RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/64  
 
29 November 2023  
(23-8093) Page: 1/20 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2023 
CHAIR: MRS AYŞEGÜL ŞAHINOĞLU YERDEŞ  (TÜRKIYE ) 
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on  
26 October  2023. 
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 airgra m convening the meeting.  
3. The Chair reiterated the request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that it could  update its contact details list, currently contained in 
document RD/ADP/3/Rev. 21 and which remained the way to ensure conveying courtesy copies to 
Members . The Chair noted that this system will be replaced in the near future by a centralized 
system.  
4. The Chair also reminded Members that in order to make sure that they are informed that a 
certain document has been circulated, Members should  click on the e -subscription tab on the WTO 
website to register their emails, and check the Anti -Dumping ("AD") box to be informed daily of all 
documents circulated in this area. The Chair also urged Members to submit written version s of their 
statements to speed up the produ ction of the minutes.   
5. The Committee adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 39: 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – NEW NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ...................  2 
1.1   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations  
not previously reviewed by the Committee (includi ng supplemental notifications 
of existing provisions not previously reviewed)  ................................ .............................  2 
1.1.1   Brazil (G /ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.20 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.23)  ................................  3 
1.1.2   Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.11 - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.10); 
(G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.12 - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.11 - G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.4); and 
(G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.12 - G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.5)  ..............  3 
1.1.3   Mauritania (G/ADP/N/1/MRT/1/Rev.1 - G/SCM/N/1/MRT/1/Rev.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/MRT/1/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1.1.4   Mauritius (G/ADP/N/1/MUS/4 - G/SCM/N/1/MUS/4 - G/SG/N/1/MUS/2)  ..........................  3 
1.1.5   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.2 
- G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.2) and (G/AD P/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.3 - 
G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4 
1.2   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written questions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  4 
1.2.1   Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  ................................ ..... 4 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  4 G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 2 - 
 
  A. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA I TEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  ................................ ................................ ..................  5 
2.1  Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  .........  5 
2.2  European  Union (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)  ................................ ....... 5 
2.3  Ghana (G/AD P/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ...............  5 
2.4  Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/384/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: AD HOC 
NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  15 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  17 
7 DRAFT REPORTING BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  
GOODS ("CTG") ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMITTEE – 
RD/ADP/40  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  17 
8 MEXICO – SUNSET REVIEW OF THE ANTI -DUMPING DUTY ON BRAZILIAN  
EXPORTS OF BOND PAPER, CUT – ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  ................................ .... 18 
9 NON-MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT IN ANTI -DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS –  
ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ..........................  19 
10 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 
11 DATES OF NEXT REGULAR MEETINGS IN 2024  ................................ ......................  20 
12 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 
 
1 NATIONAL  LEGISLATION  – NEW NOTIFICATIONS  
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 
6. The Chair indicated that i tems 1.1.1  through 1.1.5  of the agenda concern the review of new 
legislative notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee, the first of which had been 
submitted by Brazil . She stated that, a s always, the reviews would be conducte d in accordance with 
the relevant procedures adopted by the Committee and described in 
document  G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1 . In addition, and pursuant to paragraph 8  of the same 
procedures, item  1.2 pertained  to the legislative notification of Saint Kitts and Nevis with 
outstanding written questions . 
7. The Chair referred to the past and future deadlines concerning the review of the new legislative 
notifications  as follows: any written questions were to be submit ted to the Member concerned, and 
to the Secretariat by 2 October  2023 . Oral questions could be  asked at this meeting, and any 
Member wishing to receive a written  answer should  submit the questions asked orally also in 
writing, not later than 17 November  2023. Written answers to all written questions should be 
submitted to the Member posing the questions, and to the Secretariat by 8 December  2023 . 
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
reviewed in the October  2023 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 511 - G/SCM/W/ 588 - 
G/SG/W/ 257. G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.1   Brazil  (G/ADP/N/1/ BRA/3/Suppl. 20 - G/SCM/N/1/BR A/2/Suppl.23 ) 
8. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
 
9. Brazil  clarified that this new legislation modified its  legislation on public interest  in order to 
make the process of publ ic interest optional in Brazilian investigations. It added tha t further changes 
were being discussed in this respect and might  come into effect in the future. Brazil indicated that 
such amendments would be duly notified to the WTO and expressed readiness t o clarify any doubts 
Members might have both in the Committee and bilaterally .  
 
1.1.2   Japan  (G/ADP/N/1/ JPN/2/Suppl.11 - G/SCM/N/1/ JPN/2/Suppl. 10); 
(G/ADP /N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.12  - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.11  - 
G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.4 ); and (G/ADP/N/1 /JPN/2/Suppl.13  - 
G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.12  - G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/S uppl.5 ) 
10. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding th e notification  contained 
in document G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.11  - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.10 . With re spect to this 
notification, Japan indicated that  in July 2023, it notified  to the Committee the relevant provisions 
of the Guidelines for Procedures Relating to Countervailing Duty and Anti -Dumping Duty, regarding  
the amendments of the guidelines which had entered into force on 1 April 2023. Japan clarified that  
the guidelines were  very technical  and welcome d questions and comments by Members.  
11. A written question had been posed regarding th e two  notification s contained in documents  
G/ADP/N/1/JP N/2/Suppl.12  - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.11  - G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.4  and 
G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.13  - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.12  - G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/S uppl.5  and can be 
found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ JPN/20 - G/SCM/Q1/ JPN/20 - G/SG/Q1/ JPN/9 – Question from the 
United  States  
12. Japan  indicated that in June 2023, it had notified the relevant Articles in the Act on the 
Promotion of Ensuring National Security through Integrated Impl ementation of Economic Measures 
and the Order for Enforcement of the Act on the Promotion of Ensuring National Security through 
Integrated Implementation of Economic Measures and received questions from United States on 
2 October  2023. Japan confirmed that  it would  soon submit  its written responses.  
13. The United States  indicated that it looked forward to receiving the written answers.  
14. Written answers were subsequently received,  prior to the deadline2, and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ JPN/21 - G/SCM/Q1/ JPN/21 - G/SG/Q1/ JPN/10 – Replies to the United States  
1.1.3   Mauritania (G/ADP/N/1/ MRT/1/Re v.1 - G/SCM/N/1/ MRT/1/Rev.1  - 
G/SG/ N/1/MRT/1/Rev.1 ) 
15. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
16. No statements were made by any Member.  
1.1.4   Mauritius  (G/ADP/N/1/ MUS/4 - G/SCM/N/1/ MUS/4 - G/SG/N /1/MUS/2) 
17. Written questions had been posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ MUS/ 6 - G/SCM/Q1/ MUS/ 6 - G/SG/Q1/ MUS/ 1 – Questions from the 
United  States  
 
2 G/ADP/W/512  - G/SCM/W/ 590 - G/SG/W/ 258. G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 4 - 
 
  18. Written answers can be found in document:   
• G/ADP/Q1/ MUS/ 7 - G/SCM/Q1/ MUS/ 7 - G/SG/Q1/ MUS/2  – Replies to the United States  
19. The United States  indicated that Mauritius had provided comprehensive responses to the 
questions and that the United States had no follow -up questions.  
1.1.5   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  (G/ADP/N/1/SAU/ 2/Suppl.2  - 
G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.2  - G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.2 ) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.3  - G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.3  - 
G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.3 ) 
20. Written questions had been posed regarding th ese notification s and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ SAU/7  - G/SCM/Q1/ SAU/7  - G/SG/Q1/ SAU/9 – Questions from the 
United  States  
21. Written  answers can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/SAU/8  - G/SCM/Q1/SAU/8  - G/SG/Q1/SAU/10  – Replies to the United States  
22. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  referred to its written answers and indicated readiness to receive 
any follow -up questions .  
23. The United States  indicated that it would review the written answers and provide any follow -
up written questions , if needed . 
24. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions , answers and statements.  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written questions  
1.2.1   Saint Kitts and Nevis ( G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1  - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1 ) 
25. Written questions reg arding this notification had been posed and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KNA/1  - G/SCM/Q1/KNA/1  – Submitted by the United States  
26. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
27. Saint Kitts an d Nevis was not present at the meeting . Oral answers were provided at the 
meeting, nor had written answers been received to date.  
28. No statements were made by any Member.  
29. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions , and statement . 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE3 
30. The Chair first recall ed the relevant procedures contained in document G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1  
and the deadlines. Members wishing to ask ques tions about notifications of legislation or regulations 
previously reviewed by the Committee were to have submitted those questions in writing to the 
notifying Member and to the Secretariat no later than 11 September  2023. No Member ha d submitted 
 
3 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the May 2023 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/510  - 
G/SCM/W/587  - G/SG/W/256 . G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 5 - 
 
  by the 11  September 2023 deadline  any written questions pertaining to notifications of legislation or 
regulations previously reviewed by the Committee . 
31. The Chair indicated that the Committee would turn t o the written questions posed under this 
agenda item at previous Committee meetings, which remain ed unanswered to date. These would be  
discussed under agenda items 2. 1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2. 4 pertaining to the previously reviewed legislative 
notifications of Cameroon, European Union, Ghana , and Liberia , respectively . 
A. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  
2.1 Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2  - G/SC M/N/1/CMR/2  - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2 ) 
32. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/5  - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/5  - G/SG/Q1/CMR/5  – Submitted by the Uni ted States  
33. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of October 2022.  
34. Cameroon  was not present at the meeting . Oral answers were not  provided at the meeting, 
nor had written answers been received to date.  
35. No statements were made by any Member.  
2.2 European  Union ( 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/S uppl.3 ) 
36. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding th ese notification s and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/EU/15  - G/SCM/Q1/E U/15 – Follow -up questions from the Russian Federation  
37. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of April 2022.  
38. The European Union  did not take the floor on this agenda item.  
39. The Russian Federation  reiterate d its systemic concerns about the amendments to the 
European Union legislation on AD introduced by Regulation s 2017/2321 and 2018/825. It explained 
that it had previously expressed  its concerns and refer red to its statements at the previous 
Committee meetings for details. It believe d that the amendments introduce d discriminatory and 
WTO-inconsistent methodologies and urge d the European Union to abstain from using them and to 
adhere to the WTO rules .  
2.3 Ghana ( G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2  - G/SCM/N/1/ GHA/2  - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2 ) 
40. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3  - G/SCM/Q1/G HA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3  – Follow -up questions from the 
United States  
41. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of April 2021.  
42. Ghana  was not present at the meeting . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date . G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 6 - 
 
  43. No statements were made by any Member.  
2.4 Liberia ( G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1 ) 
44. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/3  - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/3  – Follow -up questions from the United States  
45. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of October  2020.  
46. Liberia  was not present at the meeting . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date.  
47. No statements were made by any Member.  
48. Before moving on to the next agenda item, the Chair inform ed Members that for the 
spring  meeting of 202 4, according to the Committee's agreed procedures, any new legislative 
notification  to be placed on the agenda of that meeting ought to be  circul ated in all three 
WTO languages not later than 11 March  2024. Shortly after this date, on 15 March  2024, the 
Secretariat would  circulate the annotated draft agenda informing Members of all legislative 
notifications to be reviewed at the spring  2024 meeting. As concerns the new and previously 
reviewed legislative notifications taken up at this meeting, Members were reminded that p ast the 
set deadlines, all unanswered written questions would  automatically be retained on the agenda of 
the next Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Committee meetings under the 
respective agenda items until written answers were submitted . 
49. For the  spring  2024 meeting , the Chair  noted that the United  Kingdom and the  
United  States had submitted new legislative notifications, which would be considered under 
agenda item 1 of the spring  2024  meeting . Written questions concerning these legislative 
notifications and any new legislative notifications for the spring  2024 meeting  should be 
submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat by 2 April  2024. 
50. Concerning previously reviewed legislation , in order to place any such item on the agenda 
of the spring  2024 meeting for further review, questions should  be submitted in writing to the 
Member concerned, and to the Secretariat, not later than 11 March  2024. Written answers to any 
such questions should be submitted to the Member posing the questions and to the Secretariat not 
later than 8 April  2024. 
51. As usual , a document containing all these relevant deadlines would  be circulated soon after 
this Committee meeting .4 
52. The Chair drew Members'  attention to the fact that some Members ha d yet to submit any 
legislative notification at all. This was a matter of concern to all Members, from the point of view of 
transparency a nd for the purposes of better understanding each other's systems. For many Members 
all that would be required was a single nil notification. For those Members that conduct ed 
antidumping  ("AD") investigations, but ha d not yet notified their legislation, it was all the more 
important for the Committee to have the opportunity to review and ask questions about that 
legislation. By way of reminder, Article 18.5  of the AD Agreement require d Members to notify their 
domestic laws and regulations relating to AD to this Committee. These notifications would be  in the 
form of the full texts of the relevant laws or regulations in English , French or Spanish. Any modification 
to the laws, regulations or administrative procedures also had to be notified promptly. As already  
mentioned, Members that ha d no AD laws or regulations should notify that fact by providing a nil 
notification. Member s that were  unable to notify the text of existing legislation, should submit an 
explanation of why such legislation could not be notified.  Thus, the Chair  encourage d all Members 
that ha d not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible . The Chair recalled 
that this was one of the issues referred to in the Secretariat presentation on the functioning of the 
 
4 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 512 - G/SCM/W/ 590 - 
G/SG/W/ 258. G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Committee delivered on 2 October 2023 and which Members could consult on the ADP Committee's 
webpage. The Chair also reminded Members that they could consult the Handbook of Notifications 
on the same webpage.  
53. Finally, the Chair  referred to the list of authorities competent to initiate and conduct 
AD investigations within the meaning of Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement. The latest revisi on of this 
list was contained in document G/ADP/N/14/Add. 59 - G/SCM/N/18/Add. 59. The Chair invite d 
all Members that ha d such an authority to submit the required notification pursuant to Article 16.5 
of the AD Agreement. The Chair  also invite d those Members that ha d already submitted such a 
notification some time before  to review its content and report to the Secretariat any changes as 
necessary . 
54. The United States  appreciated the fact that most Members had submitted a notification with 
their domestic AD legislation or a one -time notification that they d id not have AD legislation. 
However, some Members  that had not provided a notification of their legislative status  had informed 
the WTO through the Trade Policy Review process whether they had AD laws in effect.  In other 
words, WTO Members had already been informed of a Member 's notification status, albeit in another 
forum. The United States therefore encouraged Membe rs to review their respective situations and 
make the appropriate notification s promptly.  The notification of AD laws, and any revisions to those 
laws, were a key element in maintaining transparency in the administration of the AD remedy. The 
United States  commended all of the Members who had provided legislative notifications to this 
Committee for review , and encourage d all Members to submit future notifications promptly following 
the implementation of the relevant legislation.  
55. In addition, the United Sta tes mentioned that it had  added  an item to the agenda of the 
Council for Trade in Goods ("CTG") that identifie d certain Members ' non-notification of items 
pursuant to certain WTO agreements, including the AD Agreement. By bringing this to the CTG, the 
United States'  intent was to raise awareness of this issue beyond the Committee, with a call to work 
with the listed Members on thei r notifications. In the CTG  meetings , the United States had reiterated 
that many of these notifications had been outstanding for over 25 years, so that if Members had 
questions about their notification obligations, they should approach the Secretariat for guidance 
about how to meet the requirements under the applicable WTO agreements.  Alternatively, if for 
some reason a Member was unable to reach out to the Secretariat, such a Member could  reach out 
to other Members for guidance and/or assistance.  The United States explained that  all Members had 
been in the position at one time or another  of having to do a WTO notification for the first time, so 
all Members  should be sympathetic to the challenges certain obligations might  create. Finally, t imely 
and com plete notifications would allow the WTO 's negotiating arm to function, improve the operation 
of WTO agreements, and allow Members to better understand the trade practices of other Members.  
The United States also indicated that it was  pleased to report that  since it had tabled its list in the 
CTG, Mauritania ha d made an AD legislative notification and, as a result, it would  no longer be 
included on this list.  The United States  thank ed Mauritania for this effort and encourage d other 
Members to follow Mauritan ia's example.  
56. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions  and statements.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/ 384/…) 
57. The Chair  indicated that agenda item 3  cover ed the review of semi -annual reports of 
AD actions covering the period January  – June  2023. A request for semi -annual reports for the 
first half of 202 3 was circulated in document G/ADP/N/ 384, dated 15  June 2023 and a reminder 
followed on 14 July 2023. For those Members who had taken no AD actions, all that was necessary 
was to submit a nil notification through the AD portal or submit a simple email to th e Central 
Registr y of Notification s (CRN) , with a copy to the Secretary of the Committee , confirming 
this twice per year. Of course, this did not apply to Members that had already submitted a one -time 
notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agr eement .  
58. The Chair was pleased to report that the use of the portal remain ed extensive, and the 
Secretariat continue d to provide all the necessary assistance through sessions tailored to the needs 
of each Member using the portal . G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 8 - 
 
  59. Turning to the semi -annual reports for the first half of 202 3, the Chair referred to document 
G/ADP/N/ 384/Add .1. Members that ha d submitted their reports were listed in paragraph  1 of 
the document. The reports were translated, to the extent possible, but notifications received late 
might not yet have been available in all three WTO languages.  Members listed in paragraph 2  of 
the said d ocument notified the Committee that they had not take n any AD actions during the period 
in question . 
60. In addition, paragraph 5  of the document set out the list of 53 Members  that ha d submitted 
a one -time notification pursuant to the format adopted by the Committee and circulated in document 
G/ADP/19  dated 3  November  2009. These Members ha d indicated that they ha d neither 
established an investigating authority nor had taken any AD actions. The Chair indicate d that all 
such notifications were contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series . The Chair noted  that one -time 
notifications serve d a useful transparency function, as they assist ed Members that ha d not 
established an investigating authority to meet their notificati on requirements in a streamlined way. 
The Chair,  therefore , urged any Member in this situation that ha d not already done so to submit a 
one-time notification. The Secretariat stood  ready to assist Members  if in doubt as to whether they 
qualif ied to make such a notification or not . In this connection, the Chair indicated that Mauritania  
had submitted this notification which was circulated in document G/ADP/N/193/MRT . The Chair 
also noted that Georgia  and Mauritius , which had previously submitted one -time notifications, had 
each recently submitted a revised version of that notification indicating that they had established 
investigating authorit ies. These notifications could be found in documents 
G/ADP/N/193/GEO/Rev.1  and G/ADP/N/193/MUS/Rev.1 , respectively . 
61. The Chair  pointed out that there were still a number of Members that ha d not yet responded 
to the request for semi -annual reports, which applie d to all Members whether or not they ha d taken 
AD actions during the period in question, except, as stated earlier, for those that ha d already 
submitted a one -time notification. Again, the Chair urged Members concerned to comply with this 
important notifica tion requirement.  
62. The Chair also note d that, after the Committee  had conclude d the review of the semi -annual 
reports covering the first half of 202 3, any Member m ight, if it wishe d, raise any issue regarding a 
semi-annual report for a past period that ha d not yet been reviewed by the Committee . 
63. Regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports, the Chair recalled that while 
Members were free to raise any questions that they wish ed at the Committee's meetings, Members 
might  agree that raising issues  that were subject to dispute settlement proceedings might  be better 
pursued in depth in other WTO dedicated fora.  
64. The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the first half of 202 3. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports  of Australia; Brazil; Canada; Colombia; 
Dominican Republic; the member States of the Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia; Kazakhstan; 
Kyrgyz Republic; and the Russian Federation); Egypt; El Salvador; 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); Israel; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; Morocco; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; Paraguay; Peru; South Africa;  Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Türkiye;  Uruguay ; 
and Viet Nam . 
65. On the semi -annual report of Argentina , Indonesia  drew the attention of WTO Members to 
the AD investigation on slide fasteners and tapes  products originating from Indonesia initiated by 
Argentina's investigating authority on 30 May 2023. Indonesia expresse d concern over this 
AD investigation for two reasons. First, during the initiation stage, the investigating authority had 
neither notified the alleged Indonesian exporters and the importers of the products in question in 
Argentina , nor s ubmit ted any questi onnaires to the said exporters and importers. Second, the 
alleged Indonesian exporters faced difficulties in submitting their questionnaires due to the 
translation and document ation issues. Although Indonesia underst ood that this investigation was 
still on going , it question ed Argentina on how th is investigation would  be compatible with the 
AD Agreement. Indonesia request ed Argentina to reconsider the continuity of the investigation . 
66. Argentina  was not present at the time .  G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 9 - 
 
  67. On the semi -annual report of China , Japan  express ed concern regarding the final 
determination made in April 2017 and the continued imposition of the AD duty regarding vinylidene 
chloride -vinyl chloride copolymer resin . Japan explained that it had repeatedl y expressed its concern 
in the government opinions about the assessment of effect of the dumped imports on prices and 
material injury to domestic industry in the original investigation . But regrettably, AD duties had 
started to be imposed from April 2017 . Thereafter, the sunset review had been  initiated  in April 2022 
and the measure had been  extended in April 2023 . Japan stated that Article 11.3 of the 
AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated on a date not later than five 
years from i ts imposition unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the 
measure, namely that the termination of the AD duty would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and injury . Japan request ed early termination of t he AD measure s which, in 
its view, were improperly continued for a long period .  
68. China  recalled that i n the May meeting of the Committee , China had consistently opposed the 
abuse of AD measures  and insisted that such measures should be applied in an object ive, prudent, 
and restrained manner. Such measures should also not last for unreasonably long periods. On the 
concerns raised by Japan  with respect to the  AD measure on vinylidene chloride -vinyl chloride 
copolymer resin , China explained that the investigat ing authority had made its final determination 
of an expiry review  on 19 April 2023. The determination showed that the termination of the duty 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury , and thus the AD measure 
had been extended. China  noted that Japanese exporters did not submit any questionnaire response s 
during the review investigation  and that t he investigating authority had made the determinations 
based on the information and the comments prov ided by all the interested parties. China believe d 
that the practice and the rulings in th is review were consistent with the AD Agreement . 
69. On the semi -annual report of the European Union , Türkiye  indicated that o n 
14 October  2022, the European Commission had initiated an AD investigation against imports of 
Turkish steel bulb -flat. Türkiye had submitted its views to the investigating authority regarding the 
initiation of the investigation and the provisional measure  on 3 January and 27 July 2023 , 
respectivel y. Türkiye referred to its written views and to the hearing  in which it had stated that the 
import volume ha d been examined in a cumulative way by the investigating authority , without  
distinction between the Turkish and the Chinese  exporters , although T ürkiye ha d been exporting to 
the European Union 's market for a long time, long before other actors. In this context, Türkiye 
opined that for purposes of a fair and smooth analysis, the examination of imports should be 
conducted separately as expo rters from each country ha d their own peculiarities.  It added that a s 
the European Union's  steel bulb-flat market consist ed of few players on the production side and as 
the overall market share of Turkish exports  had declined by 1%, it should be questioned how the 
Turkish producer -exporter, wh ich had been in the market for a long time thanks to the European 
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), could cause  injury or threat of injury to the European Union 's 
industry.  Since T ürkiye had been the leader in the E uropean Union market  in this respect , Türkiye 
did not need to export at dumped prices, given that that the domestic industry was composed of 
few players.  Türkiye submitted that  there was no need for the application of a provisional measure 
and expect ed this measure to be terminated immediately . 
70. China  noted that according to the data notified  by the E uropean Union to the WTO , as of the 
end of  June 2023, the European Union had imposed 118  definitive AD meas ures. Of the 
118 measures, at least 84 had been reviewed in at least one sunset review and remain ed effective.  
Measures on bicycles and silicon metal ha d even remained effective for more than 30 years after 
multiple sunset reviews . Article 11.3 of the A D Agreement stipulate d that any definitive AD duty was 
to be terminated on a date no later than five years from its imposition, unless the authorities 
determined that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury. China believe d that all Members should adhere to the basic principles and spirit 
of the multilateral rules, strictly apply Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, and perform this obligation 
in good faith.  China referred to the European Union's views expressed at a previous Committee 
meeting where the European Union had indicated that even though there was no legal limitation on 
the number of expiry revi ews, having measures in place for more than 25 years would be unjustified 
and beyond economic reality . China submitted that the measure should now be terminated and that 
the market should be allowed to adjust without unwarranted protection.  
71. Indonesia  referred to  the definitive AD measure imposed by the European Union on imports 
of fatty acid from Indonesia. The measure had been adopted and implemented through the 
European  Commission Implementing Regulation 2023/111 on 18 January 2023. Indonesia request ed G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 10 - 
 
  that its previous statements at the regular meeting on 26 October 2022 , regarding the 
European  Union's relevant investigation , be referred to  in the minutes of the meeting .5 Indonesia 
highlight ed that the relevant investigation of the measure was not s upported by more than 50% of 
the production output of the like product produced by the European Union domestic industry, and 
not even by 20% of the total European Union producers of the like product, following the withdrawal 
of the complaint on 24  August  2022 and the producers' opposition to the measures. Although the 
complaint had been withdrawn and the parallel anti -subsidy investigation terminated based on the 
withdrawal of the complaint, Indonesia regretted  that the relevant investigation had continued and 
had concluded with the imposition of the high AD duties of 15.2% - 46.4% on Indonesia's fatty 
acids. The decision to initiate the AD investigation ex -officio without the support of the 
European  Union industry and proper justification raise d concerns re garding the European Union's 
compliance with its obligations under the AD Agreement. Furthermore, Indonesia questioned the 
European  Commission's objectivity over the evidence of positive trends indicating that there was no 
material injury to domestic indus try. Indonesia hope d for a resolution to these concerns.  
72. India expressed its deep concerns regarding the conduct of the investigation by the 
European  Union  on tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron from India . On 22 September 2022, the 
European Commission had announced by a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union the 
initiation of a partial interim review of the AD Measures applicable to imports of this product from 
India. The Commission in its fi rst disclosure statement, dated 24 August 2023, had calculated a 
dumping margin of 19%. In its second disclosure statement, dated 3 October 2023, it had calculated 
a dumping margin at 12.89%. And in its third disclosure statement, dated 16 October 2023, it had 
calculated a dumping margin at 13.14% for the Indian exporter. India indicated that its concerns 
arose from the lack of consistency in the methodology used by the Commission to calculate the 
dumping margin in three different disclosure statements and the deviation from the original or earlier 
investigation on the subject goods. Moreover, the European Commission ha d not addressed the 
concerns raised by India in any of the three disclosure statements issued so far in the subject 
investigation. The Indian  exporter ha d provided complete information to the best of its ability based 
on historical records which previously had been accepted in the original investigation. India firmly 
believe d there was no justification to reject this information and calculate t he dumping margin based 
on facts available.  
73. On the issues raised by Türkiye, t he European Union  thanked Türkiye for actively participating 
in the investigation and for submitting comments. It confirmed  that the E uropean Union had taken 
duly into account th e comments submitted in the Regulation imposing provisional measures, 
released on 11 July 2023. The European Union  confirmed having  received the comments by Türkiye  
on 27 July 2023  and stated that the current period was that between the application of provisional 
and definitive measures. It confirmed that it was finalising the disclosure of the draft definitive 
findings  to be disclosed to all parties, including to the Government of Türkiye . It added that the said 
draft would  address all the comments received on the provisional findings, including the comments 
submitted by the Government of Türkiye  on 27 July  2023. The European Union submitted that  upon 
the disclosure of these draft definitive fi ndings , the Government of Türkiye  would  have a further 
opportunity to comment on the draft, should it disagree with these draft findings. On substance, the 
European Union reassure d Türkiye that it would fully adhere to the principles and the legislation 
concerning the conditions for cumulation in cases where an investigation concerns different  
countries. It added that its B asic AD Regulation follow ed verbatim the principles of the WTO 
AD Agreement, and that the European Union would fully respect these provi sions and the 
jurisprudence of both the WTO and the European courts, which ha d ruled also on this specific issue.  
The European Union further submitted that at the provisional stage, it had  provisionally concluded 
that the conditions to cumulate the imports  from Türkiye , with the imports coming from China, had 
been warranted . It encourage d Türkiye  to bring forward its arguments and to request hearings in 
case of disagreement once the draft definitive findings were disclosed if  it so wished.  
74. On the issues raised by China, the European Union referred to its interventions in previous 
Committee meetings . It confirmed that  indeed there was no maximum amount of time foreseen in 
the legislation for the prolongation of measures and  encourage d China to urge its  exporting 
producers to cooperate in the respective investigations. The European Union indicated that it had 
noticed - in almost all of the reviews - that there was full non -cooperation, or almost full 
non-cooperation, which mean t that the Europe an Commission had had to take decision s on the basis 
of the information available on file . It requested China to urge  its exporters to cooperate and make 
 
5 G/ADP/M/62 , paragraphs 81 a nd 82.  G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 11 - 
 
  their views known, as this would help with the European Union's assessment o f whether the 
measures sho uld be terminated or should be prolonged.  
75. On the question raised by Indonesia, the European Union indicated that the AD investigation 
on fatty acid ha d been concluded with the imposition of AD definitive  measures . It declined  to 
address any points concern ing the anti -subsidy proceeding in the  ADP Committee  meeting. The 
European Union stated that it had repeatedly explained in the regulation and to Indonesia the 
reasons that warrant ed the imposition of measures despite the withdrawal of the complaint by the 
domestic industry. With respect to the conditions for termination of an investigation further to the 
withdrawal of the complaint, the European Union emphasized the conditions set ou t in Article  9 of 
the European Basic AD  Regulation, which stipulate d that: " where the complaint is withdrawn, 
proceedings may  be terminated , unless such termination would not be in the Union's interest ". It 
also highlight ed that the Indonesian exporters ha d challenged the imposition of the measures before 
the European General Court. The European Union believe d that its measure would  withstand this 
legal scrutiny  and thus would not comment further on these arguments as they were subject  to an 
ongoing litigat ion. 
76. On the issues raised by India, the European Union submitted that the procedure raised by 
India was ongoing. It thus declined to  go into the details of the case as it involved confidential 
information pertaining to particular situation s and occurrences  that had taken place in the 
investigation concerning a specific Indian exporting producer being investigated. However , it 
confirmed that it had considered  all the several representations and comments that this Indian 
exporter ha d been making. On the gener al comment made by India regarding the methodology used 
in investigations, the European Union submitted that in review investigations including in this 
proceeding , the European Union would follow the methodology used in previous proceedings only if 
the cir cumstances were the same. However,  if the circumstances were not the same, there would 
be no legal obligation to follow the same methodology.   
77. On the semi -annual report of India , Japan  express ed its concern regarding  the initiation of 
an AD investigation on sodium cyanide from Japan in March 2023.  It submitted that t he imports of 
sodium cyanide from Japan had been declining during the period of the investigation. Therefore, it 
believe d that the petition lack ed evidenc e of the volume effect of the dumped imports stipulated in 
Article 3.2 of the AD agreement. In addition , Japan  doubt ed the petitioner 's claim that there was 
material injury to the domestic industry and the ca usal link between imports and the injur y. Japan 
request ed the Directorate General of Trade Remedies of India ("DGTR") to assess the injury and the 
causal link based on positive evidence and objective examination in a manner consistent with the 
AD Agreement.  Lastly, Japan request ed DGTR  to consider  the opinions of stakeholders including user 
industry/companies in India to ensure that the public interest as a whole would  be reflected in its 
determination . 
78. The United States  raised India's AD investigation on imports of isobutylene -isoprene rubber 
from the United States . It indicated that t he United States'  respondent was fully participating and 
cooperating in this investigation.  The United States  underst ood that its respondent ha d raised 
significant concerns regarding domestic industry standing, product comparisons, and the sufficiency 
of the petitioner 's injury allegation in this investigation . The United States  urged India to take the 
comments made by the United States' responden t into consideration in its upcoming preliminary 
determination.  
79. Singapore  also raised India's AD investigation on isobutylene -isoprene rubber  from Singapore, 
China, Russia n Federation , Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the U nited States. It noted that the 
intere sted parties had been invited to submit their written representation by 14 August 2023 and 
inquired  if there were any further updates on the next stage of the investigation o r the oral hearing. 
Singapore  posed three questions with respect to the initiation notice. First, it noted that Reliance 
Sibur  Elastomers Pvt Ltd was the sole producer of the like product in India. Singapore questioned 
the basis for determining that the applicant constitute d the eligible domestic industry i n terms of 
Rule 2b as stated in the initiation notice. Second, Singapore noted that the applicant ha d claimed 
that there were no known significant differences in the goods produced by the domestic industry 
that were exported from the subject countries. Singapore requested further clarification from India 
on the criteria used to determine whether the goods produced by the applicants were like products 
to those originating in or exported from the subject countries. Third, Singapore noted that the 
applicant ha d provided information considering the period of January to December 2022 as the 
period of investigation ; however, the period of investigation that was eventually adopted by DGTR G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 12 - 
 
  for the investigation was 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. Singapore requested a clarification as to 
how DGTR arrived at the final period of investigation. It reiterate d the importance for interested 
parties to have sufficient time and opportunity to meaningfully participate in the investigation and 
to defend their interests in accor dance with the WTO AD Agreement  
80. India took note of the concerns and the issues raised by Members and indicated that it would 
revert after consulting with the concerned officials  in capital . 
81. On the semi -annual report of Indonesia , Singapore  raised two AD investigations conducted 
by Indonesia:  the first on hot -rolled plates from Singapore, China and Ukraine and the second on 
polypropylene  copolymer  from Singapore, Republic of Korea , Malaysia, U nited Arab Emirates and 
Viet Nam. On the first inv estigation, Singapore regretted that a Sunset Review investigation on hot - 
rolled plate from Singapore, China and Ukraine had been  initiated in August 2023. It noted that this 
would  be the third sunset review investigation on the same product from the same  countries. It 
noted from Indonesia's notification that there was preliminary evidence to suggest that the expiry 
of duties would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. It requested  
further clarification from Indonesia with re spect to the basis for arriving at this decision. For example, 
the extent to which Indonesia ha d considered the views of interested exporting parties whose trade 
had been affected by the continued imposition of AD duties and how Indonesia ha d determined th at 
without such duties in place, the domestic industry would continue to experience injury from foreign 
exports of like products. It noted that interested parties had been invited to submit their written 
representation s by 12 September 2023 and enquire d if there were any further updates on the next 
stage of the investigation or on the oral hearing. Singapore reiterate d the importance of according 
sufficient time to interested parties as well as the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the 
investigation and to defend their interests in accordance with the WTO AD Agreement.  
82. The second  issue pertained to Indonesia's AD investigation on polypropylene copolymer from 
Singapore, Republic of Korea, Ma laysia, United Arab Emirates and Viet  Nam. For this investigation, 
Singapore  noted that PT Chandra Asri Petrochemical was the sole producer listed in the notification. 
Singapore  appreciate d further clarification from Indonesia with respect to  the basis for  arriving at 
this decision  to initiate the AD investigation , including how the domestic and export prices were 
derived. It also sought c larification on the criteria used to determine whether the goods produced 
by the applicant were like products to those o riginating in or exported from the subject countries. It 
noted that interested parties had been invited to submit their written representation s by 
22 September 2023 and inquire d if there were any further updates on the next stage of the 
investigation or on the oral hearing. It reiterate d the importance of granting interested parties 
sufficient time and the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the investigation and to defend 
their interests in accordance with the WTO AD  Agreement . 
83. Indonesia  took note of the concern s raised by Singapore . It confirmed that both  the 
investigations on hot -rolled plate and on polypropylene copolymer were underway, and that the 
review investigation on hot -rolled plates had been initiated on 4 August 2023 . It encourage d 
Singapore 's active participation and cooperative  involvement as well as that of other interested 
parties. Indonesia assured Singapore that the whole process would be carried out in an objective, 
measurable, and transparent manner in compliance w ith WTO rules. Indonesia also affirmed that 
the process would  follow clear guidelines  and timelines, and that updates on the proceedings and 
the public hearing would be relayed to interested parties. The same also would apply to  the 
investigation on polypr opylene copolymer, which had been initiated on 14 August 2023.  
84. On the semi -annual report of the Republic of Korea , Japan  express ed concern regarding  the 
AD measures on stainless steel bar from Japan , imposed from July 2004. The measure had been 
extended for another three years as a result of a fourth sunset review on 22 January 2021.  Japan 
indicated that it was unaware that  the Korean domestic industry had submit ted an application for a 
fifth sunset review.  Japan referred to the third sunset revi ew in this case and submitted that a 
WTO dispute settlement ("DS") panel had found it inconsistent with the AD Agreement in 
November  2020. Therefore, Japan expect ed that the AD duties would be terminated in January 2024 
with the end of the fourth extension  measure.  In addition, while this DS panel  report  had been  
appealed into the void by the Republic of Korea in January 2021, Japan  hoped that the panel report 
would  be adopted along with the termination of the dispute itself . 
85. Japan also expressed concern regarding  the initiation of a sunset review on Japanese stainless - 
steel plate in March 2023  by the Republic of Korea . In its request for sunset review, the Korean G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 13 - 
 
  domestic industry had claimed that the Japanese compan ies had exported the subject goods via 
bonded or tax -exempt areas to circumvent the AD duties already in effect. However, almost all the 
imports from Japan into the Republic of Korea  were transported in the bonded area and then 
exported to a third country without going through import custom s clearance. It had never been  
assumed that these imports would enter the K orean  market. Consequently, the products transported 
in the bonded area were not generally regarded as exports  to the Republic of Korea 's market  and 
were thus not  subject to duties including AD dut ies. Japan added that the imports which d id not 
enter the Korean  market could not cause injury to the domestic industry. Furthermore, if  these 
products were transported and sold in the Korean  market, AD dut ies would be imposed at that time. 
Therefore, there was no circumvention as claimed by the domestic industry , and the recurrence of 
the injury could not be established by the fact that t he subject products ha d been transported in the 
bonded area. Japan believe d that this review had not been initiated based on a duly substantial 
request as stipulated in Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and therefore should be terminated.  
86. The Republic of Ko rea indicated that it had consistently implemented its measures in line with 
both WTO rules and its domestic laws and regulations. With respect to  the stainless -steel bar  
proceeding , as it this still undergoing the WTO dispute settlement process, it believ ed that it would 
be inappropriate  to discuss this matter within the Committee. As regards the concerns and questions 
raised on stainless -steel plate, these would be forward ed to capital for further review . Korea 
requested Japan to submit the details of its inquiries in writing . 
87. On the semi -annual report of the Philippines , Türkiye  indicated that since 9 January 2015, 
the Tariff Commission of Philippines ("the Commission") had imposed  an AD measure on imports of 
Turkish wheat flour and had conducted an expiry review  regarding this measure. On 
9 September  2020, the Commission had decided  to extend the measure for three additional  years . 
On 20 March 2023, the Commission had initiated an expiry review on the pertinent measure. The 
Government of Türkiye had submitted its written views regarding the initiation of the review on 
11 May 2023.  On 2 August 2023, the Commission had published its Staff Report and Türkiye  had 
submitted a letter which include d its comments regarding the report.  Lastly, Türkiye  had conveyed 
its views at the public hearings held on 13 and 15 September 2023. Türkiye reiterated that it 
remained serious ly concern ed over the initiation of this investigation  and would  like to draw the 
Commission 's attention to a violation of the A D Agreement by imposing AD duties on the Turkish 
exporters with calculated  de minimis  margins in the original investigation .  
88. Türkiye added that Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement states that "…There shall be immediate 
termination in cases where the authorities determine that the margin of dumping is de minimis… " 
Moreover, the panel s and Appellate Body reports in several disputes such as Canada – Welded Pipe , 
Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate  and Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice  concluded that inclusion 
of producers found to have de minimis  margins of dumping would be incompatible with Article 5.8.  
Considering these provisions, Türkiye  submitted that th e Commission 's practice was a clear violation 
of the AD Agreement and the relevant jurisprudence.  Türkiye also had conveyed its views on this 
issue to the Commission and the relevant Secretaries in the Philippines but  had not received any 
response. Similarly, Türkiye had  repeatedly raised  this issue during previous Anti -Dumping 
Committee meetings and had conveyed its views to the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the 
WTO after the Committee meetings.  To avoid any fur ther difficulty and solve this issue bilaterally, 
Türkiye  expect ed the Philippine authorities to correct this inconsistency.  Türkiye further indicated 
that it reserve d all its rights stemming from the AD Agreement and other relevant WTO 
jurisprudence . 
89. The Philippines  took note of the concerns raised by Türkiye. It indicated that the Commission 
was finalizing its investigation and would anticipate presenting  its report by December 2023.  
90. On the semi -annual report of Ukraine , Ukraine  indicated that the  ongoing Russian war against 
Ukraine ha d a deeply disruptive negative effect on Ukraine's ability to implement its rights and fulfil 
its obligations with regard to the WTO AD requirements and procedures. The Russian military 
invasion ha d already resulted i n terrifying civilian casualties and tremendous destruction of Ukrainian 
civilian critical infrastructure, which in turn significantly disrupted Ukraine's  trade. Vital production 
facilities and even the whole industries were either severely damaged or irre versibly destroyed, 
especially in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine. Russian military occupation affect ed 
Ukraine  in the most negative manner in terms of production, cost of production, capacities, export 
potential, supply chains, and logisti cs. These circumstances had not allow ed Ukrainian industries, 
producers, and other interested parties to fully enjoy legal opportunities to defend their interests G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 14 - 
 
  through AD investigations or to exercise  their rights under the AD Agreement. It added that i t had 
been deprived of those opportunities due to  the Russian war. Ukraine also indicated that u nder the 
prevailing conditions of wide -scale war and military actions by the Russian occupation forces, it tried 
to ensure - to the maximum extent possible - the necessary fulfilment  of its commitments under the 
AD Agreement. It submitted that the r ealities on the ground faced by Ukraine every day, long -term 
challenges and changes to the Ukrainian economy as the consequence of the Russian war should be 
taken into  account. Furthermore, such circumstances would clearly demonstrate that the Ukrainian 
goods could  not pose any significant threat of material injury to foreign market s, but  had become 
more of a lifeline to survive. Ukraine indicated that it  count ed on the understanding of its trading 
partners to take into account  these  existing difficulties  while considering the application of 
AD measures , and requested positive and expedited expiry review s of such measures . Ukraine 
thank ed its partners for the stro ng, consolidated, and unwavering support and call ed upon 
WTO Members to deprive the Russia n Federation of its tools to continue its war against Ukraine and 
to undermine the rules -based multilateral system .  
91. On the semi -annual report of the United Kingdom , China  stated that a fter Brexit, the 
United Kingdom  had decided to maintain  and apply  part of the European Union's  trade remedy 
measures and conduct transition reviews on a case-by-case basis. It added that a t previous  
meetings , China had expressed concerns over compliance issues regarding this practice  in a 
systematic  manner . China reiterated that this practice  was inconsistent with  the WTO rules , opined 
that it was  infringing on the legitimate interests of relevant Members  and should be terminated 
immediately.  Without prejudice to th is position, China express ed concerns regarding the 
investigation periods of some transitional reviews. China ha d noticed that most transitional review 
investigation periods had exceeded 12 months, e ven 24 months  in some cases . For example, the 
investigation periods of transitional reviews on measures regarding wire rod and measures regarding 
filament glass fibre had exceeded 24 months. The investigation period of on -going transitional review 
on measu res regarding aluminium road wheels ha d also exceeded 24 months. China believe d that 
the investigation periods of these transition reviews were seriously overdue, which significantly 
exceeded the review investigation period specified in Article 11.4 of the  AD Agreement , resulting in 
an extended implementation period of relevant measures, additional unpredictability,  and 
uncertainty, seriously affect ing business performance of relevant exporters and importers, and 
infring ing on their economic interests and legitimate rights. China urge d the U nited Kingdom  to 
rectify the se violations as soon as possible and terminate the investigations .  
92. The United Kingdo m indicated that it had  taken note of China's views regarding its transition  
review  policy and refer red China to the relevant statements the U nited Kingdom  had made in 
previous meetings of the Committee.  
93. On the semi -annual report of the United States , Japan raised a concern on prolonged 
United States AD measures on Japanese products.  It submitted that  currently, the U nited States had 
21 measures in force on Japanese products. The longest measures ha d continued for more than 
44 years, and 18 of them had been in force for more than 5 years. In one of these cases, the sunset 
review on stainless -steel sheet and strip from Japan , the Government of Japan ha d closely monitored 
the review to ensure consistency with the relevant provisio ns of the WTO Agreement. Companies 
under the investigation had attended the hearing and the Government of Japan had submitted an 
opinion in August 2023. Unfortunately,  the measure had been  extended in October  2023. Japan 
confirmed that it did  not consider that all the duties imposed for a long time were inconsistent with 
the AD Agreement solely on the ground that the measures were old and imposed for a long period. 
Japan request ed the U nited States to base its determination s in sunset reviews on a thoro ugh 
examination, rather than simply assuming the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury .  
94. China  reiterate d its concerns raised at the previous meeting of this Committee, regarding the 
refusal by the United States to pro vide Chinese enterprises with the opportunity to respond to the 
questionnaires and with the rights to have separate dumping rates in the U nited States 
AD investigation against tin mill products from China. In this investigation, Chinese companies had 
actively cooperated with the investigating authority, but had been  refused to provide replies to the 
questionnaires, and had been  given a punitive country -wide AD rate, which was as high as 122.5%, 
in the preliminary determination dated 17 August 2023. Article 6.10 of the AD  Agreement  stipulate d 
that the authorities shall, as a rule, determine an individual margin of dumping for each known 
exporter or producer concerned of the product under investigation. And Article 9.2 stipulate d that 
"... anti -dumping duty sh all be collected in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non -
discriminatory basis on imports of such product from all sources found to be dumped and causing G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 15 - 
 
  injury ", and that "the authorities shall name the supplier or suppliers of the product concerned. " 
China added that as  the U nited States had not respond ed to China's  concerns raised at the previous 
meeting, it reinvite d the United States to shed some light on the reasons and consistency of 
Department of Commerce's relative practices  with the  AD Agreement . Recalling the  repeated 
concerns expressed by Members at the regular meetings of this Committee in recent years, China 
remind ed the United States about the prolonged AD measures maintained by the U nited States . 
However,  China ha d noticed that  in recent semi -annual reports, the United States seem ed to be 
accelerating its pace on terminating AD measures through sunset reviews, which China considered 
to be a positive sign. China encourage d the U nited States to continue working in the right direct ion 
to ensure that foreign exporters and producers were treated fairly in sunset review s as required by 
Article 11.3 of the AD  Agreement.  
95. On Japan's concerns, t he United States  indicated that as it had  repeatedly stated, it did not 
see any basis for Japan 's complaints. The expiry proceedings conducted by the United States were 
consistent with the obligations under the AD Agreement. The purpose of the expiry proceeding was 
to allow administering authorities to examine whether dumping and injury would b e likely to continue 
or recur if the measures were removed.  The United States added that its expiry process was 
evidence -based  and that  participation by Japanese companies in the expiry proceedings would be  
helpful both in terms of the relevant information  to be provided, and the arguments to be made by 
interested parties. Furthermore, many measures involving Japanese exports had, in fact, been 
terminated. Since the commencement of expiry reviews, there had been seventy measures reviewed 
involving Japan.  Of those, 52, or over 74%, had resulted in termination of the measure.  For the 
oldest six measures that remain ed in effect, the Japanese industry had failed to meaningfully 
participate in any of the most recent sunset review proceedings.  Lack of respondent  participation, 
and the consequent lack of evidence provided by respondents, limit ed the information provided to 
the investigating authorities. In other words, Japanese producers might  themselves be partly 
responsible for the result.  In many of the expiry processes that involve d imports from both Japan 
and other Members, respondents from other Members had meaningfully participated in the review 
when Japan had not, and had made relevant arguments as to why the measure s should be 
terminated as to their specif ic countr ies, and the measure s had been terminated. In light of this, the 
United States  suggest ed that Japan inquire with its own industries as to why there was a lack of 
interest in participating in the process, particularly given the fact that participat ion had been a vital 
element in the termination of measures applied with respect to goods from other Members as well 
as goods from Japan .  
96. With respect to China 's comments , the United States took note and requested China's 
statement in writing.  
97. With respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not previously reviewed due to 
late submission and circulation, no comments were made, nor questions posed by any Member.  
98. The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, the statements made, th e questions 
posed, and the answers provided.  
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: AD HOC NOTIFICATIONS  
99. The Chair referred to the notifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted 
by Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in docu ments G/ADP/N/ 383, 
G/ADP/N/ 385, G/ADP/N/ 386/R ev.1, G/ADP/N/ 387, G/ADP/N/ 388 and G/ADP/N/ 389. 
During this period, the following Members have notified preliminary and/or final AD actions which 
have been listed in these documents: Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; C anada; European  Union; 
India; Indonesia; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Kyrgyz  Republic; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; 
Pakistan; Paraguay; Russian  Federation; South  Africa; Chinese  Taipei; Türkiye; Ukraine; United 
Kingdom; United  States; and Viet Nam.  Since document G/ADP/N/38 9 was circulated, Argentina; 
Australia; Brazil; Mexico; and the Russian Federation have submitted such a not ification, which would 
appear in the next lis ts circulated by the Secretariat . 
100.  The Chair drew the attention of Members to the continued apparent lack of full compliance 
with this important notification requirement . These notifications represent a key eleme nt of the 
required transparency concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not  effectively G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 16 - 
 
  carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members d id not fulfil their obligations in this 
regard . 
101.  The Chair, like her predecessors,  very strongly urge d all Members taking AD actions to provide 
these notifications of preliminary and final actions, regularly, consistently , and in a timely fashion. 
In this regard, the Chair n oted that the minimum information format for thes e notifications adopted 
by the Committee in October  2006 and revised in October  2009 (document G/ADP/2/Rev.2 ), 
contain ed important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified and the information 
that should be provided . 
102.  Türkiye  referred  to the AD investigation conducted by Morocco on Turkish electric ovens. It 
explained that following the petition for an AD investigation concerning imports of electric ovens 
from Türkiye, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce of Morocco ("the Ministry") had initiated an 
investigation on 30 August 2023.  Regarding the petition and initiation of the investigation, the 
Government of Türkiye had submitted its written views on 5 October 2023 , express ing serious 
concerns over the initiation of this investigation and violation of the A D Agreement . Primarily, the 
Ministry had chose n to specify the injury period as January 2019 -June 2023 and the investigation 
period as January 2022 -June 2023, although it had no data regarding the alleged dumping, import s, 
alleged injury or alleged causal link for the year 2023. Within this context, the Ministry had no reason 
or basis to believe that there was sufficient evidence that indicate d alleged dumping, injury or causal 
link which existed during this period.  These  circumstances also hinder ed the princip le of the right of 
interested parties to have full opportunity to defend their interests, contrary to Article  6.2 of the 
AD Agreement . Since there no data had been submitted by the petitioners regarding the year 2023 , 
and the Ministry had decided to include 2023 in the investigation and injury periods, Türkiye was 
not in a position to fully defend its interests regarding the dumping, injury and causal link allegations. 
Secondly, as the Ministry acknowledge d, there had been a considerable decline in imports in 2022 
despite an increase in 2021. Türkiye observed that  imports from Türkiye had significantly decreased 
not only in 2022, but also in 2023 compared to 2021 based on the data that Government of Türkiye 
had. According to import data for 2022, imports from Türkiye had decreased by 41 .5% in 2022 
compared to 2021. Therefore, it was clear that there was no increase in imports; on the contrary, 
there had been  a significant decrease in imports.  The Ministry  acknowledged this in the initiation 
report stating that "In relative terms compared to national production and consumption, Türkiye 's 
imports recorded a downward trend during the period 2019 –2022, ..... ". Therefore, contrary to 
Article 3.2 of the AD  Agreement , there was not even an increase in imports in absolute or relative 
terms.  Lastly, as stated in Türkiye's  written comments, Türkiye  believe d that the Ministry had failed 
to demonstrate the increase in imports and causal link between imports from Türkiye and the alleged 
injury. Moreover, Türkiye  believe d that the Ministry had failed to examine other factors that might  
have caused alleged injury to the domestic indust ry, contrary to Article 3.5 of the AD  Agreement . 
Within this context, Türkiye expect ed this investigation to be terminated immediately .  
103.  Morocco  explained that  this investigation had been initiated on 30 August 2023. The Ministry 
in Morocco had provided a sufficient time -period to enable interested parties to participate actively 
in this investigation. It had  indeed received comments from the Government  of Türkiye. The 
timeframe had been established with a deadline o f 5 October 2023. Morocco indicated that it had  
examined the Turkish comments and would  respond to all of those comments via an official 
communication addressed to the Government of Türkiye . Morocco  also note d that the investigation 
procedure ha d just been launched  and that Morocco was yet to rec eive responses to the 
questionnaire from Turkish exporters. It encourage d the Government of Türkiye  and its exporters to 
participate actively in this investigation. Morocco clarified that this investigation would be fully 
transparent, and that all of the comments would be reacted to  within the pre -established timeframe.  
104.  The Chair repeat ed a request also made by her predecessors, which ha d actually come up in 
the presentations made by the Secretariat at the 2015  worksh op on notifications. Materials from the 
workshop were available on the AD page on the WTO website, if Members  wished to consult them. 
This issue was also referred to in the Secretariat presentation of 2 October 2023 on the functioning 
of the Committee , also available on the new ADP Committee webpage . This request to all Members 
was that a given ad-hoc notification, as was the case with all other notifications, should be sent, 
electronically and only once, directly to CRN, with a copy to the Secretary of the  Committee, and 
that any previously submitted notifications should not be resubmitted. Members were  also 
requested, instead of providing electronic links to a general website, to attach directly the relevant 
document s containing the action s they wished to notify , in WORD or PDF formats. The Chair asked  
this to avoid any confusion , repetition,  or duplication, as these notifications were circulated in G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 17 - 
 
  monthly documents developed by the Secretariat and were the source of the necessary information 
contained  in Annex D of the Committee's annual report. Members'  co-operation in this respect would 
be much appreciated . 
105.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
106.  The Chair stated that the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention had not been 
held. Concerning the Committee 's spring 2024  meeting , the approach agreed in the spring of 2015 
would be applied in deciding whether the Informal Group would meet.  
107.  The approach was as follows: First, if a new paper was submitted 6 weeks before the actual 
meeting , the Informal Group would be convened. Second , if no new paper was received by that 
relevant deadline, the annotated draft agenda would so note and ind icate that a meeting of the 
Group would be held only if a delegation so request ed by the date for comments stated in that 
document. Third, if any delegation request ed a meeting before the airgram was issued , a meeting 
would be convened by airgram, as per c urrent practice. If no delegations so request ed, no meeting 
would be convened.  
108.  No statements  were made by any Member.  
109.  The Committee took note  of the report made . 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
110.  The Chair referred to the communications sent to Members on 12 and 30 June 2023 indicating 
that as the Rules Committees week was only being held for three days rather than a full week this 
time around, the Working Group on Implementation would not be held and would be postponed to 
be held back -to-back with the Committee's spring 2024 meeting . 
111.  The Chair recalled that the Working Group had held a meeting on 4 May 2023  to discuss issues 
relating to (i) average, benchmark and account -specific prices and price analysis in  injury 
proceedings; and (ii) non -attribution analysis in causal link determination s. Mr Greg Gallo, Director 
of Investigative Services and Chief Economist  in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal , had  
served as discussant. Mr Gallo had circulated an o utline of issues for discussion in document 
RD/ADP/WGI/18 . The Group had had an excellent discussion at which representatives of many 
investigating authorities shared their practices and posed questions to each other about their 
experiences.  
112.  Finally, the Chair stated that the topics and discussant for the next meeting of the 
Working  Group had not yet been determined by Members and that she would be contacting 
Members , in due course,  to identify the next topics and a discussant to assist at the spring  meeting 
of the Working  Group.  
113.  No statements  were made by any Member . 
114.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
7 DRAFT REPORTING BY THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
("CTG") ON IMPROVEM ENTS IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMITTEE – RD/AD P/40 
115.  The Chair explained that she had  placed this item on the agenda to report back to the 
Committee on the developments that  had taken place in this respect since the last Committee 
meeting in May 2023 , and to obtain  Members'  feedback/views on the draft report to the CTG which 
had been  circulated in document RD/ADP/ 40 on 11 October 2023. The Chair indicated that the 
CTG expect ed the Committee to submit that report in the first week of November 2023.  G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 18 - 
 
  116.  By way of background, the Chair recapped what had taken place since the Committee's la st 
regular meeting in May 2023. On 4 May 2023, the outgoing Chair of the Committee had issued 
document RD/ADP/36  attaching the list of four items that Members instructed the Secretariat to 
explore as well as the three issues that were still under Members' consi deration.  
117.  The Chair added that immediately following her election and the election of the Chairs of the 
Safeguards and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Committees, on 8 June 2023, the 
three  Chairs  had invited Members to a joint informal meeting o f the three Committees on 
20 June 2023 as circulated in document ICN/RUL/ADP/1  - ICN/RUL/SCM/1  - ICN/RUL/SG/2 , 
to discuss the reform of the functioning of these Committees based on the identical list s of issues 
included in documents RD/ADP/36 , RD/SCM/62  and RD/SG/65 . 
118.  Based on the informal discussions that took place on 20 June 2023, two documents had been 
issued on 21 June 2023. The first was a written process listing the four issues that  had garnered 
consensus at the joint informal meeting and providi ng the deadline of 3 July 2023 for any views, 
objections or comments. The second was the room document RD/ADP/37  - RD/SG/67  - 
RD/SCM/64  listing the one remaining issue pertaining to the three Committees which had remained 
under Members' consideration for future discussion .  
119.  On 4 July 2023, document G/ADP/32 -G/SCM /165 -G/SG/284  was issued reflecting the 
four issues agreed upon by the three Committees in the context of the reform of the functioning of 
these Committees.  
120.  On 21 July 2023 the three Chairs sent an invitation to a joint informal meeting of the three 
Committees in document ICN/RUL/ADP/2  - ICN/RUL/SCM/2  - ICN/RUL/SG/3  requesting 
Members to continue consideration of the remaining issue  – the adoption by the Committees of the 
e-agenda tool . Although the meeting was originally scheduled for 25  September 2023, it was  
postp oned to 2  October 2023 as per document ICN/RUL/ADP/3  - ICN/RUL/SCM/3  - 
ICN/RUL/SG/4 . A reminder of that date had been sent on 11 September 2023 in document 
ICN/RUL/ADP/2/Rev.1  - ICN/RUL/SCM/2/Rev.1  - ICN/RUL/SG/3/Rev.1 . 
121.  At the 2 October meeting, the issue of e -agenda was discussed, and it was agreed – on a trial 
basis to be reviewed by the Spring 2025 meeting – to use , as of the Spring 2024 meeting, the 
feature of e-agenda for uploading Members' statements and facilitating access to relevant 
documents for meetings. This outcome had been issued in document RD/ADP/40  - RD/SG/70  - 
RD/SCM/68  and also had been subject to a written procedure which had ended in the approval by 
the Committee of the use of these features of the e -agenda tool. This decision was later circulated 
as an issue agreed upon by the three Committees in document G/ADP/33  - G/SCM/166  - 
G/SG/285 . 
122.  The Chair also noted that a presentation by the Secretariat on the functioning of the 
Committee – which was one of the issues agreed upon in document G/ADP/32  – had been  delivered 
on 2 October 2023. A recording of this presentation and the presentat ion itself were available on the 
new ADP Committee webpage for Members , should they wish to consult them.  
123.  The Committee  decided  to conduct its discussion of the report to the CTG  on the improvements 
in the functioning of the Committee  in an informal mode .  
124.  After reverting to the formal mode, the Committee adopted the report.6 
125.  The Committee took note of the statement made  in the formal mode . 
8 MEXICO – SUNSET REVIEW OF THE ANTI -DUMP ING DUTY ON BRAZILIAN EXPORTS 
OF BOND PAPER, CUT – ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  
126.  Brazil  indicated that it had placed this item on the agenda to raise  a matter of high importance 
to the Brazilian Government concerning the sunset review conducted by Mexico on its anti -dumping 
measure on Brazilian exports of paper bond , cut. Brazil explained that it  faced contact, procedural 
and substantive issues  that undermined due process during th is review. It hoped that the Brazilian 
 
6 Document G/L/1500  - G/ADP/34 . G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 19 - 
 
  exporters would  have the right to defend their established interests , as this measure was of great 
concern to the Brazilian  private sector. Brazilian companies were actively participating in the review, 
seeking to prove the absence of the likelihood of resumption of the du mping and even more 
importantly, the injury. Brazil  urged Mexico to give full attention to the data and arguments 
presented by Brazil that had been cooperating throughout  the process. Brazil indicated that 
maintaining a measure in force for 10 years , which  had highly impacted the Brazilian industry , was 
a matter of great concern to the Brazilian Government. Brazil  thank ed Mexico for agreeing to 
schedule a bilateral meeting to discuss these concerns in detail  and looked forward to this discussi on. 
Brazil hop ed that the review would be c oncluded without the extension of the measure.  
127.  Mexico  was not present at the time .  
128.  The Committee took note  of the statement  made .  
9 NON-MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT IN ANTI -DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FE DERATION  
129.  The Russian Federation  indicated that since its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation 
had repeatedly raised concerns over a tendency to adjust the  terms of the AD proceedings in order 
to take into account the results of state influence on the economy. Specifically, in the context of AD 
proceedings , several WTO Members had deviate d from investigating the pricing behaviour of 
exporters towards analysing the conduct of the governments of the exporting countries. Those 
Members consider ed various elements of government policies. They call ed those elements 
"government interventions " or "distortions " in the economy and use d them as a pretext to adjust 
the normal value of the like product based on so -called "undistorted " prices outside the country of 
origin or apply analogue (surrogate) country methodology. These practices of some authoriti es 
affect ed the comparison between the normal value and the export price and enable d the introduc tion 
of higher rates of AD duties. The Russian Federation considered that they disregard ed the rules 
agreed under Article VI of the GATT and under the AD Agree ment. It noted that  one c ould hardly 
find an economy that was totally free of government interference. It added that recently there  had 
been many cases when governments had participated heavily in various processes critically relevant 
for the economy. Inde ed, these days, governments face d many challenges to deal with  such as  
climate issues, post -pandemic recovery, financial instability, fragility of value chains, among others. 
The Russian Federation recalled that at the last  Committee meeting, it had given some examples of 
government interventions in one of the major WTO economies. It wonder ed how an investigating 
authority should  take account of those government interventions in order to offset injurious 
dumping . 
130.  The Russian Federation added that o riginally the core objective of AD instruments was to deal 
with unfair pricing behaviour of exporters. Its biggest  systemic concern was that the AD practices of 
several WTO Members were drifting away from that core objective  and that s oon investigators mig ht 
start to  analyse not the dumping that cause d or threaten ed to cause material injury, but would  
compare government systems and punish a company for operating under a system that they 
believe d to be wrong. The Russian Federation opined that certain WTO Me mbers attempt ed to use 
AD proceedings to achieve their long -term trade policy or simple policy goals. However, the means 
of achieving these goals would drastically differ from those instruments provided by the 
WTO rulebook and the spirit of the AD Agreemen t. Such practices were not WTO consistent, would 
cause additional damage to the multilateral system and should be reconsidered . 
131.  Indonesia , in respect of the issue raised by the Russia n Federation , observe d that in some 
cases it might become a challenge for authorities to establish appropriate normal value comparisons 
when facing certain market situations in their investigations. As highlighted by the 
Russia n Federation , several Members consider ed various elements of government policies  as 
government interventions or distortions in the economy and use d them as a pretext to adjust the 
normal value of the like product and apply a surrogate country methodology. In  this regard, 
Indonesia highlight ed that it would be  important for investigati ng authorit ies to conduct 
investigation s in a balanced manner, on a case-by-case basis, and to put fact -finding forward during 
the investigation as regulated by the AD Agreement . 
132.  The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  G/ADP/M/6 4 
 
- 20 - 
 
  10 OTHER BUSINESS  
133.  The Chair encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under "other 
business " to give sufficient notice to the Members concerned prior to the meeting in order to 
ascertain whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting . 
134.  No issues were r aised by any Member under "other business".  
135.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
11 DATE S OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING S IN 2024  
136.  The Chair recalled that by decision of the Committee, its two regular meetings take place in 
the spring and the autumn of eac h year, in the last week of April and the last week of 
October,  respectively. She further recalled that the Committee had agreed in July 2023 in document 
G/ADP/32  - G/SCM/165  - G/SG/284  that the meeting weeks of the regular and special formal 
spring and autumn meetings of the Committees for the following year are be proposed in the 
annotated draft agendas of the October meetings. In line with the annotated draft agenda circulated 
on 15  September 2023, the Chair had proposed that the next spring and autumn regular meetings 
of the Committee in 2024, along with the meetings of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention 
and the Working Group on Implementation, be held in the weeks of 22 April and 28 October 2024, 
respectively. The exact scheduling of these meetings w ould be communicated to Members in due 
course . 
137.  It was so decided .  
12 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FO R TRADE IN GOODS 
(ARTICLE 18.6)  
138.  The Committee adopted  its Annual Report for 2023 to the CTG .7  
__________  
 
7 Document  G/L/1501  - G/ADP/35 .