in and the matter 
would  be considered by the Finance Minister after the appointment of the new cabinet . 
120.  Turkey  also indicated that Malaysia  has initiated an AD investigation against imports of steel 
concrete reinforcing bar products from Turkey and Singapore on 26 April 2019. In its preliminary 
determination report that was published on 23 September 2019, the Malaysian investigating 
authority  decided to impose a provisional duty based on an affirmative finding of dumping, injury 
and causal link between dumping and injury. The investigating authority is expected to release its 
final decision around December 2019. It requested consultations with  the Malaysian authorities in 
the coming days. Considering that almost all of the injury factors show a positive trend and that 
imports of the subject merchandise decreased by 52.5 % during the period of the investigation 
according to the preliminary determ ination report, Turkey expected the investigating authority to 
carefully examine the conditions for applying an AD measure as well as other factors that may cause 
injury to the domestic industry. Moreover, for non -cooperating producers/exporters, the Malay sian 
investigating authority decided to impose the rate that was proposed by the petitioners. It referred 
to paragraph 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement  which requires investigating authorities to use  
special circumspection when they base their findings on  information from a secondary source. Turkey  
expect ed the Malaysian investigating authority to show that in determining the dumping rate for 
non-cooperating producers/exporters, it used the information that was provided by the petitioners 
with special circ umspection and to give details about how it calculated the rate.  
121.  In response to Turkey, Malaysia  took note of the request for consultations by Turkey. In fact, 
based on the notices of affirmative preliminary determination of the AD investigation gazetted o n G/ADP/M/57  
 
- 20 - 
 
  22 September 2019 as well as the non -confidential preliminary determination report submitted to 
the Turkish Embassy in Malaysia, the reasons for the affirmative preliminary determination were 
provided.  In this connection, the investigating authority is satisfied that dumping of the subject 
merchandise from the alleged countries has caused material injury to the domestic industry in 
Malaysia through the volume, price and profitability effects. The dumping margin is found to exist 
through the dumping activi ties by producers and exporters from the alleged countries ; i.e. Singapore 
and Turkey and there is sufficient evidence to continue with further investigation on the importation 
of subject merchandise from the alleged countries as provided under Section 23 of Malaysia's 
Countervailing and Antidumping Duties Act  of 1993.  It added that  the notice of essential facts that 
form the basis for the final decision will be made by the end of December 2019 while the final 
determination will be made no later than 21 January 2020. With regard to the decrease of imports 
of the subject merchandise by 52.5%, Malaysia clarif ied that the decrease in imports is for a period 
of 3 years and it involved global imports of the subject merchandise ; i.e. it consisted of imports of 
subject merchandise from 9 alleged countries  and that this i nformation is outlined in the preliminary 
determination report. Overall imports of the subject merchandise from the alleged countries which 
are Singapore and Turkey have increased by 335.94%, from ye ar 1 of the  period of investigation. 
Regarding the determination of the dumping margin s for non -cooperating producers and exporters, 
Malaysia indicated that it would  provide the explanation during the bilateral consultations with the 
Turkish side . 
122.  The Comm ittee took note  of the statements made.  
9 DATE OF THE NEXT REG ULAR MEETING  
123.  The next Regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 27 April 2020.  
10 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COMMITTEE ON ANTI -DUMPING PRACTICES TO THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  GOODS (ARTI CLE 18.6)  
124.  The Committee adopted  its 2019 Annual Report to the CTG . The Chair indicated that as the 
CTG has already held its last meeting for the year 2019, the Committee shall send its adopted report 
directly to the General Council.    
 
__________