RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/46  
 
5 August 2014  
(14-4580)  Page: 1/16  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
  MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 30 APRIL 2014 
CHAIR: MS PARIMA DAMRITHAMANIJ (THAILAND) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
30 April 2014. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/4286. 
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  Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Su ppl.13-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.11)  
2.  No written questions concerning the notification of Australia  were posed by any Member. 
1.2  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.9-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.8), 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.10-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.9) and (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3 
and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Corr.1) 
3.  The written questions concerning the notification of Brazil contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.9-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.8  can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/22–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/22 – Submitted by Peru 
 4.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 
5.  The written questions concerning the notification of Brazil contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.10–G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.9 can be found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/20–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/20 – Submitted by the United States ("US") 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/22–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/22 – Submitted by Peru 
 
6.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 7.  The written questions concerning the notification of Brazil contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3–G/SCM/N/1/BRA/3/Corr.1 can be found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/21–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/21 – Submitted by the US 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/22–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/22 – Submitted by Peru 
 
8.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.3  The Gambia (G/ADP/N/1/GMB/1) 
9.  No written questions concerning the notification of The Gambia  were posed by any Member. 
1.4  Montenegro (G/ADP/N/1/MNE/1-G/SCM/N/1/MNE/1-G/SG/N/1/MNE/1) 10.  The written questions concerning the notification of Montenegro  c a n  b e  f o u n d  i n  t h e  
following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MNE/1–G/SCM/Q1/MNE/1–G/SG/Q1/MNE/1 - Submitted by the US 
 
11.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MNE/2–G/SCM/Q1/MNE/2–G/SG/Q1/MNE/2 - Replies to the US 
 1.5  US (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.15–G/SCM/N/1/USA/Suppl.15) 
12.  No written questions concerning the notifications of the  US 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  Chile (G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.1–G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.2) 
14.   The written questions concerning the notification of Chile  can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHL/7-G/SCM/Q1/CHL/7-G/SG /Q1/CHL/5 - Submitted by the US 
 
15.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHL/8-G/SCM/Q1/CHL/8-G/SG/Q1/CHL/6 - Replies to the US 
 
2.2  The Russian Federation (G/ADP/N/1/RUS/1–G/SCM/N/1/RUS/1–
G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) 
16.  The written questions concerning the notification of the  Russian Federation  can be found in 
the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1-G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1-G/SG /Q1/RUS/1 - Submitted by the US 
 17.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/RUS/2-G/SCM/Q1/RUS/2-G/SG/Q1/RUS/2 - Replies to the US 
 18.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifi cations from Brazil, the European Union ("EU"), 
Montenegro, Qatar and the US along with any others received and circulated by the applicable 
deadlines1, would be on the agenda for review at the autumn Regular meeting of the Committee.  
19.  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. She encouraged 
Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
20.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.37, the Chair invited Members that  had not done so to submit the information 
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/490-G/SCM/W/562-G/SG/W/231. G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 3 - 
 
  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. 
21.  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) 
22.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the second half 
of 2013 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/252 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 that 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. 
23.  The Chair drew Members attention as well to a three interconnected chronic problems 
regarding their semi-annual reports. These were la te submission of the reports, technical errors 
contained within and slow responses of Members' to the Secretariat's repeated requests for 
corrections, which could reduce transparency due to delays of available accurate information and 
undermine the ability to maintain an updated and reliable database. She urged Members to carefully review all the information in their se mi-annual reports before submitting them, observe 
the announced submission deadlines, make use of the instructions contained in the semi-annual 
reports format adopted by the Committee and provide any necessary corrections within one week 
from being contacted by the Secretariat in this respect.  
24.  Colombia indicated that it would be extremely relevant to have a symposium on notifications 
dealing with such issues.  25.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual report s for the second half of 2013. No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Chile; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Egypt; Israel; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; the Russian Federation; 
South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine and Uruguay. 
26.  On the semi-annual report of Argentina , Peru submitted written questions contained in 
document G/ADP/Q2/ARG/2 to which Argentin a submitted written responses in document 
G/ADP/Q2/ARG/3. Peru requested Argentina to consider the information presented by the Peruvian 
companies for the final determination which showed that there were no elements that could assert 
the existence of dumping with respect to the products originating from Peru. 
27.  Ukraine expressed its concern regarding the review of the AD measures imposed on 
Argentina's imports of cold-rolled flat products of iron or steel from, inter alia , Ukraine, initiated in 
June 2010 and extended in July 2011. Ukraine referred to Article 11.4 of the AD Agreement and 
indicated that although almost four years had pass ed since the initiation of the review, Argentina 
has not yet made public the official decision on the conclusion of the review. It requested Argentina to announce such a decision as soon as possible. 
28.  Chile expressed concern regarding the AD me asures on steel drums and self-adhesive papers 
and films. It detected common elements in the procedures followed by the investigating authorities 
("IA") in both investigations which were inconsistent with the AD Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994. On the dumping margin determinations in both cases, the IA carried out individual 
determinations for the main exporters on the basi s of information provided by those exporters. 
However, before the investigations were finalized,  the IA refrained from using certain information 
provided by exporters arguing lack of information by these exporters. As a result, they obtained 
positive, instead of de minimis  margins. Also, the IA for the Chilean exporters in each of these 
investigations used the normal value ("NV") provided by the applicants at the time of the initiation which were secondary sources, neither verifi ed nor checked by the IA. Argentina acted 
inconsistently with Article 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement, as it had not used the best 
information available, had not duly communicated the reasons for rejecting certain information G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 4 - 
 
  and had not provided the opportunity to present new evidence within a reasonable deadline. On 
the determination of injury and causal link in both instances, the IA analysed a limited number of indicators where the domestic companies showed  the least favourable tendencies, and ignored 
information which portrayed the domestic industry in a favourable state. In addition, the IA 
detected an increase in Chilean exports of the subject products in the Argentinean market while 
illustrating that Argentinean companies were not completely relying on the domestic market. In both investigations, the IA left out other factors which could be relevant when evaluating the local 
industry, particularly competition from non-dumped imports. Thus, the investigations were neither 
impartial nor consistent with Article 3 of the AD Agreement, which caused prejudice to the 
interests of the Chilean exporters. The Chilean ex porters had recourse to administrative review 
procedures provided for in Argentinean law and we re awaiting further response by the IA. Chile 
also echoed the concerns expressed by Peru on fungicides.  
29.  Colombia stated that it was closely monitoring the initiation of an investigation on Colombian 
porcelain insulators, in light of doubts pertaining to the calculations of the NV which were dealt 
with confidentially without providing interested parties with access to such information; i.e. it was 
not clear which products were used in order to calculate the NV. Although Colombia had exported this product to many different markets, none of the export prices to such markets had been taken 
into consideration. 
30.  Argentina indicated that in addition to the re sponses provided to Peru, it took due note of the 
concerns of Chile, Colombia and Ukrain e and would transmit them to capital. 
31.  On the semi-annual report of Australia , Korea referred to Australia's preliminary and 
definitive determinations on wind towers from Kore a. It referred to footnote 8 of Article 2.4.1 of 
the AD Agreement and indicated that despite Austra lia's confirmation that the dates of contracts 
had been used as the dates of sale, Australia had, in certain instances, used the dates of shipment 
which had resulted in less favourable findings for the Korean exporters. Korea also noted that the 
selling, general and administrative expenses for unrelated business activities of the companies were included in calculating the constructed value. It further submitted that sales of foundation 
embeds, a component of wind towers which was entirely separate from the sales of wind towers 
themselves, were included in calculating the dumping margins. It believed that all AD investigations should be conducted in a fair and objective manner and urged Australia to withdraw this measure in the near future. 
32.  Korea also expressed concerns regarding Australia's imposition of ADDs on hot-rolled coil steel 
from Korea. It referred to Article 9.2 of the AD Agreement and submitted that the IA's analysis did 
not seem to be uniformly applied to Korea and the three other investigated countries. Australia 
had applied a more favourable lesser duty ("LD") to  the exports of one country than to the exports 
of the other three countries, including Korea, claiming that exports of that one country were sold into the automotive sector and that these exports had not caused material injury to the Australian 
industry. Korea urged Australia to reconsider this measure. 
33.  Australia explained that since its semi-annual report was circulated, final measures were 
imposed on wind towers. The Parliamentary Secretary's decision was published on 16 April 2014. 
Following that decision, any interested party ha d the right to apply for a review through the 
AD review panel, which is an administrative re view process established under Australian law. The 
time for an appeal to be lodged is 30 days, following the publication of the decision. It suggested that Korea use that process to pursue the technical issues it had raised during the investigation. 
The AD Commission had received submissions on a range of issues which were considered during 
the investigation. On hot-rolled coil steel from Ko rea, the issue of the application of differential 
duties between the countries subject to investigation had been raised at a bilateral level in 
Canberra. Australian officials had explained that it was based on a misunderstanding of some of 
the language in the report about the differentiati on of the duties based on products' differences 
and differences in competition as opposed to application or non-application of the LD to different countries subject to the investigation. It expressed readiness to continue its discussions with Korea 
regarding any outstanding concerns. 
34.  On the semi-annual report of Brazil , Peru submitted written questions contained in document 
G/ADP/Q2/BRA/5.  G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 5 - 
 
  35.  Ukraine referred to Brazil's decision to im pose ADDs on imports of thick plates from, inter alia , 
Ukraine on 3 October 2013 at US$261.79 per ton. Ukraine believed that this decision was taken in 
violation of the AD Agreement with respect to a number of aspects. On the calculation of the NV, 
Brazil chose the US as the third country of refere nce for Ukrainian exports, in order to estimate 
Ukraine's NV, and ignored the crucial differences be tween what would constitute the NV under this 
method (Ukraine's exports to the US) and the exports under investigation (Ukraine's exports to Brazil), as required by Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement. This decision was also inconsistent with 
Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement, as the Ukrainia n exporter had presented Italy as an alternative 
country of reference, but such proposal was ignored.  
36.  On the determination of injury and causation, Ukraine submitted that the conclusion reached 
was inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement as Brazil concluded that the 
level of the imports under investigation was directly and predominantly responsible for the 
negative performance of the domestic industry, while rejecting any other possible factors of causation. In connection with the final determination, Brazil had imposed the full dumping margin, 
rather than a LD as recommended by Article 9.1 of  the AD Agreement. Ukraine requested Brazil to 
review its decision and conduct the AD investig ation in conformity with the AD Agreement.  
37.  Chile explained that it was following the investigation of alleged dumping on BOPP and aligned 
itself with the questions posed by Peru. It requ ested that all information submitted by exporting 
companies be duly considered before any preliminary or final determination of dumping was taken. 
38.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan , Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei") 
expressed concern over AD investigations on its products of nylon synthetic filaments and 
cold-rolled stainless steel products.  
39.  On nylon synthetic filaments (polyamide 6 & 6.6), Brazil published, on 27 December 2013, its 
final determination and imposed an ADD for a period of five years. On 8 January 2014, one of 
Chinese Taipei's respondents appealed to the Counc il of Ministers of the Chamber of Foreign Trade 
("CAMEX") against the determination of the duty by the Department of Commercial Defence ("DECOM"). The appeal was dismissed with no explanation given for the 3% upward adjustment in 
cost and no correction to the error made by DECOM in its calculation of the dumping margin. 
Chinese Taipei submitted that DECOM had wron gly calculated the average group CODIP costs 
using the simple average method instead of the weighted average method. In addition, in conducting the sales-below-cost test, DECOM deducted the indirect selling expenses and the 
financial expenses from the net sales price, despite the previously verified fact that such expenses 
had already been accounted for in the costs. Consequently, that yielded an incorrect result in the sales-below-cost test and resulted in an error in the calculation of the NV. It viewed such practices 
as inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1 and 2.4 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, by wrongly using an 
average dumping margin of the two selected resp ondents to calculate the dumping margin that 
applied to Chinese Taipei's cooperative respondents, Brazil violated Article 9.4 of the 
AD Agreement. It requested Brazil to provide an explanation for its handling of this case. 
40.  Chinese Taipei also referred to Brazil's AD investigation on imports of certain flat-rolled 
products of cold-rolled stainless steel which it had raised at the last Committee meeting and which failed to comply with Article 6.8 and paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement. 
Brazil published the final determination of this investigation on 4 October 2013 and proceeded to 
impose an ADD for five years. It provided DECOM and CAMEX with its views in September 2013, calling for the problem to be rectified by adopting the cost, sales and financial data submitted by 
the two companies involved, instead of using da ta unreasonably proposed by the petitioners. 
However, no positive response was received from  Brazil despite the major long term negative 
impact on Chinese Taipei's individual companies directly involved, as well as the steel industry as a 
whole. 
41.  Chinese Taipei explained that, at the outset, DECOM's verification report accepted the 
domestic cost data that had been submitted by  the two steel companies before the deadline. 
However, in the Technical Notes of the Essential Facts Disclosure, DECOM rejected all the cost and 
domestic sales data submitted by both companies. In the case of the first company, DECOM 
rejected all the submitted costs and domestic sales data for the company's 430 series because it did not submit cost code 430B, which is also categorized under the 430 series, but accounted for 
only a minor proportion of the company's domestic sales and export sales to Brazil. As for the 
second company, DECOM rejected all the costs and domestic sales data for its products because it G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 6 - 
 
  could not account for a fluctuation in the price of its 304 grade products during the month of 
July 2011, although the company had, following the publication of the verification report, 
submitted an explanation for the fluctuation where the main variable, by far, was the normal production factors. DECOM then adopted the profit rates proposed by the petitioners, resulting in a 
totally unreal increase in the NVs of Chinese Taip ei's producers subject products. Furthermore, the 
NV proposed by the petitioners ignored all publis hed financial data on Chinese Taipei's producers 
which pertained to publically listed companies with financial statements available in the accessible 
public domain, but were neither consulted by th e petitioners nor by DECOM. It urged DECOM to 
make the necessary adjustments and amend its practices as soon as possible, in order to comply with the relevant rules of the AD Agreement. It would be closely monitoring Brazil's actions and reserved its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements.   
42.  Peru stated that its questions to Brazil reflected Peru's concerns at the way in which this 
procedure was being conducted and in particul ar the way in which the dumping margin was 
calculated at the beginning of the investigation and its concerns regarding the inconsistency in the 
information pertaining to the injury indicators put forward by the Brazilian IA at this stage of the 
process. It also expressed concern regarding the determination by the IA that dumping existed as 
well as the determination of injury and causal link which was published on 14 April 2014 in circular 
No. 17. At the beginning of the proceedings, the NV was obtained based on the average export 
price of Peru to Colombia, not only of the unprinted BOPP film, which was the product under investigation, but also the BOPP printed film which is a different product, and where the aggregated value of which had significantly incr eased the market price and distorted the dumping 
margin calculation. At the initial stage of the proceeding, the IA had put forward contradictory 
information on the indicators which showed the supposed injury to the domestic industry in circular no. 76 initiating the investigation and circular no. 57. This would not have allowed the 
interested parties to carry out their defence rights. Also, in its preliminary report, the IA had not 
considered the other factors of injury, such as the tariff preferences that Peru and other countries benefit from given that there was a higher margin of preference during the period of investigation 
because of the MFN rate applied to the investigated product which was increased from 16% to 
25%. This investigation and the possible application of the ADDs on the product under investigation since January 2014 had been causin g serious commercial hurdles for the Peruvian 
BOPP exporting companies, as the level and number  of orders from Brazilian clients for this 
product from this company have considerably declined. Given that this product is one of the 
primary aggregate added value products of the Pe ruvian exports to Brazil, it urged the IA to 
conduct the final stage of the investigation in accordance with the AD Agreement. 
43.  On the questions posed by Peru, Brazil indicated that pursuant to Article 5.2 of the 
AD Agreement, the information provided was that re asonably available to the petitioner, especially 
as there was no information available with regard to the different types of products. There were no 
inconsistences in the information provided by the petitioner, but a clerical error by DECOM was 
detected in the index number of the non-confidential version of the report. In the preliminary determination, this error was corrected and the ri ght of the interested parties to defend their 
interests was assured and would be assured throughout the investigation. 
44.  On the questions raised by Ukraine regard ing the investigation on thick plates, Brazil 
confirmed that the questionnaires submitted by DECOM to the exporters were not responded to. Thus, the dumping margin was calculated according to the procedure referred to in Article 6.8 and 
paragraph 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement. Wi th regard to the determination of injury and 
causation, DECOM would usually proceed with an assessment based on the factors listed in Brazil's presentation to the Working Group on Im plementation and contained in document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/200. The main other factor considered in this case was the export performance of 
the domestic industry, which could be found in  paragraph 729 and following of DECOM Report 
No.32 of 2013. In reference to the application of a LD, Brazil noted that it was restricted to 
cooperative parties, which was not the case in this investigation.  
45.  With regards to the clarifications requested by Chinese Taipei concerning the investigations on 
certain nylon synthetic filaments, Brazil explaine d that the final determination was based on the 
information provided by two exporters. In the case of the first exporter, the company did not 
provide Brazil with monthly costs by product code, but only with the weighted average cost for the 
whole period of investigation. Therefore, the information could not be taken into account and it was necessary to use the facts available, which were the cost data provided by the other exporter. G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 7 - 
 
  46.  Brazil added that the exporter "LEA LEA/LI PENG" requested to collapse both companies since 
they were related. However, it was noted by  DECOM that the database provided by both 
companies included products that were not in the scope of the investigation. Regarding the adjustments of the cost of products, the supplier of the company LEA LEA was a related party. 
DECOM, therefore, realised that the price to th e related party was less than to those unrelated 
ones, as stated in paragraph 523 and followings of DECOM Report No.15 of 2013. It was also found that certain categories of products were not in the ordinary course of trade, since prices to 
related parties were 17.5% less than to the unrelated ones. 
47.  For the purpose of comparison between price an d cost of production for the calculation of NV, 
DECOM requested respondents to provide information on cost of production, excluding selling expenses. In order to compare the price with the cost of production, Brazil deducted from the price 
the selling expenses, including credit cost expenses. 
48.  On the semi-annual report of Canada , Japan referred to Canada's investigation on hot-rolled 
carbon steel plate and high-strength low-alloy steel plate. Canada's Border Services Agency made 
a final determination of dumping on 17 April 2014. Japan submitted that the volume of its subject 
exports was very small, and that it should be regarded as "negligible" pursuant to Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement. It requested the Canadian Intern ational Trade Tribunal to investigate the import 
volume in a careful and proper manner in order to make a final determination of injury. 
49.  Canada stated that in accordance with the AD Agreement, the volume of dumped imports 
shall normally be regarded as negligible if the volume of dumped imports from a particular country 
accounts for less than 3% of imports of the like product in the importing country, unless countries 
which individually account for less than 3% of the imports of the like product in the importing 
Member collectively account for more than 7% of imports of the like product in the importing Member. The IA examined the imports of the su bject goods from the countries subject to the 
investigation and verified the import volume of th e subject products from each importer and each 
country. The volumes of imports from certain investigated countries, including Japan, were less than 3% each, but the total volume of imports from these countries was greater than 7%. Thus 
the IA has conducted this investigation in a manner consistent with Canada's international 
obligations. 
50.  On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic , Turkey reiterated its concerns 
expressed at previous Committee meetings regardin g the definitive AD measures imposed on steel 
rods and bars for concrete reinforcement since 13 June 2011. It also referred to its questions 
circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1 on 19 October 2011, to which it had not yet received a reply. Given the non-existence of an on-going injury, the Dominican Republic had violated 
Article 7.1.iii of the AD Agreement in its determin ation of a provisional ADD, acted inconsistently 
with the non-attribution principles under Ar ticle 3.5 of the AD Agreement and violated 
Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement th rough the imposition of a country-wide definitive 
measure, whereas one of the cooperatin g parties had a (-) 0.49% dumping margin. 
51.  The Dominican Republic explained that its Commission has recently undergone a change of its 
administrative and technical staff conducting the investigations. Also, a new Commissioner has 
been appointed as Head of the National Defence Commission. It thus took note of the questions 
posed and indicated that it would provide answers once the circumstances permit. 
52.  On the semi-annual report of the EU, China expressed concerns regarding the manner in 
which the EU implements judgements of the European  Court (the "Court") on trade remedy cases. 
On 11 October 2013, the European Commission (the "Commission") released a notice to re-open 
an investigation to implement the judgements by the Court in footwear cases imposing a definitive ADD and definitely collecting the provisional duty  imposed on imports of certain footwear with 
uppers of leather originating in China. On 19 February 2014, the Commission released a working 
document proposing to re-impose a definitive ADD. However, the Court rejected the Commission's proposal on 17 March 2014, for lack of legal basis and the investigation was terminated. In recent years, more Chinese companies had challenged the Commission's determinations in trade remedy 
cases before the Court and had won such cases, such as in Zhejiang Aokang footwear company's 
case against the Commission's AD measures on footwear products, the Zhejiang Xinshiji company's case against the Commission's measures on glyphosate, and the Guangdong Shunde 
case against the Commission's measures on ironing boards, etc. Although the Court's judgements 
in these cases had stated that the AD measures on the products of such companies should be G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 8 - 
 
  annulled, the Commission has decided to reopen the investigation for those companies and to 
re-impose the duties in almost all such cases. For example, the Commission, on 13 September 2010, had re-imposed an ADD of 18.1% on the Chinese company Guangdong Shunde and on 22 February 201 3, the Commission re-imposed ADDs on two other Chinese 
companies. China requested the EU to fully implem ent such court judgements in good will and in a 
manner that could protect the rights of the interested parties.   
53.  The Russian Federation expressed concerns  regarding the expiry review of the EU's 
AD measure on ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation. As the Russian exporting 
producers demonstrated during the investigation, there was no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping or material injury to the EU's producers in case the AD measures on ammonium nitrate were finally lifted after almost 20 years of imposition. European producers have 
been performing exceptionally well in the last five years, with unprecedented high profits. 
Moreover, as the Russian industry operated at full capacity, any increase in imports of ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation into the EU would be unlikely. It submitted that the expiry 
review of the AD measure on ammonium nitrate was not conducted in accordance with the 
AD Agreement.  
54.  First, the Commission initiated the expiry  review on the basis of the request dated 
28 March 2013, but the Russian interested producers were denied access to this request, which 
had undermined their rights of defence. They were also not in a position to verify and comment on 
the allegations and evidence contained in the orig inal request; were deprived from commenting on 
the differences, if any, between the subsequent co nsolidated version and the original request; and 
deprived from commenting on whether the Commi ssion conducted an adequate analysis of the 
original request on which the initiation of the investigation was explicitly stated to be based. This was inconsistent with Articles 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement.  
55.  Second, the definition of the product advanced  by the applicant in the expiry review request 
as well as in the questionnaire responses of the sampled EU's producers was manifestly wrong as it covered only fertilizer grade ammonium nitr ate (FGAN), while the product concerned covered 
both FGAN and explosive grade ammonium nitrat e (EGAN). As a result, the EU's producers of 
EGAN have so far failed to cooperate in the expiry review and to report data. This has resulted in a fundamental mismatch between the product concerned and the product for the relevant AD determinations. While the AD measure has been applied on Russian-origin EGAN and FGAN, 
the EU industry was defined only by reference to  F G A N ' s  p r o d u c e r s .  E q u a l l y ,  d a t a  f o r  t h e  E U  
industry was focused solely on FGAN. Failure to request the EU industry to complement the record of the review and submit the data for EGAN might result in the eventual determination of likely 
recurrence of dumping and injury and would be inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 3.1., 3.4, 3.5, 4.1 
and 5.4 of the AD Agreement. 
56.  Third, the AD measures currently cover 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, falling within additional eight CN codes. The 
latter products were 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 subsequent 
reviews did the Commission make determinations of dumping, injury and causal link with regard to 
these additional product types. This was inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 9.1, 9.3 and 18.1 of the AD Agreement.  
57.  Fourth, to date the two largest sampled EU producers have failed to submit full questionnaire 
responses for all affiliated companies involved with the production and sales of the product 
concerned, thus potentially calling into question  the accuracy and representativeness of the data 
that would underline eventual determination of recurrence of material injury. Unless rectified, 
these deficiencies might result in a determination inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.4, 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement. It requested the EU to carefully review the grounds for eventual continued application of the AD measures on imports of ammonium nitrate from the Russian 
Federation, while taking all the aforementioned duly into account.  
58.  In response to China's comments, the EU was surprised that the judicial review system of a 
Member was raised in this Committee. At the same time, the EU had no objection to sharing its 
experience with other Members on this matter if this would be useful. The EU's judicial review 
meant that the Court would identify the legal errors that might have been committed during the G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 9 - 
 
  investigation. The EU's institutions would be, as a consequence, directed by the EU Treaty to bring 
the measures in conformity with the Court ruling. In trade defence cases, this would be done via a reopening of the investigation giving all interested  parties ample opportunity to present their views 
and provide comments on the legal issue which should be re-examined. The same procedural 
rights as those prevailing during the original investigation would be afforded in the implementation 
investigation. It would ensure that the legal rights of all parties concerned were fully respected. Such a system was followed in many jurisdictions and, in fact, is also the manner in which the 
WTO DSU operates. The EU's judicial system provid ed for a thorough and effective judicial review 
of trade defence measures to the benefit of all interested parties, including foreign exporters. The review covered procedural as well as substantive matters. It only hoped that EU exporters could benefit from the same judicial protection when they are exposed to trade defence measures in 
foreign markets. 
59.  Regarding the issues raised by the Russian Fe deration, the EU indicated that the expiry review 
is currently on-going and that all comments made  would be addressed properly in the context of 
the investigation.  
60.  On the semi-annual report of India , the US had repeatedly raised concerns about India's 
fulfilment of the due process and transparen cy requirements of the AD Agreement. In 
September 2013, India issued a final determination in the AD investigation on imports of 
methylene chlorine from the US, with preliminary measures imposed in October 2013. On 25 March 2014, India sent a disclosure of essential facts with comments due on 31 March, essentially allowing only three working days for interested parties to comment. On 2 April 2014, 
two days after comments were due, India issued the final determination. It requested India to 
explain how this small amount of time to review and comment on its determination could have afforded interested parties the due process provided for in the AD Agreement and how India was 
able to objectively take into account such comments when the determination was made just days 
after the submission of such comments. The US noted similar problems in India's AD investigations on peroxosulphates and polyvinyl chloride.  
61.  Furthermore, the US was concerned about Indi a's AD investigation on solar products from the 
US. It had raised concerns about the initiation process and subsequent proceeding in the spring and autumn 2013 meetings of the Committee, but no  satisfactory answer was received. While the 
US recognized that India had only 18 months pursuant to the AD Agreement to finalize its 
investigation, given the problems prevalent in the other investigations, the US was concerned 
about interested parties' lack of time and abil ity to rebut arguments, given there has been no 
disclosure of the facts under consideration in the investigation and that the final determination was 
due on 21 May 2014. It requested India to explai n how it would ensure that parties have full 
opportunity to defend their interests given the existing time constraints.  
62.  Turkey referred to the AD investigation on its exports of hydrogen peroxide initiated by India 
on 20 July 2007. It submitted its official views on  the non-confidential version of the complaint to 
India on 2 May 2008. Despite the requirements of Articles 6.1 and 6.11 of the AD Agreement and 
the related rulings of the panels and Appellate Bo dy (AB) in specific disputes, India imposed a 
definitive ADD on this product in the form of a specific duty of 23,173$/Tones on 18 July 2008 and 
then revised the duty as 23,173 Rupee/Tones on  11 August 2008. Within this context, the 
measure entered into force on 4 September 2008 . Turkey referred to Article 11.3 of the AD 
Agreement and submitted that it has not received any notification from India concerning the 
initiation of a sunset review with respect to that measure. It requested India to clarify the status of 
this proceeding and whether the ADD against that product was revoked.  
63.  Turkey also raised India's AD investigation on imports of persulphates initiated on 
28 September 2012. It provided its official views re garding the initiation and the non-confidential 
version of the complaint to India on 9 July 2013. The complaint did not meet the criteria for the 
imposition of an AD measure as it lacked relevant evidence on significant increase in volume of allegedly dumped imports, existence of a material in jury to domestic industry and a causal link as 
required by Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement. It also referred to Article 3.3 of the AD Agreement 
and requested India not to subject Turkey to a cumulative assessment with other countries under 
investigation. Furthermore, in line with Article 5.10 of the Agreement, it drew attention to the 
18-month deadline for the completion of the proceeding and requested a specific date for the 
issuance of the final decision. It indicated that in  light of Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the AD Agreement 
and related rulings of the panels and the AB in specific disputes, the criteria to impose G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 10 - 
 
  AD measures in this case were not met, and requested India to terminate the investigation without 
the imposition of definitive measures. 
64.  On methylene chlorine from the US, India explained that the information sought by the US 
was beyond the information contained in the semi-annual report covered by the period under 
review and that it would need to consult with the IA with respect to this specific case. 
Nevertheless, India was well aware of its rights and obligations under the AD Agreement and the investigation was carried out in accordance with its provisions. On solar cells and modules, India 
held bilateral detailed discussions through video co nferencing with the US, where India provided 
clarifications on all issues to the satisfaction of  US officials. However, India was ready to further 
discuss these issues bilaterally. On the issues rais ed by Turkey, India would have to consult with 
the IA on these specific cases and revert back. 
65.  On the semi-annual report of Indonesia , China referred to the investigation on its products 
of iron or non-alloy steel plated or coated with tin (tinplate coil/sheet) and submitted that the 
Chinese companies were unfairly treated during the investigation. On the issue of export price, 
Jiangyin Comat had submitted two versions of INDSALES, the first on 6 August 2013 as the 
original submission and the second, a revised and final version, on 9 January 2013 in response to 
the second supplemental questionnaire. However, neither version of INDSALES data was used by 
Indonesia AD Committee, KADI, in the calculation of the export price prior to the adoption of the 
final determination. Following the second final disclosure on 7 October 2013, the subject company had written two emails on 8 and 10 October 2013 seeking clarification and requesting the 
information source for export price calculation, but no explanation was received. On the profit 
margin in the constructed NV, China explained that the profit margin should be the net rather than 
the gross margin. It submitted that the cost of  manufacture and the operating expenses were 
deducted from the principal revenue while the cost of manufacture was just deducted from the 
gross profit in this case. 
66.  Indonesia requested a written copy of  the questions to convey to capital. 
67.  On the semi-annual report of Korea , the US indicated that Korea initiated an AD investigation 
on ethanolamine from the US on 12 December 2013. However, Korea's most recent semi-annual 
report listed the date of initiation as 23 Decemb er 2013, which coincided with the publication date 
in the Gwanbo Official Journal. It requested Korea to clarify the actual date of initiation as the timing would impact all subsequent deadlines of the AD investigation.  
68.  Japan referred to the investigation on polyethylene terephthalate film. It submitted that the 
majority of the products imported from Japan did not compete with the domestic like products, as 
the latter had failed to reach the quality requeste d by the users. Therefore, the subject imports 
from Japan would not cause material injury to the domestic industry. Japan requested Korea to 
take this fact into consideration. 
69.  On the US' question, Korea confirmed that the ac tual date of initiation of the investigation on 
ethanolamine is the same as the publication date in the Government's Official Journal; i.e. 
23 December 2013. On Japan's comments, Korea would convey Japan's concerns to capital. It confirmed that during the forthcoming proceedings, all interested parties, including Japanese producers and exporters, would be provided with adequate opportunities to present their 
arguments and defend their interests. 
70.  On the semi-annual report of Morocco , Turkey referred to the AD investigation initiated on 21 
January 2013 regarding imports of hot-rolled steel sheets. It provided its official views on the non-
confidential version of the complaint and the initiation of the investigation to Morocco on 
22 April 2013 as well as additional views regarding the injury claims based on alleged material retardation on 13 September 2013. In addition, Turkey also submitted its technical views following 
Morocco's decision to apply a provisional measure on 28 November 2013 and participated in the 
hearing meeting held on 4 February 2014 in Raba t at which such views were underlined. Turkey 
indicated that in light of Article VI.1 of GATT 1 994, Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement and 
related rulings of the panel and the AB on specific disputes, the criteria to impose an AD measure 
were not met. Thus, Turkey requested Morocco to terminate the investigation without the 
imposition of measures.  G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 11 - 
 
  71.  Morocco took due notice of Turkey's comments and emphasized that both countries have 
worked well together on a few issues and that the comments made would be conveyed to capital. 
It confirmed that the investigation was in its preliminary stage and hoped that some positive developments would take place in the final stages. 
72.  On the semi-annual report of the Philippines , Turkey referred to the AD investigation 
initiated against Turkish wheat flour on 7 June 2013. Turkey submitted a technical paper, including 
its written views to Philippines on 1 August 2013. On 23 April 2014, the Philippines decided to 
impose provisional ADDs nearly 10 months after the commencement of the investigation, 
disregarding the concerns raised by the Turkish exporters and the Government of Turkey. Turkey 
requested the Philippines to explain how the domestic industry's favorable data in the wheat flour market of the Philippines could be interpreted as material injury within the meaning of Article 3.5 
or threat of injury within the context of Articl e 3.7 of the AD Agreement. It also requested the 
Philippines to explain why the IA had not take n into account the arguments submitted by the 
exporters regarding the factors having considerable impacts on price comparability between home 
market and export transactions. Turkey was of th e view that given the persistent provisions of 
Articles 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2,3.4, 3.7, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2 5.3 and footnote 9 of the AD Agreement and relevant findings of panels and the AB reports, the current AD proceeding had involved certain 
deficiencies. It requested Philippines to terminate the investigation without the imposition of a 
definitive measure.  
73.  The Philippines explained that, on the ba sis of a thorough and exhaustive preliminary 
investigation by the Philippines Department of Agriculture, it found sufficient evidence that 
dumping of Turkish wheat flour occurred in the period 2010-2012 threated material injury to its 
local flour milling industry. In this regard and as required under the Republic Act 8752 or the AD Act of 1999 of the Philippines, notified in  document G/ADP/N/1/PHL/2, the Philippines has 
recently issued an order imposing provisional ADDs on two grades of wheat flour 
(AHTN Code 1101.00.10) from various companies in Turkey. The AD measure was published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Ph ilippines on 23 April 2014 and the implementation 
of the ADDs should commence not earlier than 8 May 2014 or 15 days following the date of 
publication. The provisional ADDs should be implemented for 4 months by the Bureau of Customs on a per shipment and exporter basis. A notification to this effect was made to the WTO on 23 April 2014. All interested parties, including Turkey, were promptly notified on 22 April 2014, 
considering the AD measure might require them to make certain business practices adjustments. 
The whole investigation process was yet to be fully completed in accordance with the Philippines AD Act of 1999. On 22 April 2014, the Department of Agriculture requested the Tariff Commission 
of the Philippines to conduct a definitive and formal investigation to validate whether its 
affirmative findings should be upheld and result in the imposition of a definitive ADD.  
74.  On the semi-annual report of Thailand , Korea expressed concerns over Thailand's ADDs on 
flat hot rolled steel in coils and not in coils from Korea. Since the final determination in the original 
investigation in May 2003, the Korean exporters concerned have been under de facto continuous investigation due to Thailand's excessively frequent initiation of changed circumstances review. Korea noted that the measure was expected to be subject to a sunset review in May 2014. Korea 
urged Thailand to conduct the upcoming review in a fair and transparent manner, fully in line with 
the AD Agreement and hoped that the measure be terminated. 
75.  Thailand indicated that the concern ex pressed will be transmitted to capital. 
76.  On the semi-annual report of the US, Japan was concerned about the length of the 
US' AD measures. The US had 13 measures in force against Japanese products. The average 
period of these measures was over 18 years, four had been in place for more than 20 years, and 
the oldest was about 35 years old, having been imposed in 1978. Japan requested the US to 
swiftly revoke these long-lasting measures. 
77.  Regarding the length of its measures, the US explained that its expiry proceedings were 
conducted consistently with the AD Agreement. The US disagreed that an older measure should no 
longer be valid solely on the ground that the me asure was old. The purpose of expiry proceedings 
was to allow the IA to examine whether dumping and injury were likely to recur if measures were removed. The US expiry process was evidence-based and the participation of the Japanese 
companies in such proceedings would be helpful, both in terms of the information to be provided 
and the arguments made. Further, many measures involving Japanese exports had in fact been G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 12 - 
 
  terminated. Since the commencement of expiry re views, 64 measures involving Japan had been 
reviewed, of which 51 measures or 80% had resulted in termination. The oldest measures remaining in effect were 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 from 
respondents limited the information provided to th e IA. In other words, Japanese exporters might 
be partly responsible for this result. In many of the expiry processes which included Japan and 
other countries, respondents from other countries  had participated in the review and made 
arguments as to why the measures should be terminated with respect to their specific country and hence the measure was terminated. Japan should inquire with its own industry as to why there has been such lack of interest in participation, especially since participation had been an important 
element in the termination of other measures including with respect to Japan.   
78.  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 
79.  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/250, G/ADP/N/251, 
G/ADP/N/253, G/ADP/N/254, G/ADP/N/255 and G/ADP/N/256. During this period, Argentina; 
Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; the Dominican Republic; Egypt; the EU; India; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; the Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey and the US ha d notified preliminary and/or final AD actions. 
Since document G/ADP/N/256 was circulated, Argentina; Brazil; India; Mexico; Philippines; 
South Africa; Turkey and the US had submitted addi tional notifications, which would appear in the 
next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
80.  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 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
2 contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information which should be provided. 
81.  Japan raised Australia 's AD investigation on quenched and tempered steel plate, referred to 
in G/ADP/N/256. It explained that an exporter su bject to the investigation had claimed that the 
injury to the domestic industry was caused not by the imports from Japan, which applicants had 
claimed, but by the contraction in demand. Japan requested Australia to take this issue into 
consideration when determining the injury and causal link in this investigation. 
82.  Australia explained that in accordance with Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, Australia gives 
full consideration to all the causes of injury to the domestic industry including injury caused by 
factors other than dumping. Australia originally initiated its investigation on the basis of the claims in the application and when the investigation was initiated, it established some time frames. The statement of essential facts was originally to be published on 28 April 2014. Since then, the 
AD Commission issued a notice extending the time-frame until 28 July 2014 with the final report 
due to the Parliamentary Secretary on 10 September 2014. Australia's practices provide ample opportunity to interested parties including Japanese entities to bring any relevant matters to the 
attention of the Commission, including potential other causes of injury within the investigation's 
time-frame. 
83.  Finally, the Chair reminded all Members that a given 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 
                                               
2 G/ADP/2/Rev.2. G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 13 - 
 
  developed by the Secretariat, are the source of necessary information contained in Annex D of the 
Committee's annual report. 
84.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
85.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 30 April 2014 and that no new papers were 
submitted for consideration at the meeting. However, Brazil suggested that given the fact that no 
papers were submitted for the last few years, the work of the Group should be suspended until 
new papers were tabled. No other Member had views on this suggestion. In order to allow time for Members to reflect on this suggestion, the Chair indicated that for the purpose of the next meeting, the Group should plan to continue along the same lines as has been the case to date.
3  
86.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
6  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION 
87.  The Chair indicated that the Group had me t on 30 April 2013 with one paper on its agenda 
submitted by Brazil and entitled "Article 3.5 – Ot her Known Causes of Injury". Brazil made detailed 
introductory remarks, followed by a question s and answers session that addressed issues 
pertaining to this paper. Some Members also t ook the opportunity to explain their practices on 
similar issues. The Chair encouraged Members to submit papers on the nine topics currently under 
discussion in the Group.4  
88.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
7  EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON CERTAIN SEAMLESS PIPES AND 
TUBES OF IRON FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION  
89.  The Russian Federation had systemic concerns regarding misinterpretation by certain 
Members of the notion of product under consideration which defines the product scope for 
AD investigations and the subsequent application of AD measures. Pursuant to the AD Agreement, 
AD measures should be applied on imports of the product which was under investigation. 
Moreover, throughout the whole investigation the product under consideration should remain the 
same. Article 2.6 of the AD Agreement provided strict identically worded definition of the like product which ensures consistency of the product under consideration. Certain Members sometimes deviate from the practice of using consistent product scope for the whole investigation, 
applying measures to products which had never been investigated on the basis of findings which 
did not relate to the initial product scope. This practice could change the core nature of the AD Agreement and serve purely protectionist purposes.  
90.  The Russian Federation referred to the practical implications in the case of the EU's measure 
on seamless pipes ("SPT") from the Russian Federation. During the partial interim review of the measure conducted by the EU in 2012, the export  price for one of the Russian producers was 
calculated on the basis of an extended product scope. "Unworked" tubes known as "blanks" were 
added to the initial product scope only for the purposes of export price calculation. But at the outset of the investigation, the product scope did not include this product. The decision taken by 
the EU had led to the increase of the ADD otherw ise applied by over 14%. It referred to the EU's 
answer
5 to question 2 posed by the Russian Federation6and expressed concern for a number of 
reasons. First, the "blanks" were actually used by the EU's buyer in the manufacture of tubes and 
pipes with other cross-sections and wall-thickness; i.e. they were used in further processing. This 
fact should have clearly indicated that "blanks" should be distinguished from ready-made seamless 
                                               
3 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the autumn 2014 meeting can be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/490-G/SCM/W/562-G/SG/W/231. 
4 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the autumn 2014 meeting can be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/490-G/SCM/W/562-G/SG/W/231. 
5 G/ADP/Q2/EU/2. 
6 G/ADP/Q2/EU/1. G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 14 - 
 
  pipes. Second, the product under consideration was defined by a closed list of customs codes 
including only ready-made tubes. The EU tried to substantiate its decision to include "blanks" into the list applying its own criteria for technical classification of tubes which contradict those set in the relevant customs classification provisions. By including sales of "blanks" in the determination 
only of export price, the EU has not consistently investigated the products under consideration. It 
referred to Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement and submitted that application by the EU of basic 
AD provisions could lead to breaches of other disciplines, namely regarding export price calculation 
and its fair comparison with the NV, namely Articles 2.3 and 2.4 of the AD Agreement. It urged the 
EU to reconsider its action.  
91.  The EU noted that the proceedings leading to the adoption of measures on SPT from the 
Russian Federation were notified in the semi-annual report of the EU for the period from 1 July to 
31 December 2012 which was discussed in the spring meeting of the ADP Committee last year. At 
that occasion, the Russian Federation asked questions in writing in document G/ADP/Q2/EU/1, to which the EU replied in document G/ADP/Q2/EU/2. In addition, measures on SPT from the Russian 
Federation were also mentioned in the Annex to the semi-annual report of the EU covering the 
period from 1 July to 31 December 2013. This report was being reviewed today under the agenda item 3 and it was thus unnecessary to have a stand-alone item on the EU's measures on SPT from 
the Russian Federation. 
92.  As to the substance, the EU confirmed that bo th the expiry review investigation that led to the 
continuation of the measures against the Russian Federation and Ukraine and the interim review investigation that led to the amendment of the existing measures with regard to one exporting 
producer from the Russian Federation were conducted to the highest standards and in full 
accordance with WTO and EU's AD rules. Finally, it requested the Russian Federation to submit its 
questions in writing to which the EU would then provide its replies also in writing. 
93.  The US supported the statement made by the EU as to how this was placed under a separate 
agenda item, while it could have been raised in the context of the semi-annual reports' review, 
under other business or even in the context of a bilateral communication. 
8  UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON AMMONIUM NITRATE – 
DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE MEASURE – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
94.  The Russian Federation referred to the systemic concern it had previously expressed 
regarding the interpretation by certain Members of the notion of product under consideration. 
In 2011, the US introduced an AD measure on ammonium nitrate and products of ammonium nitrate which were basically fertilizers commercially used by agricultural producers. After the 
measure had been introduced, a Russian exporter requested the US to clarify the scope of the 
measure, specifically whether the measure was applied to ammonium sulphate nitrate which was the product of the Russian exporter. Unexpectedly , the US determined that ammonium sulphate 
nitrate, which is neither ammonium nitrate nor an ammonium nitrate product, constituted products 
under consideration during the original investigation. As ammonium sulphate nitrate had different physical and chemical characteristics, scientific evidence proving that the ammonium sulphate nitrate is not an ammonium nitrate product was provided to the US. However, the US has failed to 
consider it appropriately and decided, simply on  the basis of the use of the Russian exported 
product as a fertilizer, to extend the AD measure coverage. In this connection, the Russian Federation quoted the "Scope Ruling" document of the US Department of Commerce (the 
"USDOC") which indicated that because ammonium sulphate nitrate is a fertilizer product, it is 
reasonable to consider this question in the context of how it is applied to fertilize plants in an agriculture setting. It submitted that the US determined that the Russian product was an 
ammonium nitrate product by comparing it in a completely changed physical and chemical 
condition after dilution in water, and not in the physical and chemical condition upon importation. As a result, the US decision appeared to contravene the initial product scope of the AD measure which covered only fertilizers in solid form. It added that Article 9.2 read in conjunction with 
Articles 1 and 2.1 of the AD Agreement clearly provided that the ADD shall be collected on imports 
of the same product which was under investigation, but the US had never investigated imports of ammonium sulphate nitrate and expanded the product scope of the measure by imposing an ADD 
in the volume of 245% on the Russian exported product that have never been investigated. It 
urged the US to reconsider its decision.   G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 15 - 
 
  95.  The US expressed surprise to see this as an  independent agenda item given that this issue 
was neither raised, for efficiency purposes, as pa rt of the semi-annual reports' review, nor under 
other business, nor had it been raised with the US beforehand bilaterally as was the norm in other contexts. On substance, the USDOC has announced its final scope ruling on 6 August 2013 finding 
that respondent fertilizer known as NS30:7 was within the scope of the AD order on ammonium 
nitrate from the Russian Federation. The USDOC ha s thoroughly analysed all evidence on record 
and considered the arguments made by all the interested parties including the respondent in 
making this finding. The USDOC's determination was made within the context of the US' AD law 
and regulation and was consistent with the US' international obligations. 
9  OTHER BUSINESS 96.  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. 
97.  The US referred to the Trade Policy Review report for Bahrain (WT/TPR/S/294), page 30, 
where it was stated that in 2011, Bahrain adopted the new GCC Common Law on AD, 
Countervailing Measures and Safeguards (Law No. 48 of 2011). However, this legislation has not been notified by Bahrain for review in the ADP Committee. The US urged Bahrain, for transparency 
purposes, to make the relevant notification as soon as practicable.  
98.  The Chair indicated that as the Bahraini delegation was not present in the room to react to the 
US's statement, the Committee would take note of the statement made. 99.  Japan referred to Korea's AD investigation on valves for pneumatic transmissions, initiated in 
March 2014. Firstly, the period for dumping investigation, adopted by the Korean IA, was from 
1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. However, as per the ADP Committee's "Recommendation Concerning the Periods of Data Collection for Anti-Dumping Investigations" (G/ADP/6), the period 
of data collection for dumping investigations should normally be twelve months ending as close to 
the date of initiation as practicable. From this  point of view, Japan requested Korea to use more 
recent period as period for dumping investigation. Secondly, the scope of investigation was so 
wide to include various products. However, the Japanese exporter subject to investigation claimed 
that its products did not compete with the Korean domestic like products, and should be excluded from the investigation. Japan requested Korea to consider carefully such claim and to conduct a fair comparison of prices in accordance with Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement. 
100.  Korea confirmed that it was aware of the request from the Japanese exporters concerning 
the modification of the period of investigation an d that the Korean IA had considered the request 
and communicated its replies to the Japanese export ers in writing. The period of investigation for 
dumping margins in this case had been set to a one year period from 1 April 2012 to 
31 March 2013, in consideration of the Japanese producers and exporters' fiscal year. It added that while it respected the Committee's recommendation on the period of investigation, it believed 
its determination would be reasonable and acceptable to Japanese producers and exporters. 
101.  China referred to the EU's process of trade remedy instrument modernization. While 
welcoming amendments aimed at enhancing transparency, China was concerned about the 
amendment aimed at abolishing LD rule ("LDR" ) particularly because, as modified by the 
European Parliament ("EP"), the conditions to apply LDR would include the level of social and 
environmental standards of exporting Members. Li nking trade remedies to such standards would 
distort the fundamental objective of trade remedy instruments and would lead to the misuse of 
trade remedies. China acknowledged that the amendments were not finalized yet and that many 
EU member States had objected to the idea of  abolishing the LDR, but requested the EU to 
exercise caution in this modernization process and avoid harming the interests of other Members, 
especially as other WTO Members could follow the same approach, if adopted by the EU.  
102.  The EU explained that part of the Commiss ion's proposal for this modernisation process 
would be the partial removal of the LDR. The LD R would remain the norm except in cases of 
structural raw material distortions in AD cases an d subsidisation. With regard to the amendments, 
these were merely proposals of the EP. The Council, composed of member States, still had to take 
a position on the Commission's proposal. Only then could the trilogues commence. So there was G/ADP/M/46 
 
- 16 - 
 
  still some way to go before any final decision could be taken by the co-legislators on the LDR and 
other aspects of the legislative proposal. In regard to China's final comment, the EU stressed that it would always use trade remedies in a "proper manner" as EU is conscious of its WTO obligations. 
103.  Turkey referred to Australia's initiation of an investigation on imports of rod coils on 
10 April 2014. Turkey regretted the negative effect of  such initiation on trade bilateral relations, 
especially given the low imports levels of the Tu rkish subject product. It submitted that Turkey 
should not be subject to such proceedings and that it would be submitting its official views on the 
basis of the Public Version of the Application and Consideration Report prepared by the AD 
Commission in due course. It requested Australia to terminate the investigation without the imposition of measures.  
104.  Australia confirmed that this investigation was initiated on 10 April 2014 as a response to an 
application submitted by an Australian industry member in which it has named three exporting 
countries, including Turkey. Australia reserved its rights to examine such allegations of dumped goods injuring the domestic industry. In relation to the issue pertaining to the low import volume, 
the Australian AD Commission, as part of its consideration of the application, had examined the 
Australian Customs and Borders Service's database to establish that the preliminary information indicated that the import volume from each of the three countries including Turkey was greater 
than 3%. The initial round of submissions was due by 10 May 2014 at which time the 
AD Commission would receive submissions by interested parties, including those from Turkey, on this matter. 
10  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
105.  The next autumn Regular meeting of the Committee will be held in the week of 
27 October 2014. 
11  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
106.  The Committee elected by acclamation Mr An drew Staines (United Kingdom) as Chair and 
Mr Hamed El Etreby (Egypt) as Vice-Chair to ho ld office until the end of the Committee's spring 
meeting of 2015. 
 
__________