RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/45  
 
22 January 2014  
(14-0323)  Page: 1/16  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 23 OCTOBER 2013 
CHAIR: MS PARIMA DAMRITHAMANJI (THAILAND) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
23 October 2013. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/4209. 
2.  In order to maintain a Rules Committees Contact List of delegations, the Chair reiterated his 
request to Members to provide the Secretariat with their up-to-date email addresses.  
3.  The Chair indicated that for more than one year, the Secretariat had been implementing a new, 
paperless system for circulating documents to Members, including informal room documents and other documents for meetings. These were made available on-line in the "Documents for Meetings" 
website. To assist Members during this transiti on period, the Secretariat had been sending faxes 
informing Members that certain documents were plac ed on the website and providing the link to it. 
In addition, the Secretariat made a presentation du ring the spring of 2013 on how to use the on-
line system. As Members have had time to become familiar with the new system, the Secretariat 
would no longer be sending faxes to inform Members that documents were posted on-line. Members were thus requested to regularly check the "Documents for Meetings" website, beginning 
about six weeks before a given meeting, as this would be the usual interval for posting annotated 
draft agendas. As a courtesy, the Secretariat would e-mail the annotated draft agendas and draft annual reports to those Members that have provided their contact details. The Chair emphasized that any such e-mail transmission would be simply a courtesy, and would not replace the official 
communication, which would continue to be on-line via "Documents for Meeting". 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREV IOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATI ONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED)
1 
1.1  Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.11-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.9) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.12-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.10) 
4.  No written questions concerning the notifications of Australia  were posed by any Member. 
1.2  Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1–G/SG/N/1/CMR/1) 5.  The written questions concerning the notification of Cameroon  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/CMR/1–G/SCM/Q1/CMR/1–G/SG/Q1/CMR/1 - Submitted by the United States 
("US") 
 
6.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines could be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/489-G/SCM/W/561-
G/SG/W/230. G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3  Chile (G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.1–G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/1/CHL/Suppl.1) 
7.  The written questions concerning the notification of Chile  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/CHL/5–G/SCM/Q1/CHL/5–G/SG/Q1/CHL/3 - Submitted by the US 
 8.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/CHL/6–G/SCM/Q1/CHL/6–G/SG/Q1/CHL/11 - Replies to the US 
 1.4  Lao People's Democratic  Republic (G/ADP/N/1/LAO/1) 
9.  No written questions concerning the notification of Lao People's Democratic Republic  were 
posed by any Member. 
1.5  Morocco (G/ADP/N/1/MAR/3–G/SCM/N/1/MAR/3–G/SG/N/1/MAR/2) 10.  The written questions concerning the notification of Morocco  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/MAR/6–G/SCM/Q1/ MAR/6–G/SG/Q1/MAR/1 - Submitted by the US 
 
11.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
Oral response was given by Morocco with a commitment for written follow-up; however 
no written answers have been received to date.  
1.6  United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1 /Suppl.12-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.12), 
(G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.13-G/SCM/N/1/USA/2/Suppl.13) and (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.14-G/SCM/N/1/USA/2/Suppl.14) 
12.  No written questions concerning the notifications of the  United States  were posed by any 
Member. 
13.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements. 
2  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOULSY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
2.1  Indonesia (G/ADP/N/1/IDN/3–G/SCM/N/1/IDN/3) 14.   The written questions concerning the notification of Indonesia  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/16–G/SCM/Q1/IDN/16 - Submitte d by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei") 
 
15.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/17–G/SCM/Q1/ IDN/17 - Replies to Chinese Taipei 
 
16.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifica tions from Brazil, Montenegro and the US along 
with any others received and circulated by the applicable deadlines2, would be on the agenda for 
review at the spring Regular meeting of the Committee.  
                                               
2 Relevant deadlines could be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/489-G/SCM/W/561-
G/SG/W/230. G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 3 - 
 
  17.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that could be required is a nil notification. The Chair encouraged all Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
18.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.36, the Chair invited Members that  had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement (the "AD Agreement"), and encouraged 
Members to review and update previously submitted information where necessary. 
19.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
3  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-D UMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/244) 
20.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the first half 
of 2013 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/244 and Suppl.1. She reminded 
those Members taking no anti-dumping ("AD") acti ons to submit a simple letter to that effect 
twice per year. She clarified that 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. She further 
noted a significant number of Members had not yet responded to the request for semi-annual reports. This notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had taken 
AD actions during the period in question, except for those Members that had already submitted a 
one-time notification. Members were urged to comply with this important notification requirement. 
21.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual reports for the first half of 2013. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Egypt; 
Japan; Korea; Malaysia; Pakistan; Peru; Ukraine and Uruguay. 
22.  On the semi-annual report of Argentina , Chile referred to three AD investigations by 
Argentina pertaining to steel drums, adhesive papers and films and copper-based fungicides. On 
the first two, the investigating authority ("IA") of Argentina indicated that it would finalize the 
investigation within 18 months; i.e. by the beginning of December 2013. Chile requested Argentina to grant interested parties sufficient time to comment on the facts of the reports prior to 
publication of the final determinations. With respect to the third investigation, Argentina's 
preliminary determination indicated a dumping margin of 79.45% relying on normal value information provided in the petition. Although the Chilean exporters of fungicides responded to the 
questionnaires in a timely and appropriate fashion, the information was obtained from secondary 
sources and was not substantiated through documents from firms identified especially with respect 
to prices, sales conditions, wholesale and retail sales or delivery points. In addition, the determination was published before the deadline for the exporters to hand in the information. 
The IA justified that by indicating that the request for clarification and back-up for information was 
still pending and that it would take the information provided by Chilean exporters into consideration at a later relevant stage of the process. However, Chile wished to flag its concerns 
with respect to this issue due to its possible impact on the final determination. 
23.  Argentina stated that it had not had sufficient time to verify the technical and procedural 
information provided in Chile's statement and that consultations with the IA should be conducted. 
Argentina submitted that this particular issue was not indicated on the air gram convening the 
meeting as per the practice of other WTO Committees and thus should not be discussed at the 
meeting or referred to in the minutes of the meeting. 
24.  Chile requested that the discussion on this i ssue be reflected in the minutes of the meeting as 
has always been the practice of the Committee when discussing semi-annual reports. 
25.  The Chair explained that semi-annual reports se ries has always been placed on the agenda of 
its regular meetings and that Members may raise any issues referred to in these reports without 
the need to particularly list the precise issues to be discussed on the air gram of the Committee 
meeting. Accordingly, the statements of Memb ers have and should always be recorded and 
reflected in the minutes of such meetings. G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 4 - 
 
  26.  On the semi-annual report of Australia , Korea expressed concern over the anti-dumping 
duties ("ADDs") imposed on its exports of hot-rolled coil steel by Australia and which involved 
three other countries as well. Australia applied a lesser duty to the exports of one particular country, but not to the exports of the other three including Korea, claiming that exports from that 
one particular country were sold into the automotive sector and had not caused material injury to 
the Australian industry. It requested Australia to  explain how this different treatment could be 
justified under Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement. It added that it would carefully review the legality 
of this measure and would consider what options would be available under the WTO law to address 
its industry's concerns.   
27.  Australia noted Korea's concerns and referred to its domestic administrative and judicial 
review proceedings of which Korea might wish to av ail itself as an appropriate course of action. 
28.  On the semi-annual report of Brazil , Japan expressed concern with respect to the 
investigation on radial tyres to be used on buses or lorries, initiated on 10 June 2013, and 
indicated that it would closely monitor the investigation to be conducted in a transparent and 
proper manner, in accordance with Brazilian laws, regulations and WTO agreements.  
29.  Chile referred to the sunset review of the price undertaking pertaining to Chilean exports of 
duplex and triplex coated carton board (G/ADP/N/247). The review resulted in the extension, for 
an additional five years, of a price undertaking issued by the Council of Ministers of the Chamber 
of Foreign Trade, resolution no. 71 of 12 September 2013 and published in the official gazette on 13 September 2013. Chile participated actively in this review process sending its views and critical comments concerning what it considered to be failings in the review process to the relevant bodies 
involved in the proceedings. Chile regretted that its exports of this product should continue to be 
subject to a price undertaking which had been in force since 31 October 2001 and which continued as a result of a previous sunset review on 11 October 2007. 
30.  Korea referred to three AD measures imposed by Brazil on cold-rolled stainless steel sheets, 
on non-oriented silicon steel and on heavy metals. On cold-rolled stainless steel sheets, it 
indicated that Brazil relied on facts available and constructed prices in calculating dumping 
margins while ignoring the data submitted by Korea. Moreover, Brazil seemed not to have 
examined any known factors other than the dumped  imports as stipulated in Article 3.5 of the 
AD Agreement. Korea was of the view that the in jury analysis outcome would have been different 
if other factors such as the petitioners' ex cessive payment of dividends and reduction of 
investment or global economic depression had b een carefully examined. On non-oriented silicon 
steel, material injury was found despite the fact that most disregarded injury indicators such as sales, market share and capacity utilization were positive, with the only exception of profits. In 
conducting price effects analysis, Brazil's duty drawback scheme, where customs duties paid on 
the importation of raw materials should be ref unded when products made with imported steel 
products are exported, was not taken into consideration. In the absence of the drawback scheme, 
price depression affected by imports from Korea would not have been found, as nearly all steel 
products imported from Korea were subject to this scheme. On heavy plates, Korea regretted that the investigation was re-initiated, although it had already been found in the previous investigation in 2010 that imports from Korea has not caused injury to the Brazilian domestic industry. 
Furthermore, 95% of that product from Korea had been used by one sole domestic consumer in 
Brazil which would make it hardly possible to find injury to the domestic industry.   
31.   Chinese Taipei referred to the Brazilian investigation on cold-rolled stainless steel sheet 
where Brazil decided to reject all the verified co st and domestic sales data submitted by Chinese 
Taipei's exporters for the main exported products an d to resort to facts available to calculate their 
normal values. Brazil claimed that this decision had resulted from the failure of Chinese Taipei's 
exporters to submit certain cost data for other domestic products. However, such products 
accounted for only a minor portion of the total production of the export products concerned. It urged Brazil to follow the relevant WTO rules and to use facts available with caution in its AD investigations. Chinese Taipei also noted that Brazil had already imposed an ADD on imports of 
cold-rolled stainless steel sheet in October 2013. Chinese Taipei indicated that it would closely 
follow this investigation and reserved its rights under the relevant WTO agreements.  
32.  The Russian Federation referred to the AD inve stigation on its exports of radial tyres to be 
used in buses or lorries initiated by Brazil on 10 June 2013. It referred to Brazil's obligations under 
Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement and the public ly available statistics for the customs codes G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 5 - 
 
  concerned, also confirmed by the Russian exports statistics, which suggested that Russian exports 
to Brazil were de minimis  in the period of the investigation for dumping purposes. Pursuant to the 
opinion issued by Brazil's Commercial Department of Defense ("DECOM") on 4 June 2013, imports of the subject merchandise from the Russian Federation prior to the initiation of the investigation 
had increased from zero to 3.18% at the end of the investigation period. As a result, DECOM 
apparently decided it was justified to accept the AD petition with regard to the Russian imports and to initiate the investigation. The Russian Federation requested a meaningful explanation, 
accompanied by a step-by-step walk through th e data, of the methodology used by DECOM to 
arrive at the figures for total imports of the subject merchandise. It also requested Brazil to disclose the data, not only in tons, but also in units, since the customs codes concerned by the investigation recorded the import data not only in tons, but also in units. Based on the available 
statistics for the imports under the codes concerned and using proportionately an adjustment to 
separate imports of subject merchandise from non-subject merchandise, imports from the Russian Federation in units were 2.4%; i.e. significantly below the statutory threshold. 
33.  On the questions of Japan, Brazil requested Ja pan to submit its concerns to the IA so that it 
could get answers on any specific queries it might have. 
34.  On the questions of the Russian Federation , Brazil was fully aware of the requirements 
contained in Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement and Brazil had a long history of terminating 
investigations in which it was satisfied that the imports were below the 3% threshold. In some cases it might not be easy to separate the products under investigation when the petition is first received and thus the IA might not be satisfied at  the outset that the level of imports could be 
below the threshold. However, if the data obtain ed from the Brazilian Customs Authorities with 
respect to the Russian Federation showed that its imports were below the 3% threshold, the investigation would be immediately terminated for the Russian Federation. 
35.  On the queries by Chile, Brazil indicated that the decision referred to was taken subsequent to 
the period covered by the current semi-annual report, but in any case the measure imposed was a price undertaking which was neither an obligation in the AD Agreement, nor in Brazil's legislation, 
but the IA wished to give that opportunity to the Chilean exporter, with whom Brazil had a good 
experience, and extend the price commitment for an additional period of time. 
36.  On the issues raised by Korea on cold-rolled stainless steel sheet, Brazil invited Korea to read 
carefully the final determination in this case. It indicated that all known factors that were placed 
on file were taken into consideration, but it seemed that Korea might have different views with 
respect to the outcome of the facts analysis. On non-oriented silicon steel products, all 15 injury analysis elements were part of the final determination and the conclusion was based on a joint 
analysis of all such factors with none of them being determinative, as required by the 
AD Agreement. On the heavy plates products and the concept of re-initiation of an investigation, Brazil clarified that there was no such possibility under the Brazilian Law. The initiation of an 
investigation could only take place following receipt of a properly documented petition and an on-
going investigation could only be terminated if the IA concluded that it would not yield an outcome or if the petitioners requested its termination. There might also be a new petition put forward covering a different period of investigation where the petition would be analysed and the 
conclusion would be reached with respect to all evidence necessary for the initiation of an 
investigation, which was the case with respect to this subject product. 
37.  On Chinese Taipei's questions pertaining to cold-rolled stainless steel sheet and the use of 
facts available, Brazil explained that all issues raised by interested parties including Chinese 
Taipei's exporters were placed on file and addres sed in the final determination. Brazil and Chinese 
Taipei might disagree about the outcome reache d, but all the information submitted and all 
explanations were made public and published in the official gazette. Brazil also referred to its rules 
on administrative and judicial reviews in case Chinese Taipei exporters wish to challenge the process followed or the results reached. 
38.  On the semi-annual report of Canada , Mexico referred to the investigation on certain copper 
tube and indicated that in analysing the amount of imports, the IA had included a number of 
products which were not subject to the investigation. The volume of imports from Mexico and from other origins were also cumulated without any explan ation given as to the reason behind that or as 
to whether there was evidence on file indicating that the AD Agreement's requirements pertaining 
to the competitive conditions between the investigated products and the domestic products were G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 6 - 
 
  actually met. The IA seemed to have based its preliminary determination on suppositions rather 
than actual data. Mexico also expressed concern regarding the determination of the like product and submitted comments to the IA in this respect, but so far such comments were not considered in the investigation. 
39.  Canada explained that the total volume of goods exported from Mexico to Canada exceeded 
3% of total imports into Canada and was thus not negligible. No analysis on cumulation was 
required since Mexico's exports exceeded the 3%  threshold. In carrying out the investigation, 
Canada would verify the import volume of the subject goods for each exporter and for each 
country and would refine that data, as needed. If the actual volume of du mped goods was found to 
be negligible, Canada would terminate the investigation. Such a decision would be based on the best evidence on the record and arguments made by all interested parties would be taken into 
consideration by the IA. 
40.  On the semi-annual report of China , Japan raised two issues. First, with respect to the 
investigation on pyridine, China applied provisio nal measures as of 28 May 2013 until the date of 
the meeting. It referred to Article 7.3 of AD Ag reement and requested China to explain the reason 
why the provisional measures were in force for more than four months. Second, on the investigation on certain alloy-steel seamless tubes and pipes for high temperature and pressure 
service, Japan submitted that the volume of its subject exports to China was very small. It 
strongly requested China to carefully consider  whether the import volume was regarded as 
negligible as stipulated in Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement. 
41.  On the pyridine investigation, China expl ained that this was subject to an on-going 
investigation and that Japan could convey its comments directly to the IA and express its concerns 
on a bilateral level. On certain alloy-steel seamless tubes and pipes, this investigation was initiated on 10 May 2013 and no Japanese company had registered to submit comments until the deadline 
of 30 May 2013. On 4 June 2013, the IA sent questionnaires to all interested parties including all 
known Japanese companies, but no concerns were  expressed in the responses received by the 
deadline of 11 July 2013.  
42.  On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic , Turkey reiterated its concerns 
regarding the definitive AD measures imposed by the Dominican Republic, since 13 June 2011, on 
steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating from Turkey. It also referred to document G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1 of 19 October 2011 contai ning Turkey's questions in this regard to 
which no written answers were received. Turkey su bmitted that given the non-existence of an on-
going injury, the IA violated Article 7.1 (iii) in its determination of provisional ADDs, acted inconsistently with the non-attribution principles under Article 3.5 and violated Articles 6.10, 9.2 
and 9.3 of the AD Agreement through the imposition of a country-wide definitive measure whereas 
one of the cooperating parties had a -0.49% dumpin g margin. Turkey reserved all its rights under 
the relevant WTO agreements.    
43.  The Dominican Republic explained that it had recently had a change in its trade defense 
department and requested Turkey to pose its questions in writing. 
44.  On the semi-annual report of the European Union ("EU"), the Russian Federation referred to 
the expiry review of the AD measures on its expo rts of ammonium nitrate initiated on 13 July 2013 
by the European Commission upon receipt of a request by the EU industry. The original 
AD measures have been in place since 1995. 
45.  First, four months following the initiation of the review, Russian exporters had not yet had 
access to the expiry review request lodged by th e EU industry on 28 March 2013, on the basis of 
which the review was allegedly initiated. Instead, the file of the investigation referred only to an undated consolidated version of the request that was filed considerably later. Since the notice of 
initiation of the review was based on the request lodged on 28 March 2013 and not on the 
consolidated version of the request, a continuous denial of access to the original expiry review request would be inconsistent with Articles 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement. 
46.  Second, at the pre-initiation stage, the European Commission received a request for an expiry 
review filed by the EU industry and rebuttal co mments filed by Russian producers. In examining 
the sufficiency of the request under Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, the European Commission G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 7 - 
 
  applied a different standard of review when cons idering evidence provided by different parties. 
Thus, in analysing the evidence provided in the EU industry's request, it examined whether it contained prima facie evidence. At the same time, in case of the comments filed by the Russian exporters, the European Commission consid ered whether the evidence provided was clear, 
incontestable and would not require verification. Based on the text of the AD Agreement, the 
Russian Federation could not see a basis for treating evidence supplied by the domestic and foreign producers differently. Such standard of review was contrary to the IA's obligations under 
the basic principles of the AD Agreement to act in an objective and even-handed manner. 
47.  Third, the AD measure covered not only imports of ammonium nitrate, as originally 
investigated, but also imports of solid fertilizers originating in the Russian Federation with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80% by weight, also known as stabilized ammonium nitrate. 
The latter was included within the scope of the measures following an interim review concluded 
in 2005. However, neither in the course of an original investigation, nor in any subsequent 
reviews, had the European Commission made determ inations of dumping, injury and causal link 
with regard to these additional product types. 
48.  Finally, on the energy adjustment methodology used by the European Commission in this 
AD investigation in assessing the sufficiency of evidence on the continuation of dumping, the 
European Commission accepted as evidence of du mping a comparison between the export price of 
the Russian producers and their cost of production adjusted for the difference between the domestic and European natural gas prices. The Ru ssian Federation believed that such approach 
was inconsistent with the Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement providing that costs shall normally 
be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation. It was 
also of the view that the methodology of the adju stment breached Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement 
requiring that the construction of normal value shall be made on the basis of the cost of production 
in the country of origin, i.e. the Russia Federation, and not the EU. In this context, the 
Russian Federation noted the initiative of the European Commission to modernize the trade defense instruments in order to adapt them to the current needs of the European economy. In 
accordance with a draft of amendments to the EU 's AD and Countervailing Regulations there was a 
proposal on the table not to apply a lesser duty rule on a country-wide basis in cases of structural raw material distortions. It inquired as to how the structural raw material distortions would be evaluated in the context of an AD investigation and requested that such draft regulation be notified 
to the WTO. 
49.  The EU requested the Russian Federation to subm it its questions in writing. It indicated that in 
general, the expiry review investigation on ammonium nitrate was initiated based on a request 
filed by the Union industry containing sufficient evidence that the expiry of the current measures 
would likely result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. This investigation was still underway and was being conducted fully in accordance with the EU's Basic Regulation and with 
the AD Agreement.  
50.  On the semi-annual report of India , the US referred to the AD investigation on imports of 
solar products from the US. It highlighted its signif icant concerns raised in the past on the selected 
scope of the investigation and the reliability of the information being used in the evaluation of 
injury. It expected India to objectively and fairly address this as well as other issues raised by 
interested parties throughout the investigation when reaching its determination.  
51.  Chinese Taipei registered its concern in case of the sunset review of the measure imposed on 
PVC. Two of its exporters have already received a zero dumping margin in the original 
investigation. In accordance with Article 5.8 of  the AD Agreement and the Appellate Body ("AB") 
report on Mexico – Definitive Measures on Beef and Rice, such exporters ought to be excluded 
from the imposition of any definitive AD measur es and from all subsequent reviews including any 
sunset reviews. 
52.  On the issues raised by the US, India suggest ed that this issue be discussed bilaterally. On 
the issue raised by Chinese Taipei, it indicated th at it would convey the concerns expressed to the 
IA and get back to Chinese Taipei with a plan of action. 
53.  On the semi-annual report of Israel , Turkey referred to the AD investigation initiated by 
Israel on the Turkish exports of machine-made ru gs on 5 May 2013. Turkey submitted its official G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 8 - 
 
  views regarding the non-confidential version of the complaint and the initiation of the investigation 
to Israel on 15 July 2013. Both the complaint and the report had not provided compelling evidence 
on allegedly dumped imports, injury to the domest ic industry and casual link. In addition, the IA 
had not acted in conformity with the AD Agreement,  particularly in terms of Article 6.5.1 requiring 
disclosure of sufficient details to permit a reasonable understanding and to allow interested parties 
to defend themselves. Turkey was also of the view that in light of Articles 2.6, 3.4, 3.5 and 6.5.1 
of the AD Agreement and the related rulings of WT O panels and the AB, the criteria to impose an 
AD measure in this case were not met. It requested Israel to terminate the investigation without 
the imposition of definitive measures. 
54.  Israel requested to receive a written copy of the questions to convey to capital. 
55.  On the semi-annual report of Mexico , Korea drew attention to Mexico's long-standing 
imposition of ADDs on short-fibre polyester from  Korea. Originally imposed in 1993, the duties 
have survived three sunset reviews. Korea requested Mexico to take due account of the small volume of current imports from Korea and terminate the measure through the on-going sunset 
review recently initiated.   
56.  Mexico explained that the proceedings were currently under way, but that Korea should rest 
assured that this information would be considered carefully in order to reach a sound 
determination in line with Mexico's obligations. 
57.  On the semi-annual report of Morocco , Turkey referred to the AD investigation initiated by 
Morocco on 21 January 2013 on Turkish exports of hot-rolled steel sheets. Turkey submitted its 
official views regarding the non-confidential version of the complaint and the initiation of the 
investigation to Morocco on 22 April 2013. It had also submitted additional views on 
13 September 2013 regarding the injury claims based on alleged material retardation. It was of the view that the complaint had not met the criteria for the imposition of AD measures in light of 
Article 3 of the AD Agreement; it lacked evidence  on significant increase in volume of allegedly 
dumped imports, existence of material injury and causal link. Also, in light of Articles 3.2, 3.5, 5.2 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement and the related ruli ngs of the WTO panels and the AB in specific 
disputes, the criteria to impose an AD measure in this case were not met. It requested Morocco to 
terminate the investigation without the imposition of definitive measures.   
58.  Morocco indicated that this AD investigation was on-going and that the preliminary 
determination which could result from it was still under discussion within the Commission 
responsible. It took note of Turkey's statement. 
59.  On the semi-annual report of New Zealand , South Africa referred to New Zealand's sunset 
review on South African canned peaches ("SACP"). New Zealand had first imposed ADDs on SACP 
in August 1996 and those duties were reassessed in December 1996 and in March 1998. A sunset 
review was concluded in January 2002 and the duties were again reassessed in June 2002. A sunset review was initiated in May 2007 and the ADDs were reassessed in January 2008 and 
February 2010. Throughout this time, ADDs continued to be imposed on SACP. New Zealand 
initiated a sunset review on 11 February 2013. South African industry had concerns with this review as with the ADDs which have been in place for a period of 17 years. An interim report was released in June 2013 and South African exporters provided comments in due time. In 
August 2013, the final report recommended the co ntinued imposition of ADDs as necessary to 
prevent the continuation or recurrence of material injury to the New Zealand industry.  
60.  South Africa had several methodological and pr ocedural concerns with regard to this review. 
Procedurally, there seemed to be a lack of co mpliance with Article 6 of the AD Agreement. 
Although South African exporters were verified, no verification report was ever sent to the 
exporters on which they could submit comments.  Furthermore, though comments were submitted 
on the interim report, there were questions as to whether South African exporters were given 
adequate opportunity to defend their interests and present written evidence relevant to the review 
and whether in fact their inputs were adequately considered in the final recommendation. 
61.  From a methodological perspective, South Africa's exporters had also alleged fundamental 
errors relating to the consistency in methodology between this review and the original 
investigation, with respect to the IA's enquiry into both dumping and injury. South Africa also G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 9 - 
 
  queried the methodology used with regard to the calculation of the normal value. Furthermore, 
there have also been concerns raised with respect to the factors which could have caused the injury to the domestic industry and whether such injury was actually attributable to imports from South Africa. South Africa had also raised concerns as to the basis for the levying of the ADDs. In 
addition, requests by the exporter for a hearing we re declined. Accordingly, there were doubts as 
to whether the review was based on facts or a reasoned conclusion as required by WTO jurisprudence. 
62.  South Africa submitted that sunset review provisions as envisaged in the AD Agreement were 
not intended to create a revolving platform for the endless re-imposition of ADDs. Accordingly, the IA's decision should be based on a critical assessment of all evidence that was provided. However, it was not clear in this case that this requirement was complied with. South Africa had already 
raised specific concerns with New Zealand bilaterally to ensure that this matter would receive the 
necessary attention at the highest level and that responses would be received in due course. 
63.  New Zealand was not in a position to respond in detail to the questions posed, but was fully 
committed to conducting thorough and fair reviews in conformity with the WTO obligations and 
New Zealand's domestic AD legislation. It confirmed that useful bilateral consultations were also held and that discussions would continue once further details were provided by the IA. 
64.   On the semi-annual report of Philippines , Turkey submitted that an AD investigation against 
Turkish exports of wheat flour to Philippines was initiated on 7 June 2013, following a petition 
lodged by the domestic industry. Turkey submitted a technical paper, including its written views, 
to Philippines on 1 August 2013. Given the domestic  industry's favourable data in the Philippines' 
wheat flour market and the lack of relevant evid ence on the existence of dumped imports from 
Turkey, the current AD proceeding had not met adequate standards for the imposition of an 
AD measure. The injury indicators of two applic ants were also selectively excluded. Given the 
pertinent provisions of Articles 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2,  3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3 and footnote 9 of 
Article 3 of the AD Agreement, as well as the relevant findings of WTO panels and AB reports, the current AD proceedings could involve certain defi ciencies. Turkey requested the Philippines to 
terminate the on-going AD investigation without the imposition of definitive measures.  
65.   Philippines requested a written version of the questions. It added that the IA was in the 
process of evaluating all the evidence and that a decision was due by the end of October 2013. It 
ensured that the investigation was conducted in accordance with its domestic AD legislation and 
cognisant of Philippines WTO obligations. It confirmed that it would continue to work bilaterally 
with Turkey in this respect.  
66.  On the semi-annual report of South Africa , the US indicated that it had previously raised 
before the Committee South Africa's AD measure on chicken imports from the US and remained 
concerned with South Africa's continued impositi on of ADDs. In May 2012, South Africa's High 
Court upheld the 2007 Supreme Court of Appeals finding that the ADDs on twelve products, 
including that on US imports of frozen chicken meat, had lapsed since sunset reviews on each of 
the affected products were not initiated in time to maintain the duties beyond the original five year period. The US expressed concern that South Africa might have retained the AD measure despite the High Court's ruling. Separately, South Africa had recently concluded a general tariff review, in 
which it determined to raise its general tariff rate on all chicken products. It requested 
South Africa to indicate whether it would seek to terminate the AD measure currently in effect on imports of US' frozen chicken, in light of the planned increase in South Africa's general tariff rate 
on all imports of chicken.  
67.  South Africa indicated that it had provided an update at the April 2013 Committee meeting 
focusing on the outcome of the May 2012 High Cour t Case. In addition, South Africa had, in the 
interest of full transparency, via its antidumping authority, ITAC in Pretoria, and in certain bilateral 
consultations outside this Committee, also responded to concerns raised by the US with regard to 
these ADDs. This matter had been affiliated with a long legal history in South African courts. 
68.  At the last Committee meeting, South Africa ex plained that this decision served to uphold the 
declarator sought by ITAC. In short, it declar ed all the subject duties in issue invalid, but 
suspended this decision with retrospective effect to allow the authority and the Minister to rectify the situation with regard to certain affected prod ucts, by conducting sunset reviews to make new G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 10 - 
 
  determinations pertaining to the likelihood of dumping and injury continuing or recurring should 
the duties expire. Thus, all sunset reviews on thes e affected products had been completed by ITAC 
and duties had been introduced for a further 5 years. In the case of the US' chicken imports, where there was no participation by the US producers, the duties were continued, as a result of 
the finding of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury if the duties were removed. 
69.  Moreover, a recent Supreme Court of Appeals decision in South Africa, in September 2013, 
had set aside the decision of the High Court, effectively validating the ITAC's conduct with respect 
to all previous sunset review cases. South Afri ca's Supreme Court of Appeals declared that the 
initial ADDs cast into question by an earlier Supreme Court of Appeals case in 2007, were validly in force at the time the sunset reviews were initiated in each case. Therefore, this latest Supreme Court of Appeals decision merely served to confirm that ITAC’s procedures and regulations were 
fully in compliance with the AD Agreement. Theref ore, the Sunset review measures on US poultry 
imports into South Africa validly remain in place until the date of the next expiry review unless an application for an interim review was received. 
70.  South Africa indicated that there was no information at this stage as to whether the 
AD measures currently in place on US frozen chicken imports would be terminated, in light of the increase in the general tariff on chicken imports. It invited the US to approach South Africa bilaterally 
should there be any further queries in this regard. 
71.  On the semi-annual report of Chinese Taipei , Korea drew attention to Chinese Taipei's 
provisional AD measure on cold-rolled flat stainless steel products from Korea which entered into 
effect on 15 August and were due to expire on 14 December 2013. It requested Chinese Taipei to 
make its final determination on the basis of positive evidence and objective examination of all 
relevant factors in accordance with the WTO rules.  
72.  Chinese Taipei took note of the statement and indicated that it would forward it to capital for 
consideration. 
73.  On the semi-annual report of Thailand , Korea referred to the recent determination by 
Thailand to extend its imposition of ADDs on hot-rolled steel products from Korea. It considered 
the cumulative negative effect of Thailand's ADDs and safeguard measures on the exports of 
Korean steel products to be serious. Korea indicate d that after careful review of the legality of both 
measures, it would consider options available under WTO law to address its industry's concerns.   
74.  Thailand stated that it would transmit the concerns expressed to capital.  
75.  On the semi-annual report of Turkey , Kuwait indicated that in accordance with Article 11.2 of 
the AD Agreement, it submitted, on 25 April 201 3, a formal request to the Turkish authorities 
seeking the initiation of an interim review pertaining to the ADDs imposed on mono ethylene glycol 
in order to determine whether the continued imposition of such duties was necessary. Kuwait 
explained that it was seeking the termination of such duties as it had doubts with respect to the basis of the dumping determination and the methodology applied by Turkey to construct the 
normal value. It indicated that the review was already under way, hoped that it would be 
conducted expeditiously and was of the view that in jury would not be likely to continue or recur if 
the duties were removed.  
76.  Turkey took note of the concerns expre ssed and confirmed that the interim review was 
initiated in September 2013 with the deadline of 7 November 2013 to reply to questionnaires. All 
views expressed during the investigation would be taken into account before a final determination is reached. 
77.  On the semi-annual report of the US, Japan raised two issues. First, it submitted that the US 
has 13 measures in force against Japanese products, 4 of which were more than 20 years old, and 
the oldest was about 34 years old, having been imposed in 1978. After the last Committee 
meeting, an 11 year-old measure on welded large diameter line pipe was extended for another 
five years. The Japanese industry participated in the sunset review, and explained it was unlikely the Japanese producers could significantly increase exports of the subject products. However, Japan was disappointed by the US International Trade Commission’s determination that revocation 
of the AD order would lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Japan requested G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 11 - 
 
  the US to swiftly revoke those unjustifiably lo ng measures. Second, on the diffusion-annealed, 
nickel-plated flat-rolled steel products investigation, Japan stated that it was closely monitoring the investigation, which it hoped to be conducted in a transparent and proper manner, in accordance with US laws and regulations and WTO agreements. 
78.  On the issue of the length of the measures , the US explained that the expiry proceedings 
conducted were consistent with its AD Agreemen t's obligations. The US disagreed that an older 
measure should no longer be valid solely on the ground that the measure was old. The purpose of 
the expiry proceedings was to allow the IA to ex amine whether dumping and injury would be likely 
to recur if measures were removed. The US expiry process was evidentiary based and the participation of the Japanese companies in such proceedings would be helpful, both in terms of the relevant information to be provided and the arguments to be made. Furthermore, many measures 
involving Japanese exports have in fact been  terminated. Since the commencement of expiry 
reviews, there have been 64 measures reviewed involving Japan, of those 51 measures or 80% have resulted in the termination of the measure concerned. The oldest measures which remain in 
effect were imposed on prestressed concrete steel wire strand and carbon steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings, but the Japanese industry failed to meaningfully participate in any sunset review 
proceedings. Lack of respondent participation and the consequent lack of evidence provided by the 
respondents limit the information provided to th e IA. In many of the expiry processes which 
included Japan and other countries, respondents from other countries have meaningfully participated in the review and made the relevant arguments as to why the measures should be terminated with respect to their specific count ry and hence the measure was terminated. The US 
suggested that Japan inquire with its own industry as to why there has been such lack of interest 
in participation.  
79.  The Chair indicated that Indonesia has submitted its semi-annual reports for the periods 
July – December 2012 and January – June 2013, but they were not circulated pending technical 
corrections to be provided by Indonesia to both documents. Given this situation, both reports would exceptionally be reviewed at the next spring Committee meeting.  
80.  The Chair drew Members' attention to docu ment G/ADP/Q2/CMR/1 containing the question 
posed by the US to the one-time notification of Cameroon  contained in document 
G/ADP/N/193/CMR. As Cameroon was not present at the meeting, no answer was provided to the said question.   
81.  The Chair also opened the floor for comments regarding any other report which had not 
previously been reviewed. No Member took the floor. 
82.  The Chair noted that in connection with its move away from paper documentation, the 
Secretariat has begun exploring what would be involved in establishing an on-line system for 
submitting semi-annual reports, which Members could use if they so wished. Systems of this sort have been and are in the process of being establis hed for notifications in other areas of the WTO. 
The Secretariat would keep Members informed of its efforts in this regard. 
83.  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 
84.  The Chair referred to the no tifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/242, G/ADP/N/243, 
G/ADP/N/245, G/ADP/N/246, G/ADP/N/247 and G/ADP/N/248. During this period, Argentina; 
Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; the EU; India; Korea, Rep. of; Mexico; New Zealand; Pakistan; 
Peru; Philippines; the Russian Federation; Sout h Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine and 
the US had notified preliminary and/or final AD actions. She added that since document 
G/ADP/N/248 was circulated, Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Chile; China; the EU; Korea; 
the Russian Federation and South Africa had submitted additional notifications, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
85.  The Chair drew Members' attention to the cont inued apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 12 - 
 
  concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations. All Members taking AD actions were strongly urged to notify their preliminary and final actions, consistently and in a timely fashion. The minimum information format
3 contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information which should be provided. 
86.  Japan raised the issue of Canada ’s AD investigation on hot-rolled carbon steel plate and high-
strength low-alloy steel plate (G/ADP/N/248), initiated on 5 September 2013. Japan understood 
that the volume of the subject imports from Japan was very small, and that it was likely to be 
regarded as a negligible volume as per Article 5. 8 of the AD Agreement. Japan strongly requested 
Canada to investigate the imports volume in a careful and proper manner, and not to assess cumulatively the effects of the imports from Japa n, based on Article 3.3 of the AD Agreement. 
87.  Canada explained that its IA had followed all WTO requirements in initiating this investigation. 
The initiation followed a receipt of a properly documented complaint which contained all the 
elements required under Article 5.2 of the AD  Agreement. The requirements for domestic 
industry's standing set out in Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement were fulfilled and the IA thoroughly 
examined the complaint to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation in accordance with Article 5.3 of the AD Agreem ent. Canada drew Japan's specific attention to 
Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement which allows for volumes of imports not to be considered as 
negligible where countries individually account for less than 3% of the imports of the like product in the importing Members, collectively account for more than 7% of these imports. In conducting this investigation, Canada has gathered import information and would verify the import volume for 
the subject goods for each exporter and for each  country. If the actual volume of the dumped 
goods from any of the countries under investigat ion was found to be negligible, Canada would 
terminate the investigation for that country. 
88.  The Chair drew Members' attention to docume nt G/ADP/N/249 circulated at the request of the 
Russian Federation in which it indicated that it had provided the Secretariat with tables of non-
confidential information on anti-dumping measures applied as at the date of the 
Russian Federation's accession to the WTO, in  accordance with paragraph 620 of the Working 
Party Report on its accession to the WTO.   
89.  The Chair also reminded all Members that a gi ven Ad hoc notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and on ly once to WTO CRN with a copy to the Secretary 
of the Committee and that any previously submitte d notifications should not be resubmitted. She 
also requested Members to verify the electronic lin ks provided to the Secretariat to make sure it 
would correspond to the notification submitted. She emphasized the need to avoid any confusion; 
repetition or duplication as these notifications, which are circulated in monthly documents 
developed by the Secretariat, are the source of necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report. 
90.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
5  NOTIFICATION OF BRAZIL'S NE W LEGISLATION ON ANTI-DUMPING 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3 AND CORR. 1) - ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL 
91.  The Chair referred to Brazil's new legislative notification contained in documents 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3 and Corr.1 which should be reviewed by the Committee under agenda item 1 at 
its next spring Regular meeting. However, Brazil has requested to place this item on the agenda of the October meeting to provide Members with a pr eliminary overview of the said notification.  
92.  Brazil explained that the AD Agreement wa s incorporated into Brazilian Law and became 
Brazil's basic general law since 1995. New changes introduced have thus been introduced to the 
regulation, which is basically a Presidential Decree abiding by and implementing the general law. 
Wide public consultations were held regarding th e new regulation and suggestions with respect to 
what should be reflected in this regulation were submitted and could be viewed on the relevant website. Based on that and on Brazil's knowledge and experience in this area, the Decree was finalized and approved by relevant Ministries, published on 29 July 2013 and entered into force as 
                                               
3 G/ADP/2/Rev.2.   G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 13 - 
 
  of 1 October 2013. Petitions submitted as of 1 October 2013 would be subject to the new 
regulation, while on-going investigations prior to that date would be subject to the old regulation. 
93.  Brazil added that the new regulation had mainly targeted the reduction of the maximum 
duration of the investigation from 15 to 10 mont hs and the delivery of a mandatory preliminary 
determination within 120 days from the date of the initiation of an investigation. To this effect, the 
number of investigators hired was increased from 25  in 2011 to its current number of 65 full time 
investigators. However, the most challenging aspect was to change the basic approach of the old 
regulation which considered it appropriate to request the information for injury analysis only after 
the initiation of an investigation. Pursuant to that old regulation, Brazil would gather all the information needed from the domestic industry within 6-8 months of the initiation of an investigation which would have made it impossible to reduce the time-frame of investigations. The 
new regulation defined the steps to be taken prior to the preliminary determination in order to 
ensure exporters' compliance with the new deadlines, especially in case of the application of provisional measures. To this end, petitioners woul d now be required to provide, at the outset of 
the process and prior to initiation, all information pertaining to the injury analysis, thus eliminating 
the phase of sending questionnaires to the domestic industry following the initiation of an investigation. Notwithstanding the substantive evidence to be submitted by all petitioners at this 
stage, all petitions should be submitted in confidential and non-confidential versions, all 
information required in the petition form should be provided, and the standing requirement should also be satisfied. In addition, the on-spot-verifi cation of the domestic industry would take place 
between days 40-60 of the investigation. That would make the preliminary determination reached 
rather substantive in nature. On the dumping side, the preliminary determination could change 
depending on the results of the on-spot-verifi cation of exporters following the preliminary 
determination. 
94.  In addition, the new regulation set clear cr iteria for the definition of the product under 
consideration and the like product. Although the application of a lesser duty was mandatory in the old regulation, the new regulation had technically clarified the situations where the lesser duty 
should not be mandatory such as in case of non-cooperation by the exporters or in cases of new 
shipper reviews where no injury analysis would be conducted. Furthermore, clear rules with 
respect to new shipper and refund reviews were included in the new regulation. Circumvention 
proceedings were also included as a form of review  with more stringent adjusted rules on the issue 
of assembly in a third country, although there would be no value added analysis in such situations. 
Also, two new provisions pertaining to the sco pe and coverage of the duty and to the re-
determination of the way in which a duty would be applied; i.e. ad valorem vs. specific duties, 
were introduced.  
95.  Finally, Article 3 of the new regulation had clear rules on how to conduct a solid public interest 
analysis. That would not necessarily mean that such an analysis should lead to the suspension of 
the duty, but it would now be conducted by a tech nical group affiliated to the Chamber of Foreign 
Trade. The entire determination would be made pub lic and published in the official gazette. To this 
effect, Brazil was digitalizing its investigation process so that all submissions would be made via internet and that electronic access to all files would be facilitated.  
96.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION  
97.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 23 October 2013 and that no new papers were 
submitted for discussion. Members agreed that work in the Group should continue along the same 
lines as had been the case to date.4  
98.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
                                               
4 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the autumn 2013 meeting could be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/489-G/SCM/W/561-G/SG/W/230. G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 14 - 
 
  7  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION 
99.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 23 October 2013 with four papers on the 
agenda, two from Jamaica and two from Brazil. Since Jamaica was unable to send a capital-based 
official to the meeting, the Group had postpo ned discussions on Jamaica's papers until its 
spring 2014 meeting. Brazil's papers were on "the accuracy and adequacy test" under Article 5.3 
of the AD Agreement and "the determination of significant price undercutting" under Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement. The introduction made by the Brazil was followed by questions from Members 
to which Brazil provided answers. Certain Memb ers also took the opportunity to explain their 
practices on similar issues.
5  
100.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
8  OTHER BUSINESS 
101.  The Chair encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to provide sufficient notice to the Member concerned prior to the meeting in order to ensure that an answer could be provided at the meeting. 
102.  Indonesia raised concerns regarding the AD investigation of the EU on Biodiesel. It indicated 
that the recent disclosure issued by the EU's Commission reflected the adjusted price of Biodiesel, 
whereas the provisional measures did not reflect that. The EU determined the constructed normal 
value with a level of unreasonable profit margin of 15% which resulted in a higher ADD. It 
submitted that the EU acted inconsistently with Article 2 of the AD Agreement. Indonesia also 
expressed concerns with respect to the AD investigation on fatty alcohols which it believed had wrongly resulted in the imposition of ADDs on Indonesian companies, a decision that was 
challenged by the Government and exporters of Indonesia. As a consequence, the EU had 
introduced certain modifications to its ADDs, but duties were still imposed on one Indonesian exporter. It referred to the Panel established by the DSB in this regard (WT/DS442/2) on 
25 June 2013 and requested the EU to conduct all its investigations in a fair manner. 
103.  On the EU's AD investigation on Biodiesel, Argentina submitted that, on 22 October 2013, 
the EU decided to impose very high ADDs on Biod iesel imports from Argentina. It was of the view 
that this measure lacked a legal basis. Argentina was active throughout the proceedings and 
provided the legal arguments indicating the inconsistencies in such proceedings in terms of the EU's WTO obligations. The measures imposed by the EU were clear protectionist measures which closed a highly competitive market for Argentina's subject products. Argentina indicated that it 
could seriously consider recourse to the DSB to settle this issue.  
104.  On Biodiesel, the EU indicated that the basis for the imposition of the duties was explained in 
detail in the final disclosure contained in the document sent to all interested parties and that any 
comments received would be duly addressed in the final determination. On fatty alcohol, the EU 
noted that Indonesia and the EU have been discussing this matter with a view of reaching a possible satisfactory solution. It submitted that the measures were fully in line with its WTO 
obligations and rights under the AD Agreement.  
105.  Indonesia referred to the investigation conducted by the National Tariff Commission (NTC) of 
Pakistan  for 18 months on writing and printing paper products from Indonesia where no final 
determination was reached. Indonesia considered the justification submitted by the NTC indicating 
that the case was still under the litigation by the Pakistani High Court, to be unacceptable and 
inconsistent with Article 5 of the AD Agreement. It urged Pakistan to respect the deadlines and due process procedures specified in the AD Agreemen t and reveal the result of this investigation. 
It reserved its right to resort to the DSB proceedings to resolve this matter. 
106.  Pakistan explained that following the NTC's initiation of this investigation in 2011, importers 
challenged these proceedings before the Islamabad High Court which had, as a result, brought to a 
halt the proceedings in this respect in 2012. This was followed by an appeal launched by the 
domestic industry which was still pending before the court. In case the appeal was accepted, a de 
                                               
5 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the autumn 2013 meeting could be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/489-G/SCM/W/561-G/SG/W/230. G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 15 - 
 
  novo investigation would be initiated and the interested parties would be informed accordingly as 
information pertaining to dumping and injury for a new period would be sought from the domestic industry, exporters and importers. Pakistan was ready to further discuss this issue bilaterally. 
107.  China expressed concern over Peru's AD investigation regarding garments (clothing apparel 
and accessories). On 23 June 2012, the Peruvian IA initiated an investigation against Chinese 
products of clothing, apparel and accessories cove ring over 300 products, belonging to 276 tariff 
subheadings covered in Chapters 61 and 62 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. In China’s view, 
this investigation was initiated to protect a whole industrial sector and there was no basis in 
AD Agreement to allow for the application of broad industry-wide discriminatory trade restrictions against the exports of a single WTO Member. It also  referred to paragraph 51 of the AB report in 
EC-Bed Linen with respect to the relationship between Articles 2.1 in relation to Article 2.4.2 and 
inquired whether Peru could explain how it would guarantee that an investigation against 276 tariff 
subheadings would comply with Arti cle 2.1 of the AD Agreement.  
108.  On the evidence of injury, China submitted that Peru had initiated the investigation without 
specific factual information concerning the characteristics and operation of the Peruvian domestic 
industry. Peru had employed general economic indi cators, at an aggregate level, sourced from its 
National Institute of Statistics, to assess the situation of the domestic industry. Likewise, in the 
absence of specific information concerning the domestic sale prices of the Peruvian domestic 
industry, Peru based its analysis of sufficient evidence of price undercutting on the average prices of Peruvian apparel exports which were clearly geared towards the US rather than towards China or like countries. It requested Peru to explai n how the burden of sufficient evidence of the 
existence of injury in accordance with Articles  5.2 and 5.3 of the AD Agreement was met in its 
decision to initiate the investigation.  
109.  On due process, China was concerned that the broad product coverage in the case ought to 
have inevitably brought about a huge burden  on the Chinese producers and exporters 
respondents. The fact that Chinese exporters have had to respond to questionnaires comprising an extremely extensive number of products, were requir ed to gather an huge information, to provide 
proper clarification and translations into Spanish, had seriously prejudiced their ability to present 
an adequate defense in this case. China thus requested Peru to explain how it could have expected Chinese exporters to prepare an adequate and effective defense while burdened with such an immense workload resulting from a disproportionately ample number of products and how Peru 
would have complied with its due process obligations under the AD Agreement in such a case.  
110.  China submitted that Peru had initiated an ex officio investigation in this case without a 
formal complaint from the domestic industry. It requested Peru to explain how the existence of a 
large number of domestic producers per se  could demonstrate special circumstances to justify the 
ex officio initiation of an AD investigation, taking into account that, in volume terms, Peruvian domestic production was highly concentrated in a small number of companies and that its 
domestic industry was closely organized through trade associations that in the past had filed 
successful complaints to request trade remedies ag ainst exports of the subject product. It also 
requested Peru to explain how its decision to initiate this investigation complied with Article 5.6 of the AD Agreement.  
111.  Peru indicated that the investigation referred to by China was an ongoing investigation 
initiated and conducted with extreme profession alism, in accordance with the due process 
provisions in the AD Agreement and strict adherence to its rules as well as to Peru's national 
regulations and international obligations. All th e concerns expressed by China to the competent 
Peruvian authorities, such as the Commission of Antidumping and Subsidies (CFD) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Intellectual Property Protection (INDECOPI), were 
being evaluated independently and objectively. Fo llowing that evaluation, the result would be 
conveyed to the interested parties and communicated to the WTO. It was of the view that only if 
final AD measures were imposed would China, if  necessary, bring the matter to the attention of 
the Committee, but until then, Peru did not deem it appropriate for this Committee to address 
questions pertaining to an on-going investigation.  
112.  China expressed concern regarding the methodology used by the US to calculate dumping 
margins and which it submitted had resulted in punitive margins. The US Department of 
Commerce ("USDOC") calculated average dumping ma rgins which artificially raised the average 
dumping margins for Chinese companies. A typical example would be the investigation on hard G/ADP/M/45 
 
- 16 - 
 
  wood and decorative plywood where such a methodology was used. It added that this 
methodology was inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the AD Agreement. In May 2013, a US court in the narrow woven ribbons case determined that it was inappropriate for USDOC to apply punitive rates to Chinese companies without substantial supportive evidence. It requested USDOC to select 
a proper method for calculating average dumping margins for Chinese companies in the future. 
113.  The US took note of the statement. 
9  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
114.  The next spring Regular meeting of the Commi ttee will be held in the week of 28 April 2014. 
10  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  115.  The Committee adopted its 2013 annual report. As the Council for Trade in Goods had 
already held its last meeting for the year, the report was forwarded directly to the General Council.  
 
__________