RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/60  
 
17 December 2021  
(21-9453) Page: 1/20 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 27 OCTOBER 2021  
CHAIR: MR. AHMED AL -SULAITI (QATAR)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
27 October 2021. 
2. As the meeting was held in person as well as virtually via Interprefy, the Chair reminded 
Members of the different technical arrangements for participating  remotely as reflected in the 
"Technical Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgram convening the meeting . 
3. The Chair reiterated his request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that i t can update its contact details list, currently contained in document 
RD/ADP/3/Rev.16.  
4. The Committee adopted  the following agenda1 contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 32: 
 
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  Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/5)  ................................ ................................ ................  2 
1.1.2  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.10)  ................................ ................................ ........  2 
1.1.3  United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12 and G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12/Corr.1)  . 3 
1.2 Review of no tifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with  
outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ .............................  3 
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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
1.2.2  Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  ................................ ... 3 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  4 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2.1 Peru (G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/CRI/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ....... 4 
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  ................................ ................................ ..................  4 
2.2 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ...............................  4 
 
1 Please note that the proposed agenda contained an item requested by Brazil entitled: "South  Africa – 
Antidumping Investigation of Frozen Bone in Portions of the Species Gallus Domesticus from Brazil". Brazil 
requested the deletion of this agenda item and indicated that it would make its comments on this issue under 
agenda item 3.  G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3 Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ................................ . 4 
2.4 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/357) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATION S ................  17 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  18 
7 UNITED STATES – EXAMINATION WHETHER TO CONTINUE TO TREAT THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION AS A MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSES OF 
ANTI -DUMPING DUTY LAW – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ............  19 
8 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 
9 DATE OF THE NE XT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 20 
10 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE 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)2 
1.1.1  Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/5)  
5. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/COL/10 - G/SCM/Q1/C OL/10  – Submitted by the United States  
6. Written answers to the United States' written questions were provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/COL/11 - G/SCM/Q1/COL/11 – Replies to the United States  
7. Colombia  stated that the new legislation is an updat e of the de cree that establishes the 
antidumping ("AD")  regime  in the country . Colombia explained that the update did not entail any 
major change s. The changes were intended to ensure that the legislation remains in conformity with 
the AD Agreement and inc lude, among others, modifications to the timelines and details relating to 
the investigating authority. Colombia hoped that its responses were to the satisfaction of the 
United  States and that it remained open to further exchanges, if required.  
1.1.2  India  (G/AD P/N/1/ IND/2/Suppl.10 ) 
8. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/IND/30  - G/SCM/Q1/IND/30  – Submitted by the United States  
9. Written answers to the United States' written questions were provided and can b e found in 
document:  
 
2 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
reviewed in the October 2021  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/508 - G/SCM/W/584 - 
G/SG/W/254 . G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • G/ADP/Q1/IND/31 - G/SCM/Q1/IND/31 – Replies to the United States  
10. India explained that the notified legislative changes seek to further amend customs tariffs 
rules to enable provisional assessment in anti -circumvention investigations, in addition to 
introducing certain other miscellaneous changes.   The amended AD rules came into force on 
2 February 2021.   The amendment allows the Central Government to make a provisional assessment 
of imports of the article alleged to be circumventing an AD duty and to request a guarantee from 
the importer until the time a decision is taken by the Central Government . 
1.1.3  United Kingdom  (G/ADP/N/1/ GBR/1/Suppl. 12 and 
G/ADP/N/1/ GBR/1/Suppl. 12/Corr.1 ) 
11. No written or oral questions were posed regard ing the notification of the United Kingdom.  
12. The United Kingdom  stated that the purpose of the notified regulation , dated 18 August 2021 , 
was to allow the Secretary of State for International Trade to make a public notice to transition 
exemptions to trade r emedy measures granted by the European Union after 31 December 2020, 
that is, after the end of the U nited Kingdom -European Union transition period, but which applied 
retrospectively to a date before 31  December 2020. This was consistent with the United Kin gdom's 
commitment to ensure that there was continuity in the circumstances  of the United Kingdom's 
withdrawal from the European Union.  
13. 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 ) 
14. 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  
15. The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2014.  
16. Cameroon  was not present at the time.  Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date.   
1.2.2  Saint Kitts and Nevis ( G/ADP/N/1/ KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/ KNA/1) 
17. Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KNA/1 – G/SCM/Q1/KNA/1 – Submitted by the United States  
18. The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
19. Saint Kitts and Nevis  was not present at the time. Oral answers were not provided at the 
meeting, nor had written answers been received to date.  
20. The Committee took note  of the notifications and questions.  G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE3 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REV IEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIF ICATIONS:  
2.1 Peru  (G/ADP/N/1/ PER/2/Suppl.2  - G/SCM/N/1/CRI/ 2/Suppl.2 ) 
21. A written follow -up question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ PER/34 - G/SCM/Q1/ PER/34 – Submitted by the United States  
22. A written answer to the United States' follow -up question was provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ PER/35 - G/SCM/Q1/ PER/35 – Replies to the United States  
23. Peru explained that the notified law has not yet taken effect.  
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIF ICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  
2.2 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
24. Written follow -up questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 – Submitted by the United States  
25. The Chair noted that thes e questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
26. Ghana  was not present at the time. Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor had 
written answers been received to date . 
2.3 Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KE N/2)  
27. 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 and G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6/C orr.1 – 
G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6/C orr.1 – G/SG/Q1/KEN/5/C orr.1 – Submitted by the United States  
28. The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2020.  
29. Written answers to the United States' follow -up questions were provided and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KEN/ 7 - G/SCM/Q1/KEN/ 7 - G/SG/Q1/KEN/ 6 – Replies to the United States  
30. Kenya  stated that the questions posed by the United States in seeking clarification on some 
of the provisions of the notified legislation and the preliminary responses that have been provided 
were helpful in expanding the provisions of the Kenyan Trade Remedies Act. Kenya explained that 
 
3 Relevant deadlines for written fol low-up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the October 2021  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/508 - 
G/SCM/W/584 - G/SG/W/254 . G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 5 - 
 
  its Trade Remedies Agency was still not operational but that plans were under way to operationalise 
it. Once the agency commenced its activities, Kenya would notify Members.  
2.4 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/L BR/1)  
31. 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  
32. The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Commi ttee meeting of 
October 2020.  
33. Liberia was not present at the time. Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor had 
written answers been received to date.  
34. The Chair informed Members that, pursuant to the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the April 2022 meeting of the 
Committee, the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 14 March  2022. Shortly 
after this date, the Secretariat will circulate the annotated draft agenda  informing Members of all 
legislative notifications to be reviewed at the next Committee meeting in April 2022.4 
35. The Chair reminded Members that all unanswered written questions pertaining to new and 
previously reviewed legislative notifications reviewed at the meeting, as well as the subject 
notifications, shall, past the applicable deadlines, be automatically retained on the agenda of the 
next Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Committee meetings until written 
answe rs are submitted.  
36. The Chair noted that the new legislative notification of the United States circulated  in 
document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.31 – G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.32, as well as any other 
legislative notifications received and circulated by the applicabl e deadlines, would be on the agenda 
for review at the regular meeting of the Committee in April 2022. The Chair also referred to the 
written follow -up questions posed by the Russian Federation in document G/ADP/Q1/EU/15 – 
G/SCM/Q1/EU/15 to the previously r eviewed legislative notifications of the European Union  
contained in documents G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 – G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.3 – G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.3 which would also be on the agenda of the 
regular meeting of the Committee in April 2022.  
37. 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. He 
remind ed the Committee that the updated handbook of AD-related notification obligations, as well 
as the practical examples, is now available in English, French and Spanish on the AD webpage and 
could provide additional cl arity as to how and when the notification obligations should be fulfilled . 
38. Concerning the revised  list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.55, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement and encouraged Members to review and update 
previously submitted i nformation, where necessary.  
39. 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 legislation. 
However, some countries which have n ot provided a notification of their legislative status have 
submitted trade policy review reports indicating that they have AD laws in effect. In other words, 
the respective WTO Members have already gone through the effort of informing the WTO of their 
respective AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. The United States encouraged Members to 
review their respective situations and make the appropriate notification promptly. It added that the 
notification of AD laws and any revisions to those laws are  a key element in maintaining transparency 
 
4 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ ADP/W/ 508 - G/SCM/W/ 584 - 
G/SG/W/ 254. G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 6 - 
 
  in the administration of the AD remedy. It encouraged all Members to submit future notifications 
promptly following the implementation of the relevant legislation . 
40. The United States mentioned that there is current ly a proposal on Procedures to Enhance 
Transparency and Improve Compliance with Notification Requirements (JOB/GC/204/Rev .7 - 
JOB/CTG/14/Rev .7), which has evolved considerably since it was introduced several years ago.  It is 
now being discussed in the Gene ral Council and has the support of 19 co -sponsors, plus the 
European  Union and all its member States. It is a sincere effort to tackle WTO reform at a practical 
level with tangible benefits for all WTO Members. There have been ongoing consultations with 
Members to understand the resource, time, and capacity challenges that prevent Member s from 
making good faith attempts to meet their notification obligations. The current revision provides more 
balanced treatment of all notifications and more equitable acces s to assistance that any Member 
may require to prepare and submit notifications. The recommendations would bring transformative 
change to the Organization, strengthen the WTO’s negotiating arm, and enable the WTO to make 
progress in negotiating new rules. Support for this proposal would be welcome as the WTO advance s 
toward the December Ministerial.  
41. The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/ 357) 
42. The Chair recalled that a request and a reminder for submission of semi -annual reports for 
the first half of  2021 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/357 and supplement 1. 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 submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 
of the AD Agreement .  
43. The Chair noted that a number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. Th is notification requirement 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.5 The Chair urged Members to comply with this importan t 
notification requirement.  
44. The Chair explained and reiterated that while Members were free to raise at the Committee's 
meetings any questions that they wish ed regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports, 
Member s may agree that raising issue s that were subject to dispute settlement proceedings may be 
better pursued in depth in other WTO dedicated fora.  
45. The Chair made an important announcement and delivered some good news. The Chair 
recall ed that the official launch of the new online portal to  submit AD semi-annual reports took place 
in January 2021. Since then, various related activities had been taking place. Following the call by 
the Chair's  predecessor to Members to enter the data contained in their last semi -annual reports 
covering the per iod July – December 2020 and the questionnaire sent on 4 June 2021 to the Members 
that used the portal to obtain their feedback, the Secretariat had received very useful feedback from 
all Members using this online platform. This feedback has given the Rule s Division and the IT Division 
in the Secretariat a better understanding of the issues and hurdles facing Members and allowed 
them to embark on quasi daily updates and improvements.  
46. The Chair thank ed all Members that had responded to the questionnaire. The feedback was 
indispensable in fixing a number of bugs and addressing issues that were of concern to Members . 
As with all IT issues, there still remain ed a number of issues to address. However,  the Secretariat 
team has been  working very hard to address tho se and would  not relent until all those and any other 
issues that may arise in the future are fully and satisfactorily addressed. One of the queries included 
in that questionnaire touched upon Members' needs for additional training sessions to be conducted  
by the Secretariat. The Chair report ed that since the last meeting in April 2021, the Secretariat ha d 
conducted 16 training sessions with individual Members. Following every training session, an email 
was sent to the respective Member indicating the next steps and expressing full readiness to hold 
further sessions, if one or more were needed. The Chair stated that  positive comments were made 
 
5 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 7 - 
 
  by Members that had received the training. By way of example, some Members have described the 
portal as a great effort that makes the process easier, that the portal can be accessed everywhere 
and is user friendly, and that overall, it is welcome and fairly intuitive and should eliminate a lot of 
work in preparing the reports. The Secretariat has also received very encouraging comments on the 
quality of the training and explanations provided. That said,  the Chair was  pleased to inform 
Members that, in concrete terms, all that effort has resulted in an extensive use of the portal. Suffice 
to say that 105 users from 37  Members were registered to access the portal. Regarding the most 
recent semi -annual report  covering the period January – June 2021 , out of the 40 documents 
circulated, 22 of them were presented using the new online platform. This account ed for 55% of all 
the reports circulated . 
47. With respect to the good news , the Chair stated that as of 28 October 2021 , Members using 
the online portal w ould notice a button called "explore data" on the dashboard when they open the 
portal. That is a facility, which was not av ailable before, will now allow Members to check all the 
data submitted to date in their own circulated semi -annual reports and in the circulated semi -annual 
reports of other Members. What is available therein for the time being are the measures in force, 
but that was a good start and there w ould be more progress to follow, as the Secretariat continues 
with the data cleaning process. The Chair  announce d that the Secretariat would  – after the 
Committee meeting  – make a presentation to show Members  this functi on and how it works. The 
Chair further explained that for this new  function to work properly , it needed to be fed by updated 
information in order to provide  Members with up-to-date data. In case of the information contained 
in all previous semi -annual repo rts until the end of December 2020, these were already in the portal 
and the measures in force contained therein could  be easily found if Members  used the "explore 
data" function. The issue now pertain ed to the semi -annual reports covering the first half o f 2021 
and contained in the N/357 series as well as all future semi -annual reports thereinafter. In case of 
Members using the platform to submit their semi -annual reports, once the submitted report was 
circulated, the data contained therein was automatical ly repopulated into the database and could  be 
checked using the "explore data" function. However, in case of Members submitting semi -annual 
reports on paper be that in the N/357 series or future semi -annual reports, once the report was 
circulated, the info rmation contained therein need ed to be entered into the portal first before it could  
find its way to the "explore data" function . 
48. In order to avoid any backlogs and to make sure that all data would be  up-to-date without 
burdening Members, the Chair  suggest ed the following: First, with respect to the data contained in 
the N/357 which covers the reporting period January – June 2021, Members that had submitted 
those reports in paper form, not through the portal, and those reports had already been circulated, 
could start entering the information contained in these reports into the portal until the end of the 
year, i.e. until 31 December 2021. If by January 2022, Members were unable to do so, with Members'  
indulgence, the Secretariat would  do so on their behalf, just to make sure that all up -to-date data 
would be  available for the "explore data" function and to avoid any backlogs. Second , with respect 
to all future semi -annual reports, starting with the one covering the second half of 2021, which 
would  be due by 1 4 February 2022, all Members submitting their semi -annual reports on paper, not 
through the portal, would have one month, i.e., by 14 March 2022, to enter the data into the portal 
if the report had already been circulated. Also, past that date and with Members' indulgence, the 
Secretariat would  do so on  their behalf, just to make sure that all up -to-date data would be  available 
for the "explore data" function and to avoid any backlogs . 
49. The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the first half of 2021. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; the member States of the 
Eurasian Economic Union ( Armenia;  Kazakhstan;  Kyrgyz Republic;  and the Russian Federation);  
Australia; the member States of the Gulf Cooperation Co uncil "GCC" ( Bahrain,  Kingdom of; Kuwait, 
the State of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Qatar ; and United Arab Emirates); Chile; Colombia; 
Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Ghana; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; Madagascar; 
Malaysia; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Chinese Taipei; Trinidad and Tobago; 
Turkey; and Viet Nam.  
50. On the semi -annual  report of Brazil , the United States  raised concerns about the investigation 
by Brazil on its imports of liquid caustic soda. The United States underst ood that this investigation 
was ongoing ; that Brazil ha d issued a preliminary determination finding no causal link between 
United States'  imports and the alleged injury to the domestic industry ; and that respondents had 
presented  specific arguments on a number of issues to the Brazilian authorities. The United States 
requested that Brazil give full consideration to these arguments, continue to find no causation to the G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 8 - 
 
  alleged injury, and make a determination that is consistent both with Brazilian law  and the 
AD Agreement.  
51. Brazil  stated that it  conducts its trade remedies investigations according to rigorous and 
technical standards . The investigation of dumping on the  United States'  export s of liquid caustic soda 
to Brazil was initiated after sufficien t element s of the alleged practice had been verified. Brazil was 
aware of the importance of the product under investigation, given that caustic soda is a crucial input 
for several industrial sector s. No provisional AD measure s have been applied against United States'  
export s of the product to Brazil. Brazil  emphasized that the conduct of every trade remed y 
investigation in Brazil guarantee s to all parties involved the ir right of defence and ensur ed all 
procedural rights according to  the terms of the AD  Agreement in its domestic legislation.  
52. On the semi -annual report of Canada,  Egypt  raised concern s over the AD investigation by the 
Canadian authority with respect to concrete reinforcing bar. In June  2021, the Canadian authority 
had issued its finding s regarding the extent of the causal link between dumping and injury of the 
domestic industry. Also, on 1 May  2021, a margin of dumping for Egypt ian exports was determined 
at a level of 11.4%. Egypt specifically referred to  the petition  received from the domestic industry 
in Canada and highlighted  two issues  in this regard . 
53. First, Egypt referred to the allegation of non-market determination in the application. The 
concept of dumping relied on the fair comparison of normal value  and export pr ice. The 
circumstances under which an authority may look at alternative market prices are set forth in 
Article  2.2 of the AD Agreement . According to Article 2, if the authority elects to construct normal 
value, it must rely on the cost of manufacturing , as recorded by the exporter or producer. The 
petitioner argued in favour of  determin ing the normal value on the basis of the complainant 's own 
cost of production. Article 2.2 , however, is clear in demanding that the information must originate 
from the export er. For the purpose of Article 2.2.2, the amount s for administrative, selling and 
general cost and for profits shall be based on actual data pertaining to the production and sales in 
the ordinary course of trade of the like product by the exporter or produ cer under investigation. 
Canada, however, accepted the complaint although the normal value allegations were based on the 
cost of the Canadian domestic industry, contrary to the requirements of Article 2.  
54. Second, Egypt raised concerns as regards the injury and causation analysis given that most 
economic indicators showed an improvement during the first half of 2019. Egypt questioned the 
presence of any causal link between imports and injury and requested Canada to reject the 
application.  
55. The Russian Federation  expressed its  deep concern s about the final decision in Canada's  AD 
investigation with respect to imports of certain concrete reinforcing bar of Russian origin. At the 
previous Committee meeting, the Russian Federation had  expressed concerns reg arding the 
preliminary determination which, as it understood , have not been addressed. To recall, the period 
of investigation cover ed six months, while, according to the Canadian statistics, imports had actually 
taken place only in two months. There were n o shipments during the rest of the calendar year. 
Import volumes under two out of six HS codes, under which Russian imports had actually taken 
place, were negligible and amounted to only 2.6% of imports of the like product to Canada. This 
should have trigg ered prompt termination of the investigation as per Article 5.8 of the 
AD Agreement.  
56. Moreover, according to the Russian Federation, such low import volumes could not have 
caused injury to the Canadian industry. In fact, in its finding of 2 July 2021, the C anadian 
International Trade Tribunal confirmed that dumping had not caused injury but was threatening to 
cause injury to the domestic industry. However, the Russian Federation did not  see the grounds for 
this finding either. Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement  sets a high standard for establishing threat of 
serious injury, stating that the change in circumstances which would create a situation in which 
dumping would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent. The Russian Federation  failed 
to see how suc h low import volumes c ould illustrate the presence of such an imminent change in 
circumstances. Therefore, the Russian Federation  urged the Canadian authorities to reconsider their 
findings, and to abstain from the application of definitive measure s. 
57. Canad a stated that its AD investigations were conducted in an independent and arm's length 
manner by the Canadian Border Service Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Any G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 9 - 
 
  action taken pursuant to those investigations were fully consistent with C anada's obligations under 
the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994. Canada thanked Egypt and the Russian Federation for their 
questions,  and it considered the Committee's Q&A exercise to be important in promoting 
transparency. Canada requested the Russian Federa tion and Egypt to provide their comments in 
writing so it could  provide a written response as soon as possible.  
58. On the semi -annual report of China , Brazil  raised concerns with regard to the AD measure s 
applied by China to Brazilian poultry  and the fact that  no new shipper review s had  been opened. 
Brazil recalled that such review s, according to Article 9.5 of the AD Agreement , should be carried 
out promptly and on an accelerated basis. It was inappropria te that new Brazilian exporters duly 
accredited since 2019 were still subject to AD duties calculated on the basis of export s by other 
companies.  
59. Japan  commented  on the final determination in the AD investigation from April 2016 and the 
continued impositio n of AD duties on imports of unbleached sack paper  from Japan . Article 11.3 of 
the AD Agreement stipulates  that any AD measure shall be terminated in five years unless the 
authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the measure because the termination of 
the AD duty w ould likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. China must 
apply Article 11.3 in a strict manner and perform appropriate reviews in accordance with the 
WTO Agreements. Japan requested early termination of the AD measures so that the measure will 
not be continued inappropriately for a long period.   
60. In response to  Brazil, China  stated that the legal procedure for new shipper s is conducted on 
a case-by-case basis  and that it would be appropriate to raise the concerns  under the legal procedure 
of that case.  
61. Regarding Japan 's concern s, China explained  that the determination was made in 2016 and 
that it will be conducted under  the relevant legal procedures for reviews . China advi sed Japanese 
compan ies to participate in the review and to provide relevant  information in the applicable legal 
framework.  
62. On the semi -annual report of Egypt , Tunisia  expressed concern s about the AD measure on 
imports of prestressed concrete  steel strands from Tunisia , for which the definitive determination 
was issued on  7 April 2021.  Tunisia questioned  the measure's  consistency with the AD Agreement. 
As regards the determination of dumping, the Egyp tian authority rejected the normal value that the 
Tunisian exporter had duly requested. Specifically, the exporter had requested  a downward 
adjustment for: ( i) the size of the diameter sold locally and exported, ( ii) the technical assistance 
received by lo cal buyers, ( iii) the commercial expenses applicable only to local sales, and ( iv) the 
expenses incurred in obtaining quality certification for local sales and not for sales to Egypt.  In 
response, the Egyptian authority limited itself to explaining that the exporter had not demonstrated 
that exports to the Egyptian market incur red none of  these expenses. Tunisia argued  that this 
explanation was inconsistent with the last sentence of Article 4 of the AD Agreement, which requires 
that the bu rden of proof imposed  on the parties shall not be unreasonable.  
63. With respect to injury, the Egyptian authority relied  on a finding of material retardation  in the 
establishment of a domestic industry, although it also explicitly determined  that injury had b een 
established. In Tunisia 's view, t his was problematic because, if injury was already established, the 
Egyptian authority would have had to conduct its analysis on the basis of material injury and not on 
a material retardation . As such, by choosing an er roneous form of injury, the Egyptian authority 
breached the obligation of objectivity under Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement.  In addition, the 
Egyptian authority relied on a feasibility study to assess each injury factor. However, this study or 
a non -confid ential version was not on file. The Egyptian authority did not explain in its final report 
the methodology that this study employed  in arriving at the projected results. The resulting lack of 
transparency is inconsistent with Articles 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1,  6.9 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement.  
64. With respect to price undercutting, the investigating authority conducted a separate country -
by-country analysis, despite the fact that it had decided to cumulate imports from the three subject 
countries. However, accor ding to Tunisia's calculations, the price undercutting for the cumulative 
imports that the authority should have calculated was 0.4%, which would have called into question 
the significant nature of the price undercutting. As to price depression, the Egypti an authority 
compared in the feasibility study the price of the domestic product with the provisional product price G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 10 - 
 
  but did not address how imports played a role in determining the downward price. It , therefore , 
appear ed that the price analyses were incons istent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement.  
65. Furthermore, with respect to the analysis of the factors listed in Article 3.4 of the 
AD Agreement, the Egyptian authority did not explain how it had calculated the provisional figures 
for each of these  factors. Tunisia recalled in this regard that the obligation of objectivity referred to 
in Article  3.1 requires an authority to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that 
demonstrates compliance with the relevant obligations. Tunisia was of the view  that the Egyptian 
authority had breached its obligation of objectivity under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement 
by failing to explain the methodology used by the domestic producer to calculate the provisional 
figures.  
66. Finally, in finding a causal li nk, the Egyptian authority ignored the relevant evidence in the file 
showing that the inability to reach the forecast ed figures was due to the incorrect calculations in the 
feasibility study. These errors distorted the calculation of several forecast ed figures such as market 
share s, sales, production and profitability. It , therefore , follow ed that by attributing the injury 
observed to imports and not to errors in the calculation of the forecast ed figures, the Egyptian 
authority violated Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement.  
67. Therefore, Tunisia considered that the above -mentioned AD measure was inconsistent with 
Articles 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement.  Tunisia 
requested  the Egyptian delegation to start a process of bilateral consultations in order to discuss the 
legal and practical aspects ar ising from this measure. Tunisia reserved the right to take any action 
provided for in the WTO covered agreements in order to safeguard its commercial interests.  
68. Egypt  indicated that the investigation was conducted according to Article 3 of the 
AD Agreemen t, finding material retardation . Egypt had given all interested parties an opportunity to 
submit all relevant documents and , given the COVID -19 pandemic, Egypt had afforded Tunisia n 
exporters additional  time for submissions to be made. Egypt requested Tuni sia to submit its 
comments  in writing.  
69. On the semi -annual report of the European Union , Egypt  raised concerns regarding  the 
reopening of the investigation  concerning c ertain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics imported 
from Egypt. It indicated that t he European Union was seeking to extend the application of the AD 
measures to artificial islands and floating installations. Egypt requested the closure of the 
investigation because this area was outside the European Union's customs area.  
70. China  expressed  concern about the European Union's  practice related to sunset review s. The 
WTO rules stipulate that any AD measure  shall be terminated within five years unless the authority 
determines th e necessity of continuing the measure because its  expiry  may lead to the continuation 
or recurrence of dumping and injury. China urged the European Union  to adhere to the basic princi ple 
and spir it of the multilateral rules and to apply strictly A rticle 11 of the AD Agreement. China opined 
that, in practice , some Members  including the European Union  have not complied with this 
requirement . 
71. China asserted that a ccording to the annual re port from the European Commission on the 
European Union's  AD, anti-subsid y, and safeguards activities in 2020, the E uropean Union  initiated 
90 sunset reviews of AD measures while only two measures were automatically terminated upon 
expiration. In addition,  the European Union's  2020 trade policy review revealed that 71% of the 
European Union's  sunset review decisions maintained and extended the duration of measure s. China 
noted that 99 European AD  measures have been maintained for more than 20 years , includi ng, but 
not limited to , measures on imports of  ammonium nitrate (26 years ), bicycles (28 years ), ring 
binders (25 years ), silicon metal (31 years ), steel ropes (22 years ), tube and pipe fittings (26 years ), 
tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide (31 years ). In these cases, given the European Union's 
policy preference, it was difficult to obtain a fair ruling , even if the respondents tried their best to 
cooperate, and exporters were forced to give up in  subsequent sunset reviews.  
72. China believed that these AD measures remain ed in force for  too long and became barriers to 
foreign trade that impaired  the domestic industries ' innovation and competitiveness, causing 
excessive distortion s to international trad e and the European industr ies. As the European Union itself 
had commented on Canada's AD investigation on refined sugar  during the Committee meeting on G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 11 - 
 
  28 October 2020, although  no legal limitation exists on the duration of expiry reviews , having 
measures in place for more than 25 years is outside the economic reality and is unjustified ; the 
measure should now be terminated, and  the market should be allowed to adjust without unwarranted 
protection.  China called on all Members, including the European Union, to tighten their sunset review 
investigation s. China also called for further clarification and improvement of the rules on sunset 
review s in future Rules' negotiations , so as to improve the predictability of AD measures  and to 
protect the legitimate rights and interest s of interested parties.  
73. Turkey  referred to the European Commission's initiation, on 24 June 2021 , of an 
AD investigation against imports of Turkish corrosion resistant steels products . Turkey had 
submitted  its views regarding the initiation of the investigation and the content of the non-
confidential version of the complaint to the investigating authority on 11 August 2021. Turkey 
explained that it had  stated in its written submission that most of the complainants ' financial 
indicators showed positive results during the injury  investigation period . Some of their financial 
indicators , such as sales, market share s and investment levels , deteriorated  during th at period. 
However, the negative  trends in the  econo mic indicators of the complainants did not stem from 
subject countries' imports , as alleged in the complaint. Rather, they were due to the closure or 
reduction in the production of the complainants ' steel mills as a result of containment measures 
taken dur ing the injury period  and the circumvention by dumped imports that were already subject 
to AD measures by another Member. Therefore, the negative trends  could not  be attributed to 
imports from subject countries.  Turkey requested the European Union  to termi nate the current 
investigation  without a ny definitive measure s. 
74. With respect to Egypt's comments, t he European Union  stated that the investigation was 
reopened on 27 May 2021  following changes to the European Union's AD legislation in June 2018 
that introd uced the possibility of extending AD  measures to import s of significant quantity to the 
continental shelf of the exclusive economic zone.  The investigation was still ongoing to consider 
whether to extend the measure to import s of significant quantity to the continental shelf of the 
exclusive economic zone.  The investigation was expected to be concluded within 13 months.  
75. As regards China's s tatements , the European Union stated that Article 11 of the AD Agreement 
allows f or the continued imposition of measures for a s long as it is necessary to co unteract dumping 
which is causing injury.  This provision was reflected in the European Union's AD  legislation. The 
duration of measures depended on whether there was  continued injurious dumping. Measures were 
only extended beyond the initial five -year period following expiry reviews which were conducted fully 
in accordance with the legislation and to th e highest standards . The measures were extended only 
if the legal requirement s were fully met.  
76. In response to  Turkey, the European Union  remarked  that it was only four months into the 
investigation and that prima facie  evidence of dumping and causation  was filed by the complainant 
prior to the investigation. The evidence submitted  met the required standard and , therefore , the 
investigation was opened. On the issue of causation , the European Union encouraged Turkey to 
provide its comments in the context of t he investigation  where all comments made by interested 
parties would be  taken into account and addressed.  
77. On the semi -annual report of India , Japan  expressed its concern on the final determination 
in the  AD investigation , made in May 2017 , and the continued imposition of AD duties on Japan ese 
exports of h ot-rolled flat products of alloy and non -alloy steel, and cold rolled/cold reduced flat 
products of iron or non -alloy steel. Japan has been arguing from the beginning that the product 
under  investigation included a wide range of products with a variety of physical characteristics, 
intended uses, price ranges, etc.  
78. Japan argued that when India's i nvestigating authorit y had found injury, it had  not consider ed 
specific factors, including as reg ards the fact which  products, from the wide variety of products under 
investigation , actually affected domestic like products in terms of volume and price. Japan regretted 
that AD  measure s began to be applied from May 2017. Thereafter, a sunset review began in 
March  2021 and an extension of the duty was proposed by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry 
in September 2021.  Japan observed that Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any 
AD measure shall be terminated in five years unless the authoriti es determine the 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.  Japan stated that India must apply Article 11.3 of 
the AD Agreement in a strict manner  and perform appropriate reviews in accordance with the G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 12 - 
 
  AD Agreement. It requested early termination of the AD measures so that the measure s would  not 
be continued for a long period.  
79. India requested Japan to provide  its comments and questions in writing to  the Permanent 
Mission of India such that it can respond in writing.  
80. On the semi -annual report of the Republic of  Korea,  Japan  expressed its concern on the 
final determination , made in July 2004 , and the continued imposition of AD duties based on the 
fourth sunset review regarding Japan ese exports of stainless -steel bar. The AD measures were 
imposed in July 2004  and subsequently extended, such that  17 years have already passed since the 
measure wa s originally imposed.  
81. Japan explained that o n 30 November 2020, a WTO panel report was issued on the Republic 
of Korea's measure extend ing the imposition of AD duties on the same product as a result of  the 
third sunset review. The panel found that the exte nsion measure was inconsistent with the 
AD Agreement and recommended that the Republic of Korea bring its measure into conformity with 
that agreement. In view of the panel's determination, the fourth extension measure at issue lacked 
any proper  basis. Whil e the Republic of Korea should have terminated the AD measure upon the 
fourth sunset review, it decided favourably on the fourth extension.  
82. Japan further stated that the Republic of Korea had explained , during its recent Trade Policy 
Review , that all of th e technical issues raised by the panel were properly addressed. In Japan's view, 
however, there were certain flaws in the Republic of Korea's  determination in the fourth sunset 
review, such as conducting a comparison of  relevant products without ensuring their comparability. 
Thus, the determination could not explain why concerns regarding the lack of competitive 
relationships and export incentives in the third sunset review , as considered by the panel,  did not 
equally apply with respect to t he fourth sunset review.  
83. In particular, Japan indicated that the Korean investigating authority did not have a sufficient 
basis for its findings that (i) there were competitive relationships among Japanese, Korean and 
Indian products that could justify  the impositio n of the AD duties, despite  significant price differences 
among Japanese products and the other products ; and that (ii) Japanese producers had the capacity 
to export  and thus had a margin to increase exports if AD duties were terminated. Accordingly, 
Japan  argued that the authority had failed to reasonably explain why the termination of the AD  duties 
was likely to lead to the  recurrence of injury to the domestic industry  and that  therefore  the Republic 
of Korea  should review the determinations on the  compet itive relationships, etc. by appropriately 
considering the findings  of the panel. Japan requested early termination of the AD measure which 
was, in its view, improperly continued for a long period.  
84. The Republic of Korea  responded that  the AD measures again st Japan ese imports  were still 
under appeal, for which reason it declined to comment on this issue. Its decision to appeal was due 
to the flaws in the panel report , as articulated in detail in Korea's notice of appeal. All the technical 
issues raised by th e panel report have been properly addressed in the final determination of the 
fourth sunset review against Japanese stainless -steel bar.  
85. On the semi -annual report of the Philippines , Turkey  stated that since 9 January 2015  the 
Tariff Commission of the Philippines has been  imposing AD measure s against imports of Turkish 
wheat flour . The authority conduct ed an expiry review regarding this measure  and published the  
final report  on 9 September 2020 , extend ing the measure for another three  years.  Turkey drew 
attention to what it viewed as a violation of the AD Agreement because AD  duties were applied on 
imports from Turkish exporters for whom de minimis  margins had been calculated in the original 
investigation.  
86. Turkey explained that Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement states that "[t]here shall be immediate 
termination in cases where the authorities determine that the margin of dumping is de minimis… ". 
Moreover, panel s and Appellate Body reports in several disputes , such as in Canada – Welded Pipe , 
Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate  and Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice , concluded that the 
imposition of AD duties on exporters with de minimis  margins of dumping was incompatible with 
Article  5.8. Given this , Turkey considered that the Tariff Commission 's prac tice was a clear violation 
of the AD Agreement and the relevant jurisprudence.  G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 13 - 
 
  87. Turkey added that it had  also conveyed its views on this issue to the Tariff Commission  but 
had not received any response. Similarly, it had raised this issue during the previou s Committee 
meeting and had subsequently conveyed its views to the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the 
WTO. To avoid any further difficulty, and in an effort to resolve this issue bilaterally, Turkey stated 
that it expected concrete steps from the Philippines' authorities. Turkey reserved all its rights 
stemming from the AD Agreement and relevant WTO jurisprudence.  
88. The Philippines  confirmed that it was currently engaging with Turkey on this matter. It 
requested that Turkey provide a written copy  of its statement and thanked Turkey for its readiness 
for further exchanges.  
89. On the semi -annual report of South Africa , Brazil  indicated  that it was following closely the 
AD investigation on frozen chicken  cuts. Brazil  recalled that chicken meat was the main export 
product from Brazil to  South Africa. Brazil ha d already made a  submission  on the record of the  
investigation in which  it demonstrated that no reason existed t o apply AD duties. Brazil understood  
that the provisional determin ation would  be published soon and expect ed that no provisional AD 
duty would  be applied.  
90. The European Union  expressed its concern about the initiation of the investigation concerning  
frozen poultry because it considered this sector to have been  already ham pered by several measures 
in the South African Customs Union. According to the European Union, this  investigation show ed 
some major shortcomings . The alleged dumped impor ts from Europe decreased significantly by 34 % 
over the period analysed , for which reas on the domestic industry could not  be suffering material 
injury caused by alleged dumped import s. Rather, a ny difficulty the domestic industry was 
experiencing must have been cause d by other factors , such as increased cost, inability to satisfy 
domestic demand, domestic consumption, and other imports with much lower prices. The dumping 
calculations in the application were inadequate because  they d id not allow for a fair comparison 
between normal value  and export price s and d id not adequately reflect the difference s between 
white and dark meat, different cut s, different qualit ies, and different levels of trade. The 
European  Union thus urged South Africa to act in full compliance with WTO rules and oblig ations  and 
to terminate this investigation without further delay. The imposition of any measures would  be 
unwarranted . 
91. Egypt  raised concerns over the AD investigation regarding imports of  uncooked pasta. It 
referred to  the calculation of the margin s of dum ping and the methodology for differentiat ing 
between types and model s. The investigation concerned imports of products falling under HS tariff 
code 1902 .19, including uncooked pasta. Although it was well known that pasta products made from 
semolina flour w ere more expensive than pasta products made from other types of flour, the 
investigating authority did not distinguish between such types of pasta exported from Egypt. Egypt 
has resorted to its official sources to verify such issue s and has found that past a exported from 
Egypt include d a small  portion of the type made from semolina while the greater portion is made 
from cheaper type s of flour. Thus, Egypt requested that comparisons be made of identical types of 
the subject product.  
92. South Africa  requested th at the Members raising concerns provide their comments in writing 
so that the investigating authority could take them into account. South Africa also remarked that 
the investigation into imports of frozen chicken cuts was still ongoing and that the authori ty has not 
yet made a preliminary determination, for which reason South Africa wished to make no comments.  
93. On the semi -annual report of Thailand , Egypt  raised concerns with respect to the 
AD investigation into imports of  hot-rolled steel coil originating from Egypt and other countries. 
According to Egypt, t he investigating authority disregarded  the fact that no exports had been made 
from Egypt to Thailand of the subject product during the investigation period, as reflected in official 
statistics and acknowledged by interested parties. The investigating authority decided not to conduct 
on-spot verifications and disregarded additional questionnaire responses . The investigating authority  
also disregarded actual sales records of th e responding party and official export statistics. According 
to Egypt, the  violation of Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement  was clear . Moreover, any injury suffered 
by the domestic industry was due to factor s other than the alleged ly dump ed imports  from Egypt 
and there was no causal link between those imports  and the alleged injury suffered by the domestic 
industry. Egypt  urged Thailand to terminate the investigation.  G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 14 - 
 
  94. Thailand  requested Egypt to provide a written version of its statement . 
95. On the semi -annual rep ort of Ukraine , the Russian Federation  expressed its concern about 
the initiation of the AD investigation on imports of certain articles of asphalt or of similar material 
originating in the Russia n Federation . It added that the Ukrainian authorities appear  to have initiated 
the proceeding based on an application that lacked sufficient evidence of dumping, injury, and 
causality , contrary to the requirements in Article 5.2 of the AD Agreement.  
96. First, as Russian exporters  had claimed , this investigation was initiated based on an application 
that cannot be considered as filed by or on behalf of the Ukrainian industry , contrary to the 
requirements of Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement. One of the major Ukrainian producers of the like 
produ ct was not included in the assessment of support for, or opposition to the initiation, which 
tainted  the assessment.  
97. Second, essential elements of the normal value, export price and dumping margin calculations 
were kept confidential in the application. Non -confidential summar ies of this information , sufficient 
to permit a reasonable understanding of its substance , were not provided. Without any  
understanding of those calculations, interested parties  had no opportunity to defend their interests, 
contrary to the requirements of Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement.  
98. Third, the application did not include sufficient evidence of any negative impact of Russian 
imports on the applicants. On the contrary, a number of indicators of the state of the Ukrainian 
industry illu strated improvement of its conditions . For instance, the domestic industry's sales 
volumes , domestic prices , export volumes, nameplate capacity, employment and average salaries 
have increased. Other  flaws existed in the application. The Russian Federation believed that the 
application fell short of providing  sufficient evidence justifying the initiation of the investigation. 
Therefore, it urged Ukraine to terminate the investigation immediately.  
99. Ukraine  stated that it had, on 21 April 2021 , initiated an AD investigation in the matter at 
issue concerning imports from the Russian Federation and Belarus. The investigation ha d been 
initiated pursuant to a petition from the domestic industry. During the investigation, Ukraine would  
provide all interested parties with the opportunity to present evidence , attend  public hearings, 
submit comments, and participate in bilateral consultations with the Members having substantial 
interest s as exporter s of the goods. The views  of the interested parties , including the Russian 
Federation,  would  be taken into account in making the relevant decision s. 
100.  On the semi -annual report of the United Kingdom , China  made an intervention concerning  
the continued application by the United Kingd om of the European Union's  trade remedy measures 
and the transition reviews conducted by the United Kingdom after Brexit. China opined that this 
practice was in breach of the provisions of the AD Agreement and infringe d upon the legitimate 
interest s of Mem bers. With Brexit , the United Kingdom was released from all its rights and 
obligations as a  member of the European Union and it no longer held any connection with the 
European Union's  trade remed y measures. The United Kingdom no longer had an authority to review 
those  measures. There was no basis for the United Kingdom to maintain the application of these 
measures nor did WTO rules authorise a Member to apply the trade remed y measure of another 
Member. The United Kingdom  was acting inconsistently with WTO r ules by maintain ing certain  
European  trade remed y measures. China requested that the United Kingdom terminate all 
AD measures originally taken by the European Union as well as the transition reviews. China was of 
the view that the United Kingdom should ini tiate new investigations if it considered that its domestic 
industries were injured.  
101.  In response, the United Kingdom  stated that it had retained certain definitive trade remedy 
measures applied before the end of the United Kingdom -European Union transition  period and in 
respect of which the United Kingdom held an interest. These measures had been established based 
on an investigation covering the entire territory of the European Union, including the 
United  Kingdom. Therefore, they have been maintained in re spect of the United Kingdom territory 
as of the end of the United Kingdom -European Union transition period. The United Kingdom 
explained that it determined which AD measures should be retained based on evidence presented 
by the United Kingdom's industries and all interested parties , including international industries. The 
relevant assessment was based on objective evidence relating to specific criteria, including a m arket 
share threshold for the United Kingdom -based producers of the product in question of more than  1%. G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 15 - 
 
  The United Kingdom underlined that it was committed to maintain a fair and transparent approach. 
Its investigating body would conduct objective evidenc e-based transition reviews of the retained 
measures. These reviews would determine whether the measures remained necessary to offset 
dumping and whether injury of the United Kingdom's domestic industries would recur in case the 
measures were lifted. This c ould result in the measures being amended, terminated, or maintained. 
Until the conclusion of the reviews, the measures would be maintained. Its investigating body had 
initiated five transition reviews in respect of AD duties. The United Kingdom noted that  it has an 
online digital service where interested parties could register their interest, access the public files, 
and participate in the proceedings.  
102.  On the semi -annual report of the United States , Turkey stated that in 2015 the United States' 
authorities  had initiated AD and countervailing duty investigations against Turkish exports of h ot-
rolled steel flat products. In the final determination , the authorities had calculated  a de minimis  
subsidy margin for Colakoglu , a respondent company in the investigat ion, and a 6.01% subsidy 
margin for the other respondent company , Erdemir. It was also  determined that , after excluding 
exports from Colakoglu, subsidized imports from Turkey fell below the 3% negligibility threshold  and 
that the countervailing duty invest igation was terminated in respect of imports from Turkey.  
103.  Likewise, in the third final AD remand redetermination dated 28 January 2020, Colakoglu 
received a 0% dumping margin, and Erdemir a 2.73% dumping margin. Hence, Colakoglu was 
excluded from the AD du ty order. After the decision on Colakoglu, Turkey believed that the 
termination of the countervailing investigation was also applicable for the AD investigation and that, 
therefore, this measure should be terminated for Turkish imports. Turkey expected the  United States 
to terminate the AD duties for all subject merchandise from Turkey.  
104.  Japan  took issue with the a dministrative review , from June 2020 to May 2021 , under the AD 
duty order on imports of g lycine from Japan . Specifically, Japan requested the investigating authority 
to consider the fact that there were two grades of glycine subject to this review: industrial grade 
and pharmaceutical grade , the latter being subject to certain Japanese qualification requirements . 
105.  As Japan explained, during the review it had requested that in comparing normal value and 
export prices, price comparisons should be done on a type -by-type basis that ensured  a proper and 
fair comparison i n accordance with the relevant WTO rules . Japan re quested the U nited States'  
investigating authority to conduct a fair review , considering the qualification mechanism related to 
pharmaceutical products in Japan and the difference in glycine grade s in accordance with such 
qualification  requirements . 
106.  Japan also raised concern regarding the prolonged imposition of AD measures against 
Japanese products.  Japan pointed out that  the U nited States  currently had 19 measures in force 
against Japanese products. The longest measures have continued for more than 42 yea rs, and 16 
of them were in force for more than 5 years. For example, Japan referred to  diffusion -annealed 
nickel -plated flat -rolled steel products (from September 2014), certain hot -rolled steel flat products 
(from May 2016), non -oriented electrical steel (from November 2014), polyvinyl alcohol (from 
July 2003), certain cold -rolled steel flat products  (from July 2016)  and prestressed concrete steel 
wire strand HTSUS (from July 2016), all of which are still in force . Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement 
stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated in 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. Japan urged the United States  
to apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and to perform appropriate reviews in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement.  It also requested the early termination of the se AD measures 
which had been  improperly continued for a long period.   
107.  Ukraine  expressed its deep concern about the AD investigation of the United States  on raw 
honey from , inter alia,  Ukraine. Ukraine believed that the investigating  authority ha d no groun ds to 
impose provisional or definitive AD measures regarding Ukrain ian products. According to the 
preliminary report of the USITC , import s from Argentina, Brazil, India, Ukraine, and Viet Nam 
accounted for 91 % of total import s of raw honey by quantity between April 2020 to March 2021. 
This meant  that almost all import s would be subject to  AD measure s. This, Ukraine stated, clearly 
distort ed competition in the United States'  domestic market. In Ukraine's view, such an approach 
was against the  principles of transparency and fair trade in the WTO. During  the period of 
investigation covering 2018 to 2020, as well as the most recent period, Ukraine 's imports held the 
small est share of total import s and of apparent domestic  consumption. Specificall y, Ukraine 's share G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 16 - 
 
  in the United States'  consumption accounted for 3 -4% and could not cause or threaten to cause any 
material injury to the specific industry in the United States. Ukraine urged the U nited States  to take 
into consideration all relevant evid ence presented in the investigation pursuant  to the AD Agreement 
and not to cumulate imports of raw honey from Ukraine with those of other countries in order to 
reach unbiased conclusions as regards Ukrainian products.  
108.  China  called upon the United States t o refrain from maintaining , through repeated sunset 
reviews , AD measures for unnecessarily long period s. According to the annual report by the 
United States for the year 2021, the United States  was applying  90 AD measures against Chinese 
product s, among wh ich six measures began in the 1980s and have been in place for at least 34 
years. The U nited States  has also been applying measures against Japan since 1978. China pointed 
out that China and Japan were not, of course, the only affected Members . The United States  has 
been applying  AD measures to imports from Chinese Taipei since 1984 , from India since 1986, from 
Canada since 1986, and from France, Italy, and Ger many since 1987. The AD Agreement states that 
AD measures shall be terminated within five years  unless the authority determines , through sunset 
reviews , that the expiry of the duties will likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping 
and injury.  China asked h ow the United States ' domestic industry could still be so  fragile after 
protections have been in place for 30 or 40 years. The prolonged – and even permanent – application 
of AD  measures ha s become a barrier to free and fair international tra de and resulted in market 
distortions as well as adverse effects on foreign exporters, consumers and the domestic industry's 
innovation and competi tiveness . China urged the United States to carefully examine the evidence 
submitted by domestic petitioners i n certain reviews to ensure that the standard for substantiating 
such requests, as set forth in Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement , serves to prevent quasi -permanent 
AD measures. Furthermore, China suggested that in future Rules' negotiations Members should 
consider clarify ing and improv ing the rules on sunset review s to prevent the emergence of 
permanent measures.  
109.  In response to Turkey, the United States  suggested that Turkey reach out directly to the 
investigating authority. With regards to Japan's statement, the United States mentioned that the 
matter concerned an ongoing proceeding and encouraged Japan to provide its comments for the 
administrative rec ord so these could be considered by the investigating authority.  
110.  As to the point concerning prolonged measures, the United States did not believe any basis 
exists for Japan's concerns. The expiry proceedings conducted by the United States were consistent 
with the obligations under the AD Agreement. In the United States' view, Japan appeared to imply 
that an old measure was no longer valid solely on the ground that the measure was old. The United 
States disagreed on this point.  The United States explained th at the purpose of expiry reviews was 
to examine if dumping and injury would recur if the measures were removed. The United States ' 
expiry review proceedings were evidence -based and participation by Japanese companies was 
helpful in terms of obtaining relev ant information and arguments from the relevant parties. The 
United States observed that many measures involving Japanese exporters ha d been terminated; out 
of 65 reviews 52 have resulted in  the termination of measures.  Seven of the oldest 10 measures 
remained in effect due to the lack of participation by Japanese companies. The United States 
encouraged participation by Japanese industries in the review proceedings.  
111.  With re spect  to Ukraine 's intervention , the United States remarked that this matter concerne d 
an ongoing investigation  and that it would be inappropriate to comment . It encouraged Ukraine to 
provide its comment s for the administrative record so they could  be considered  by the authority.  
112.  In response to China, the United States reiterated that its expiry review proceedings were 
consistent with the obligations under the AD Agreement. China , like Japan , appeared  to imply that 
an old measure was no longer valid solely on the ground that the measure was old – a position that 
the United States disagreed  with. The United States explained that the purpose of expiry reviews 
was to examine if dumping and injury would recur if the measures were removed. The United States ' 
expiry review proceedings were evidence -based and participation by Chinese companies was helpful 
in terms of obtaining relevant information and arguments from the relevant parties. To the extent 
that Chi nese respondent s had comments regarding any particular expiry review, the United States  
suggested that the comment s be submitted for the  record of the particular review.  
113.  China  took the floor to state that it agreed that a measure does not become invalid on account 
of its age. China underscored, however, that under the AD Agreement investigating authorities must 
ensure that petitioners substantiate application s for extensions. China doubted that the G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 17 - 
 
  United  States had satisfied this obligation  in each and every sunset review. Some of the requests by 
the petitioners were simple and not duly substantiated. China  encouraged the United States to 
increase its  efforts in this regard . 
114.  The United States  replied that under its law s, petitioners in each sunset review  were required 
to provide specific elements in order to substantiate a claim that it was necessary to maintain an 
order. These submissions were lengthy. If China h ad any issue with any particular sunset review,  
the United States  suggested that China submit those comments for the administrative record.  
115.  With respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not previous ly reviewed due to 
late submission and circulation, neither comments were made, nor questions were posed by any 
Member.  
116.  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  
117.  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/355, 356, 358, 359 & 
Corrigendum  1, 360 and 361. During this period Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; 
Dominican Republic; European Union; India; Indonesia; Japan; Kazakhstan; Republic of  Korea; 
Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; New Zealand; Pakistan; Philippines; Russian Federation; South Africa; 
Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; and the United States notified preliminary and/or 
final AD actions, which were listed in these documents . Since document G/ADP/N/361 was circulated, 
Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; India; Indonesia; Kazakhstan; Republic of Korea; 
Kyrgyz  Republic; Mexico; Pakistan; Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; 
Ukraine; United Kingdom; and the United States have  submitted such a notification, which will 
appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat . 
118.  The European Union  referred to a notification made by Ukraine  with regard to an investigation 
initiated on 1 September 2021  concerning aluminium ladders  from Poland and the Slovak  Republic.  
The European Union indicated that the claims of injury and causal link were insufficient. The injury 
analysis was limited to one year only and any decline in certain indicator s was only app arent during 
one quarter . There was thus no prima facie  evidence that the Ukrainian industry was suffering from 
material injury. Even if there were any  injury, there  was no evidence that it ha d been caused by the 
alleged dumped import s given that the impor t's market share increased by only 1. 8%. Rather , injury , 
if any,  had been caused by other factors , such as an increase in cost s or excessive  investment s. The 
European Union  urged the Ukrainian authority to terminate the investigation immediately in full 
compliance with the WTO obligations.  
119.  Ukraine  was not present at the time to provide its comments.  
120.  Turkey  expressed concerns about the initiation , by Argentina , of AD investigations against 
Turkish exports of polymer profiles of vinyl chloride  of the types used in the manufacture of openings 
or enclosures and tiles of glass  whether or not on a backing, for mosaics or similar decorative 
purposes on 14 May and 26 February 2021, respectively.  As a general remark, Turkey requested 
the Argentinian investiga ting authority to be attentive to the due process rights of the interested 
parties. Turkey recalled that Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement requires that throughout the 
investigation all interested parties shall have the full opportunity to defend their inter ests. 
121.  With respect to the PVC profiles investigation, the Government of Turkey, an interested party 
in the investigation, was not provided  with the report on the preliminary determination  which was 
stated as the base for the determination of threat of inju ry and causality in the Preliminary Notice, 
dated 31 August 2021.  Although it had requested the report from the Argentinian investigating 
authority via its Commercial Counsellor 's Office in Argentina through  two official notes dated 9 and 
13 September 2021 , Turkey  received nothing from the authority. Therefore, Turkey considered that 
its rights of defence had been infringed at this stage of the investigation.  
122.  With respect to the investigation on tiles of glass , the Turkish Embassy in Buenos Aires  was 
inform ed via a note dated 19 October 2021 that the evidentiary stage of the investigation had  been G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 18 - 
 
  closed  and that the essential facts report was being prepared by the National Commission for Foreign 
Trade on which interested parties ha d ten business days to com ment.  Despite all its attempts, Turkey  
was unable to obtain the report.  
123.  Turkey underline d the importance of the right of interested parties  to have an opportunity to 
defend their interests . It emphasized that it was the investigating authority 's obligation  and 
responsibility to ensure that this was the case, as provided for in Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement.  
124.  Argentina  stated that it had taken note of Turkey's intervention and that it would inform its 
capital . It requested Turkey to provide its comments in writing . 
125.  The Chair drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with this notification 
requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency concerning Members' 
AD actions, and the Committee could not ef fectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions 
if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard. The Chair strongly urged all Members taking 
AD actions to provide these notifications of preliminary and final actions, regularly, consi stently 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), contained 
important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be no tified and the information that should 
be provided.  
126.  The Chair noted that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc notifications 
pertaining to certain AD actions via different means, i.e. electronically, by fax and post. In certain 
instances, cert ain Members, while submitting new ad hoc notifications, also tended to resubmit 
previously notified actions and in some cases provided electronic links that did not correspond to the 
notification the Member submits. In addition, some of these notifications  were not submitted to the 
Centre of Registration and Notification (CRN) directly, but to the Rules Division Secretariat which 
had to resend it to CRN for registration. The Chair reminded all Members that a given ad hoc 
notification, as in case of all othe r notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to CRN 
with a copy to the Secretary of the Committee and that any previously submitted notifications should 
not be resubmitted. The Chair also requested Members, instead of providing electronic l inks to 
general websites, to attach directly the relevant document containing the action they wish to notify 
in WORD or PDF formats. Members were also able to consult presentation audios and interactive 
presentations made by the Secretariat at the 2015 wor kshop on notifications, which have been  made 
available on the AD webpage 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.  
127.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
128.  The Chair stated that the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumventio n was not held. 
As for the Committee spring  meeting of 2022, the approach agreed in the Spring of 2015 would be 
applied in deciding whether the Informal Group will meet . 
129.  No statements  were made by any Member.  
130.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
131.  The Chair recalled that the last meeting of the Working Group on Implementation ("WGI") of 
the Committee was held in autumn 2019. Since then, three meetings of the WGI have had to be 
postponed due to the limitations caused by the COVID -19 outbreak .  
132.  The Chair also recalled the email dated 20 August 2021, where Members were asked whether 
they had any reactions to holding the October  meeting of the WGI in either a hybrid or fully virtual 
mode. In his  email of 7 September 2021, the Chair indicated  that n o Member had raised any G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 19 - 
 
  objections to that suggestion . He added that the WGI would  be meeting in the afternoons of 28 and  
29 October 2021, to discuss issues relating to (i) reviews for the purpose of determining individual 
margins of dumping for any export ers or producers in the exporting country (new shipper reviews); 
(ii) price undertakings; and (iii) access to non -confidential case files . 
133.  Ms Yomna Elshabrawy of Egypt , serv ing as discussant, ha d circulated an outline of issues for 
discussion in document R D/ADP/WGI/15. The Chair  encourage d all Members to attend, and to 
participate actively in the discussions . 
134.  Finally, the Chair stated  that the topics and discussant for the next meeting of the WGI have 
not yet been determined by Members  and that he would  be contact ing Members in order to identify 
the next topic s and a discussant to assist at the April meeting of the WG I. 
135.  Egypt  thanked the membership for selecting its candidate as a discussant. It emphasized the 
importance of the topics and encouraged everyone  to attend.  
136.  The Committee took note  of the report and the statement made.  
7 UNITED STATES – EXAMINATION WHETHER TO CONTINUE TO TREAT THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION AS A MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSES OF 
ANTI -DUMPING DUTY LAW – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
137.  The Russian Federation  raised concern over the  issue that since 30 July 2021 the 
United States' Department of Commerce ("USDOC") has been conducting a review of the 
Russia n Federation's market economy status under the domestic AD  duty law. The review followed 
a petition lodged by the United States' domestic industry regarding imports of urea ammonium 
nitrate solutions from the Russian Federation.  
138.  In this regard, the Russian Federation  recalled that the market economy status for the purpose 
of United States'  investigations was granted to the Russia n Federation  in 2002. In 2012 , the 
Russian  Federation became a Member of the WTO. The Working Party did not consider it necessary 
to include in its report any special provisions relating to AD investigations against Russian products. 
Thus, the report does not include any commitments in this respect.  The Russian Federation also 
stressed that the WTO rulebook allows very limited scope t o depart from a strict comparison between 
the export price and the normal value obtained in the domestic market. None of these exceptions 
applied to the Russia n Federation. T he Russian Federation was convinced that the WTO rules 
provide d no grounds to appl y the methodologies that were envisaged by the United States'  
legislation for non -market economies in the determination of dumping in respect of Russian 
products. The Russian Federation expressed its hope  that the United States would  not make any 
decisions  that may lead to violations of the WTO rules in its AD proceedings.  
139.  China  shared the concern raised by the Russian Federation. According to China, it was  clear 
that the surrogate country method was in consistent with Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement which 
states that only two alternative methods for calculating normal value are available, export prices to 
a third country or construction of normal value based on the cost of production in the country of 
origin. In contrast , the surrogate co untry methodology required the use of cost s and prices from 
outside of the country of origin.  China argued that t his methodology  was an unfair and dangerous 
deviation from the AD Agreement as it ignored t he economic reality in the exporting country  and 
inflated the margin s of dumping.  
140.  China opined that if such methodology was widely adopted, the AD rules would ultimately be 
eroded . Furthermore, discriminating against certain Members in AD investigations was in breach of 
the WTO's  fundamental principle of MF N treatment . Therefore, China believed that no WTO Member 
should be subject to such unfair methodology. It urged the United States to stop the steps taken to 
target the Russian Federation and to accord the same treatment to all WTO Members.  
141.  The United Stat es explained  that, on 26 July 2021, the USDOC  had announced the initiation 
of investigations concerning imports of  urea ammonium nitrate solution from the Russian Federation 
and Trinidad and Tobago. The USDOC  intend ed to announce the preliminary determinat ion by 
7 December 2021, although it may extend th at date, if necessary. The United States added that this 
investigation was ongoing  for which reason it would be inappropriate to comment. Any comments G/ADP/M/60  
 
- 20 - 
 
  that the Russian Federation wishe d to be considered by the administering authority should be placed 
on the administrative record of the investigation. The USDOC  would carefully consider arguments 
placed on the record by all interested parties.  
142.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8 OTHE R BUSINESS  
143.  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 . 
144.  The Russian Federation  raised concerns pertaining to certain amendments to the 
European  Union's  legislation on AD introduced by Regulation s (EU) 2017/2321 and (EU) 2018/825.  
It stated that,  on numerous occasions in this Committee, the Russian Federation had commented 
on the amendments to the European Union's AD legislation. They remained a matter of concern and 
the Russian Federation closely monitored relevant developments in this regard.  
145.  The Russian Federation recalled that, like other Members, it had po sed written questions on 
this matter in document G/ADP/Q1/EU/7 . The European Union had provided written replies in 
document G/ADP/Q1/EU/12. The Russian Federation had recently submitted follow -up questions 
which were circulated in document G/ADP/Q1/EU/15 . The Russian Federation looked forward to the 
replies of the E uropean Union  and to a substantive discussion at the next Committee meeting.  
146.  The Russian Federation reiterated its view that the amendments were of a discriminatory and 
WTO-inconsistent nature. T ogether , these amendments crafted an  instrument for manipulating 
access to the E uropean  market. The Russian Federation  urged the E uropean Union  to abstain from 
the application of the methodologies envisaged by the amendments and to respect WTO rules.  
147.  China  commented on the European Union's legislation and practices  regarding the so -called 
significant market distortions by claiming that they were  inconsistent with relevant WTO principles 
and rules. First, the European Union's AD law created the concept of significant market distortions 
and other concepts not included in the AD Agreement . These concepts a uthorise the European 
Commission to review the market situations of other Members in an AD investigation and to construct 
the normal value.  
148.  Second, China  added that the methods for constructing normal value in the European Union's 
AD law were inconsistent with WTO rules. China claimed that according to the European Union's 
AD law, normal value should be constructed exclusively based on the cost of producti on and sales 
in a sufficiently representative country, or on international prices, if a significant market distortion 
was found to exist. This was inconsistent with Article s 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement. China 
expressed its hope that the European Un ion would return to the method set forth in the 
AD Agreement and comply with its obligations as a WTO Member . 
149.  The European Union  referred to its statements on this matter made at previous meetings of 
this Committee and on the record of the Council for Trad e in Goods.  
150.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
151.  The next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 25 April 2022.  
10 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(ARTICLE 18. 6) 
152.  The Committee adopted  its 2021 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods .  
__________