RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/50  
 
1 August 2016  
(16-4101)  Page: 1/23  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 27 APRIL 2016 
CHAIR: MR HAMED EL ETREBY (EGYPT) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
27 April 2016.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/7: 
1  NATIONAL LE GISLATION ............................................................................................. 2  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amen ded legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemen tal notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed) .................................................................................................... 2  
1.1.1  Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Su ppl.15-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.13) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.16-G/ SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.14) .................................................... 2  
1.1.2  Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1 /BHR/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM /N/1/BHR/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/BHR/3 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 2  
1.1.3  Oman (G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3-G/S CM/N/1/OMN/3-G/SG/N/1/OMN/3) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/OMN /3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1) ................. 2  
1.1.4  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N /1/SAU/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/SAU/2 /Suppl.1 .................................................................................................. 2  
1.1.5  United Arab Emirates (G/ADP/N/1/A RE/2-G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2-G /SG/N/1/ARE/2) ................ 2  
1.1.6  Brazil (G/ADP/N /1/BRA/3/Su ppl.7) ............................................................................. 3  
1.1.7  Colombia (G /ADP/N/1/C OL/4) ................................................................................... 3  
1.1.8  Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/D OM/3/Suppl.2-G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/1/DOM/2 /Suppl.2) ................................................................................................ 3  
1.1.9  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/S uppl.6-G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.6) ........................................ 3  
1.1.10  Kyrgyz Republic (G/ADP/N/1/KGZ /2-G/SCM/N/1/KGZ/2-G /SG/N/1/KGZ/2) .................... 3  
1.1.11  Pakistan (G/ADP/N/1/PAK/3-G/SCM/N/1/PAK/3) ......................................................... 4  
1.1.12  Seychelles (G/ADP/N/1/SYC/1- G/ SCM/N/1/SYC/1 - G/ SG/N/1/SYC /1) .......................... 4  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amende d legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written qu estions ............................................................................................................. . 4 
1.2.1  Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1 /Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 4  
2  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/280)............................................................................................................... 5  
3  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ................................................. 19  
4  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMV ENTION .................................................................................................. 20  G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 2 - 
 
  5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTI ON ............................................................................................................. 20  
6  OTHER BUSINESS ....................................................................................................... 21  
7  DATE OF THE NEXT  REGULAR ME ETING ...................................................................... 23  
8  ELECTION OF  OFFCIERS ............................................................................................. 23  
 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amen ded legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplem ental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)1 
1.1.1  Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Su ppl.15-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.13) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.16-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.14) 
3.  Oral questions were posed by China regarding the notification of Australia contained in 
document  G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.15 – G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.13. Written questions were also 
posed to the same notification and can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/19–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/19 - Submitted by the United States ("US")  
 
4.  In addition to the introductory remarks and summary of answers provided by Australia to China 
and the US at the meeting, written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/20–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/20 - Replies to the US 
 
5.  No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding the notification of Australia contained in document G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.16 – G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.14.   
1.1.2  Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1) 
1.1.3  Oman (G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3-G/SCM/N/1/OMN/3-G/SG/N/1/OMN/3) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1) 
1.1.4  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1-
G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1  
1.1.5  United Arab Emirates (G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2-G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2-
G/SG/N/1/ARE/2) 
6.  No written questions were posed regarding the notifications of Oman or the United Arab 
Emirates contained in documents G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3 and G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2, respectively. Written 
questions were posed by the US regarding the no tifications of Bahrain, Kingdom of; Oman and 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of contained in documents G/ADP/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1, 
G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 and G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 and can be found in document:  
 (G/ADP/Q1/BHR/9-G/SCM/Q1/BHR/9-G/SG/Q1/BHR/11)(G/ADP/Q1/OMN/1-
G/SCM/Q1/OMN/1-G/SG/Q1/OMN/1)(G/ADP/Q1 /SAU/3-G/SCM/Q1/SAU/3-G/SG/Q1/SAU/5) 
– Submitted by the US 
7.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as the Chair of the Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC") in 2016, 
took the floor on behalf of four of the GCC notifying member States, namely Bahrain, Kingdom of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of and the United Arab Emirates. In addition to the brief 
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow-up questions and written answers in May and June 2016 
respectively can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/494-G/SCM/W/566-G/SG/W/235. G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 3 - 
 
  introductory remarks and the oral summary of th e answers to the written questions posed by the 
US, written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document: 
 (G/ADP/Q1/BHR/10-G/SCM/Q1/BHR/10-G/SG/Q1/BHR/12)(G/ADP/Q1/OMN/2-
G/SCM/Q1/OMN/2-G/SG/Q1/OMN/2)(G/ADP/Q1 /SAU/4-G/SCM/Q1/SAU/4-G/SG/Q1/SAU/6) 
– Replies to the US 
8.  Furthermore; Indonesia and the US posed oral questions at the meeting and the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the GCC member States, took note and indicated that it would revert at 
the next meeting.  
1.1.6  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.7) 9.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/31-G/SCM/Q1/BRA/31 and Corr.1 – Submitted by the US 
10.  In addition to the introductory remarks and the oral summary of answers provided by Brazil to 
the US' written questions and oral questions posed at the meeting, the written answers to the US' 
written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/32-G/SCM/Q1/BRA/32 – Replies to the US 
1.1.7   Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/4) 11.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/6-G/SCM/Q1/COL/6 – Submitted by the US 
12.  Written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/7-G/SCM/Q1/COL/7 – Replies to the US 
1.1.8  Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/DOM/3/Suppl.2-G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2)  
13.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/DOM/7-G/SCM/Q1/DOM/7- G/SG /Q1/DOM/7 – Submitted by the US 
14.  Written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/DOM/8-G/SCM/Q1/DOM/8- G/SG/Q1/DOM/7 – Replies to the US 
1.1.9  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.6-G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.6) 
15.  Neither written nor oral questions were posed regarding this notification by any Member.  
1.1.10  Kyrgyz Republic (G/ADP/N/1/KGZ/2-G/SCM/N/1/KGZ/2-G/SG/N/1/KGZ/2) 16.   Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/5-G/SCM/Q1/KGZ/5- G/SG /Q1/KGZ/1 – Submitted by the US 
17.  Written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/6-G/SCM/Q1/KGZ/6- G/SG/Q1/KGZ/2 – Replies to the US G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.1.11  Pakistan (G/ADP/N/1/PAK/3-G/SCM/N/1/PAK/3) 
18.   Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/PAK/9-G/SCM/Q1/PAK/ 9 – Submitted by the US 
19.  Written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/PAK/10-G/SCM/Q1/PAK/10 & Corr.1 
1.1.12  Seychelles (G/ADP/N/1/SYC/1- G/SCM/N/1/SYC/1 - G/SG/N/1/SYC/1) 20.  Neither written nor oral questions were posed regarding this notification by any Member. 
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding written questions  
1.2.1  Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) 
21.  The US reminded Cameroon  of the pending written questions concerning the notification 
posed on 14 September 2014 and contained in document G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1. These written questions can be found in 
the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3–G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3–G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 - Submitted by the United States on 
15 September 2014.  
 
22.  Cameroon was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting 
nor have written answers been received to date . 
23.  The Chair indicated that with respect to the agenda item pertaining to continuing review of 
legislative notifications previously reviewed by the Committee, no Member submitted by the 
14 March 2016 deadline any written questions relating to such notifications. Thus the item entitled 
"National Legislation – Continuing Review of Legislative Notifications Previously Reviewed by the 
Committee" was not on the agenda of the Committee's April meeting.  
24.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifications from Kazakhstan, Kuwait, the State of, Qatar 
and the US as well as any others received and circulated by the applicable deadlines2, would be on 
the agenda for review at the spring Regular meeting of the Committee.  
25.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that would be required is a nil notification. He encouraged Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
26.  The US appreciated the fact that most Me mbers have submitted a notification with their 
domestic anti-dumping ("AD") legislation or a one-time nil notification. However, some countries 
which have provided such a nil notification, have submitted trade policy review reports indicating 
that they do have AD laws in effect. In other words, the respective WTO Members have already 
gone to the effort of informing the WTO of its AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. It, therefore, encouraged Members to review their respective situations and to make the appropriate 
notification promptly.  
27.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.41, the Chair invited Members that  had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement, and encouraged Members to review and update 
previously submitted information where necessary . He also requested Members to provide their 
                                               
2 Relevant deadlines can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/494-G/SCM/W/566-G/SG/W/235. G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 5 - 
 
  up-to-date contact details by email to the Secretariat, so that it can update its contact details list 
of delegations3.   
28.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
2  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-D UMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/280) 
29.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the second half of 
2015 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/280 and G/ADP/N/280/Suppl.1. Members taking 
no AD actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This would not apply to 
those Members that had already submitted a one-time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement. He 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 the 45 Members that had 
already submitted a one-time notification. Members were urged to comply with this important notification requirement. 
30.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual report s for the second half of 2015. No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; Chile; Canada; Costa Rica; Egypt; GCC member States (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Oman; Qatar; Kuwait, the State of; 
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of and United Arab Emirates); Korea, Republic of; Malaysia; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Peru; Philippines; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Ukraine; Uruguay and Viet Nam. 
31.  Japan expressed serious concern over the recent increasing trend of AD measures. For 
example, the number of Members' initiations of AD  investigations in the steel sector was 23 in 
2012 and 2013, respectively, but it rose sharply to 41 in 2015. These figures showed a frequent use of AD measures in recent years. Japan acknowledged that there were oversupply in steel and 
some other major industries mainly among emerging economies due to the expansion of 
production capacities of their factories that might not necessarily follow an economic rationale. It noted that the deteriorating market balance had triggered trade remedy measures globally and 
requested the Committee and its Members to adequately monitor the newly initiated 
investigations, and examine whether those investigations meet the strict requirements under the WTO agreements. 
32.  China shared the concerns of Japan pertaining to the increase in AD investigations, but 
expressed a different opinion regarding the reason behind such increase. It submitted that overall 
demand in the world market was shrinking, which could justify the increase in AD initiations. It drew Members' attention to the danger of rising  protectionism among some of the Members. It 
called on all Members to conduct their investigations strictly in line with the AD Agreement and 
their domestic laws and regulations and fight against protectionism. 
33.  On the semi-annual report of  Australia, the Russian Federation expressed concern with 
respect to the statement of essential facts pertaining to the sunset review of the Australian AD 
measure on ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation. That document indicated that while constructing the normal value, the investigating authority ("IA") replaced the natural gas cost actually incurred by the Russian exporters wi th the prices of exported natural gas at the 
German border. The reason was that the internal prices for natural gas were artificially low due to 
the so-called particular market situation. The question of cost-adjustment methodology proliferation had been previously raised at the Committee. It drew Australia's attention to the 
recently published Panel Report in DS473 – Euro pean Union ("EU") – Biodiesel where the Panel 
faulted the use of out-of-country cost data for normal value construction. It urged Australia to consider the mentioned decision of the Panel pr operly and to conclude the review in a WTO 
consistent manner. 
34.  Australia  highlighted the excellent cooperation it had with the Russian Government throughout 
the course of the sunset review. The matters that the Russian Federation had raised were also 
included in the submissions made by the Russian Government following the statement of essential 
                                               
3 Latest version posted on documents for meetings online was contained in document RD/ADP/3/Rev.6 - 
RD/SCM/3/Rev.6 - RD/SG/3/Rev.6.  G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 6 - 
 
  facts and had been considered by the Australian AD Commission in the preparation for the final 
report which was being considered by the Minister. Following the issuance of the decision, interested parties would have 30 days in which to seek a review of that decision. On the Biodiesel 
ruling, Australia confirmed that the AD Commission was aware of it, but as it was handed down 
after the completion of the AD Commission’s final report, the AD Commission was considering its 
implications very carefully. 
35.  On the semi-annual report of Brazil , Peru expressed its concern regarding the new 
investigation conducted by Brazil on Peruvian  exports of PET laminated sheets which were 
allegedly threatening to cause injury to the Brazilian domestic industry. It noted that there were irregularities throughout the investigation and that neither the initial report nor the preliminary determination presented facts proving the supposed th reat of injury confronting the applicant. On 
the contrary, evidence and information available publicly only showed the good performance and 
growth of the applicant. 
36.  In order to determine the existence of injury within the scope of Article 3 of the 
AD Agreement, it was necessary to carry out an objective assessment of the volume of the 
dumped imports in relation to the prices of a similar product in the domestic market and the subsequent repercussion of such imports on the Brazilian industry. With regard to the volume of 
imports, it was not clear from the report whether the IA had carried out an objective and impartial 
investigation as well as a full analysis of PET laminated sheets imports. Although it was indicated that between the years 2010 and 2014 Peruvian expo rts increased by 627.8%, it should be noted 
that Peruvian exports of the subject product to Br azil had only begun in August 2013. Similarly, in 
2012 a drop was witnessed in the level of imports of the subject product originating from Mexico, 
Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. However, the Brazilian IA had not highlighted in its report that this was mainly due to the increase in import prices generated by the AD duties ("ADDs") 
imposed by Brazil on the exports of those countries. 
37.  In light of this, imports from Peru were competing fairly in a situation where domestic demand 
was affected by the increase in domestic prices resulting from the imposition of ADDs. 
Furthermore, no commercial or trade comparison ha d been carried out, especially with respect to 
the IA's determination of a 25% undercutting. In this connection, the Brazilian company produced PET laminated products with higher value and price, while the Peruvian company produced generic variants of a clearly lower cost. With regard to repercussions on the national industry, the main 
indicators showed a good and sustainable growth perspective in the Brazilian market. The size of 
the Brazilian market increased by 23% over the pe riod of 2010 - 2014. The domestic industry had 
witnessed similar growth in 2011, 2012 and 2013 increasing its sales in the domestic market by 
2%, 8% and 3%, respectively. The capacity of the applicant country was stable between 2010 and 
2013; a situation which was confirmed in the annu al report of the company in 2014 which also 
indicated how the company had been operating at fu ll capacity. Given the higher growth rate and 
lack of competition with imported Peruvian products, the applicant company decided to invest in 
2012 and 2013 in its production capacity which caused an increase in its market share in 2015 by 12%; i.e. from 49% in 2014 to 61% in 2015. With regard to sales of the applicant company, the IA had only presented information with regard to sales in the domestic market showing an 
increase of 12.5% in 2011, 9.2% in 2012 and with a reduction of 13% in 2013 and 13.5% in 
2014. However, the public information forming part of the investigation demonstrated that in 2015 
the production and sales of the company grew 15% and 19%, respectively. 
38.  Finally, Peru referred to WTO jurisprudence indi cating that in order to determine the existence 
of injury, an objective and impartial assessment should be conducted in a manner that would not favour any of the parties involved. Although the main indicators showed the domestic industry 
would be operating without difficulties in the market, the IA still determined the existence of threat 
of injury, which in Peru's view would be inconsis tent with Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement. Peru 
requested that Brazil immediately terminate this investigation. 
39.  Brazil explained that the subject investigation had to do with threat of injury and not material 
injury per se , thus there was no current material injury to the domestic industry. In fact, there 
was an increase of 627% of the imports into Brazil. In terms of volume, this meant that such imports had significantly increased in the recent period. In addition, the period of investigation 
("POI") was the year 2014, not 2015; i.e. the in formation provided by the Brazilian domestic 
industry and considered by the IA related to the years 2010 – 2014 and thus any information 
pertaining to the status of the domestic industry in 2015 was not considered. The investigation G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 7 - 
 
  also related to certain products that were produced by the domestic industry, not to all the 
products that the domestic producer had been prod ucing in Brazil. It confirmed that the volume of 
sales of the domestic industry during the POI had decreased by 13%. On the undercutting 
assessment, Brazil explained that when it conducted such an assessment, it took into 
consideration the different categories/types of the product that had been imported into Brazil and 
made a fair comparison; i.e. it had not simply compared a weighted average price of the domestic industry to the weighted average price of the Pe ruvian product, but based its evaluation on the 
different types/categories of the imported product. It added that, despite reaching a positive 
preliminary determination, no provisional measure would be imposed, as it was a threat of material injury, not a material injury investigation. It requested Peru to provide its questions in writing.  
40.  On the semi-annual report of China , Japan referred to two investigations. First, on the 
polyacrylonitrile fibre investigation, it regretted that China had not considered the Japanese 
exporter's claims sufficiently in the preliminary determination, especially with respect to the issue 
of sampling. It referred to its statement at the previous Committee meeting as well as its opinion 
paper submitted in November 2015 and indicated that sampling was conducted with respect to three companies while the total number of Japanese exporters involved in this investigation was 
only four. Japan considered such an investigation to be in violation with Article 6.10 of the AD 
Agreement. Moreover, as one company was dropped from the investigation as a result of the preliminary determination and only three companies were being investigated, the Chinese IA continued using sampling. In addition, the IA had not determined an individual dumping margin for 
the Japanese exporter not initially selected, but who submitted the necessary information. Such a 
decision by the IA could be in violation with Article 6.10.2 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, the IA determined individual margins for the other exporters without appropriately examining the 
evidence submitted in violation of Article 6.8 an d Annex II of the AD Agreement. Japan requested 
China to bring the investigation in conformity with the AD Agreement. More specifically, it requested China to calculate the normal values in a manner consistent with the AD Agreement, 
including the determination of individual dumping margins. It also requested the Chinese IA not to 
use sampling in a manner inconsistent with the AD Agreement with respect to this or any future investigation. 
41.  Second, on the grain-oriented electrical steel ("GOES") investigation, Japan regretted that 
China had not sufficiently considered the Japanese exporters' claims in its preliminary 
determination in April 2016. As Japan pointed out in the previous AD Committee as well as in Japan's opinion paper submitted in September 2015, the amount of exports from Japan was 
significantly reduced from 2011 to 2014. Moreover, considering the data relating to economic 
factors and indices in the preliminary determination, Japan doubted that injury as stipulated in Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement had occurred. Japa n requested China to conduct this investigation 
in a manner consistent with the AD Agreement by taking into consideration the views of the 
interested parties. 
42.  Turkey referred to China's imposition of provisional AD measures on Turkish acrylic fibre on 
2 April 2016. It was not convinced of the existence of injury caused by the subject product given 
its very negligible share in the domestic market during the investigation period. It also expressed 
concern regarding the manner in which the preliminary dumping margin was calculated. It requested China to take into account all parties' comments on its preliminary findings and revise 
them in line with the provisions of the AD Agreement.  
43.   The US  indicated  that China's semi-annual report reflected a measure on optical fibres from 
the US which was due to expire on 21 April 2016, no w subject to an expiry review just initiated by 
China. The US raised significant concerns regarding the investigation of optical fibre before the 
Committee and in other fora in the past and would not reiterate them. The US was troubled that the measure on optical fibre would remain in plac e during the course of this review and likely 
beyond. In the US' experience, once an expiry re view was initiated by China, the measure would 
always continue. It also noted China's continued failure to publish and implement regulations 
governing expiry reviews which continued to hamper parties' ability to fully understand the process 
by which China initiated and conducted such review s. Despite this shortcoming, the US anticipated 
that China would conduct a thorough and objective review of the facts which should demonstrate 
that the measure should be allowed to expire just as the original facts demonstrated that no measure should have been applied in the first place. G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 8 - 
 
  44.  The EU referred to two Chinese investigations. On the GOES investigation, it echoed Japan's 
doubts regarding this investigation, as it believed that the provisional measures which were 
imposed in early April were legally unwarranted. First, during the POI, imports decreased by 80%. Second, China had not taken into account the existence of various types of GOES for the 
undercutting calculations because only average prices were compared, while prices varied 
significantly depending on the various types of GOES. Third, objective examination of the economic indicators demonstrated that the domestic industry had not suffered material injury. The 
second investigation referred to concerned unb leached paper sacks from the EU, Japan and the 
US, where the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") announced its intention to impose measures in its definitive determination published on 10 April 2016, despite evident weaknesses in the causality analysis. For example, the EU's import prices were more than 10% higher than the 
domestic prices and it was thus very difficult to understand how these imports could cause injury. 
The EU was also exporting types of paper bags different from the Chinese products and should 
have been excluded due to their different characteristics. The EU urged China to ensure objectivity 
in investigations and to take duly into account the comments made by the European Commission 
during the investigations. The only aim of AD measures was to remove the negative effects of injurious dumping and this should be done in strict compliance with WTO rules. 
45.  In response to the EU's and Japan's concerns regarding the GOES investigation, China 
indicated that this investigation was still underway. MOFCOM would continue to carry out the 
investigation in an objective, impartial and transparent manner, strictly in line with Chinese law and WTO rules. All interested parties, Members and companies have abundant opportunities to 
express their views and to provid e evidence and arguments to the IA. The IA would make its final 
determination on the basis of evidence and arguments on the record. As for the issue of the decline of the imports mentioned by Japan, China emphasized that, firstly, the injury 
determination was based on cumulated imports from all three Members subject to investigation 
rather than imports only from Japan. Secondly, the quantity of the imports was not the only or decisive factor in the determination of injury. Thirdly, the IA made a preliminary determination of 
material injury on the basis of analysing all relevant factors as stated in the preliminary 
determination. As for the EU's concerns about GOES, China would convey such concerns to capital and would appreciate a bilateral exchange after the meeting. It also requested to receive in writing 
the questions posed orally. 
46.  On polyacrylonitrile fibre investigation raised by Japan, China explained that due to the large 
number of known Japanese companies, MOFCOM focused only on four Japanese companies. 
However, it should be understood that an IA with limited resources could not afford to investigate 
every company subject to investigation. So it chose three of them in the investigation. Although 
one of the companies had quit the investigation after it had started, the IA found it inappropriate to add another company to the investigation or the whole procedure could be disrupted. It thus 
continued to investigate the two remaining companies that continued to cooperate with the IA. For 
the sampling methodology used, the IA chose the th ree companies with the biggest quantities of 
exports to China during the POI among all registered Japanese companies. No interested parties including the Japanese Government had submitted any comment with respect to the sampling 
methodology used by MOFCOM. However, comment s from Japan and the Japanese companies on 
the results of sampling were fully considered and responded to by MOFCOM in its preliminary determination. China encouraged Japan and all interested parties to actively participate in the 
investigation in order to help the IA to make its final determination objectively and impartially. 
47.  With respect to concerns raised by Turkey, China indicated that the IA had already taken note 
of Turkey's view that during the POI the impo rts' quantity had been declining and had not 
influenced the prices in the domestic market. However, the IA had already addressed comments 
from Turkey in its preliminary determination wher e the IA considered that there was evidence on 
record proving that the imported products had alre ady depressed the prices of the like product of 
the domestic industry. In addition, the domestic industry was suffering material injury and there 
was a causal link between the injury and the dumped products. Thus, the determination by the IA 
had a legal basis and all comments by interested pa rties were fully addressed. The views of Turkey 
would be conveyed to capital for further elaboration. China's final determination would be strictly 
in line with WTO rules and China's AD laws and regulations.  
48.  On the questions posed by the US on optical fibres, a sunset review was being conducted in 
line with the AD Agreement. China requested the US to submit in writing any concerns it might 
have regarding any errors or flaws relating to the determination of the IA. Furthermore, comments G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 9 - 
 
  from interested parties would be duly addressed in the final determination. It also confirmed that it 
would convey the US' concerns to capital.  
49.  On the semi-annual report of Colombia , China raised a systemic concern regarding the 
practice of national unitary duty used by Colombia with respect to all investigations involving 
China. It quoted Articles 6.10 and 9.5 of the AD  Agreement and requested Colombia to provide its 
understanding of these articles and an explanation of its practice in AD investigations, especially with respect to the legal basis for the country-w ide unitary duty practice implemented against 
Chinese products and the reasons for not guaranteeing Chinese respondent enterprises individual 
margins. China also noted that Colombia had been involved, as a third party, in 47 WTO dispute settlement cases including DS397 - EU - Fasteners. In this dispute, it had been determined both in the Panel and the Appellate Body ("AB") reports released on 3 December 2010 and 15 July 2011, 
respectively, that the regulation of the EU on individual margins as well as measures taken against 
Chinese fasteners did not meet the requirements of the WTO which clearly demonstrated that the 
legislation and practice of country-wide unitary duty for countries with non-market economy 
("NME") was discriminatory and illegal. China requested Colombia to express its understanding of 
these rulings and whether it would adjust its practice against China in the future.  
50.  Colombia took note of the concerns raised and requested to receive them in writing to provide 
concrete answers as soon as possible. It also expressed its readiness to discuss the issue 
bilaterally following the meeting.  
51.  On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic,  Turkey referred to the sunset review 
conducted on 31 December 2015 with respect to the ADD imposed on the Turkish exports of steel 
reinforcing bars since 31 June 2011, with a duty  rate of 14% for all Turkish exporters. Turkey 
referred to its statements at previous Committee meetings, the violations of Articles 5.8, 6.10 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement in the original in vestigation and the extension of the ADD to all 
Turkish exporters even though the dumping margin  for one of the Turkish exporters was negative. 
It referred to its written questions to the Dominican Republic in this respect and indicated that the written answers that came nearly 44 months after the questions were posed were not satisfactory. 
It viewed the AD measure as unjust, inconsistent with several articles of the AD Agreement and 
should be repealed. According to the Trade Map Statistics, imports of the subject product into the Dominican Republic had been constantly declining since the imposition of the ADD during the period 2011 – 2014 and had fallen close to zero  in the first quarter of 2015. Turkey made 
reference to Article 11 of the AD Agreement, its re lated jurisprudence and to Turkey's close to zero 
exports of the subject product to the Dominican Republic and considered the ADD to be unnecessary and that its revocation would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material 
injury. Finally, Turkey requested the Dominican Republic to hold a public hearing before the final 
declaration of the sunset review results. 
52.  The Dominican Republic indicated that any comments or arguments could be submitted 
directly throughout the investigation to the IA for consideration. Furthermore, on 22 April 2016 the 
IA submitted its report with the result of the investigation. A public meeting would be held on 17 June 2016 where the results would be made available, and the report would be published in August 2016. The final decision would be rendered in September 2016. 
53.  On the semi-annual report of the EU, the Russian Federation had concerns regarding the AD 
policies, actions and inconsistencies of the EU's AD framework. It had raised such concerns 
continuously at Committee meetings since the early days of its WTO membership. It was of the 
view that the EU had been deliberately toughening its AD policies further especially in the 
metallurgy sector. This followed directly from the communication of the Commission entitled "Steel: preserving sustainable jobs and growth  in Europe", dated 16 March 2016. The Russian 
Federation drew attention to certain quotes from this document, namely "The Commission is proud 
that the pace of adopting measures has accelerated with five measures imposed in 2014 and seven in 2015 and it is now opening investigations based on threat of injury." and "the 
Commission will immediately use the available margins to further accelerate the adoption of 
provisional measures and follow a stricter approach when dealing with requests for deadline 
extensions of questionnaire responses and where fe asible streamline hearings by grouping them 
together." It was of the view that the Commission wished to curtail the interests of countries that 
had comparative advantages by removing the application of the lesser duty rule ("LDR") where the market of the exporting country was subject to "s ignificant distortions". This would provide the 
Commission with the opportunity to apply adverse duties on a case-by-case basis at its discretion, G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 10 - 
 
  only with respect to countries whose imports the EU would be willing to limit. The EU's AD policy 
was becoming an additional tool for regulation of trade instead of being a mere contingency instrument. 
54.  On specific investigations, the Russian Federation could not see any improvements despite the 
numerous contacts that had taken place, as the EU was unwilling to bring its AD actions vis-à-vis  
the Russian Federation into conformity with its WTO obligations. In the investigation of cold rolled steel products, unexpectedly and despite full cooperation, all Russian producers were deemed by 
the EU to be fully non-cooperative with the consequent use of adverse facts available. Given this 
proceeding, the standard of cooperation that had to be met in the EU's investigations became unclear. Despite the ongoing WTO dispute regarding AD measures on ammonium nitrate, the EU had withdrawn the acceptance of a price undertaking from a Russian exporter that was still 
capable of supplying minor quantities with prohib itive AD measures in place. The reason for the 
withdrawal was the high risk of violation of the undertaking, despite the fact that the violation required by Article 8.6 of AD Agreement was not established. That being the case, it inquired 
whether it would be still necessary for the Russian exporters to participate in the EU's 
investigations. The EU had always indicated that the AD instrument was a legal procedure and not a political instrument. It requested the EU to point out the provisions of international law that 
would influence the EU's choice of a country that would be presumed to have NME status in the 
sense of Article 2.7 of the EU's Basic AD Regulation. It urged the EU to adhere strictly to WTO rules. 
55.  China shared the views of the Russian Federati on and would be raising its concerns related to 
the Commission's communication referred to by the Russian Federation under Other Business. 
China reiterated its systemic concerns pertaining to the EU's analogue country methodology in AD 
investigations against Chinese products. It referred to the AB report in the compliance dispute in 
DS397– EU - Fasteners adopted on 12 February 2016,  in which the AB confirmed that the EU had 
failed to comply with the recommendations and findings of the DSB and with its obligations under the WTO agreements in terms of confidential trea tment, fair comparison, the status of analogue 
country producers, calculation of dumping margins,  and the definition of the domestic industry. 
The EU had repealed the fasteners AD measure on 27 February 2016; but some investigation methodologies which were ruled to be inconsistent with WTO rules were still widely applied in ongoing AD proceedings against China. Such practices ought to be changed or reviewed to fully 
comply with the rulings of the DSB.  
56.  China believed that certain EU practices were inconsistent with the DSB rulings and the 
AD Agreement. First, the EU did not provide Chinese producers with information regarding the 
characteristics of analogue producers' products. In the compliance fasteners dispute, the AB 
considered that even if the information was tr eated as confidential under Article 6.5 of the 
AD Agreement, the obligation under Article 2.4 would still require the Commission to make some 
disclosure to the interested parties in order to allow them to make informed decisions regarding 
possible adjustments. Secondly, the EU had not required analogue country producers to fulfil obligations pertaining to interested parties and the requirements of the AD Agreement. Further, in many cases, where analogue country producers failed to  file in line with the format required by AD 
Agreement such as the PCN, their information su bmitted was not disregarded. In the compliance 
fasteners dispute, the AB found that the analogue country producer should be treated as an interested party. In this light, obligations pertaining to interested parties under the AD Agreement 
should be applied to analogue country producers. Otherwise, the disqualified information should be 
disregarded. 
57.  Thirdly, the EU seldom made adjustments for cost differences affecting price comparability on 
the grounds that China is a NME. In the fasteners dispute, the AB found that the Commission had 
failed to assess properly whether the requested adjustments based on these differences were warranted or whether they would have had the effect of reintroducing the distorted costs or prices in the normal value component of the comparison. Fourthly, the EU had not covered all exported 
models when calculating the dumping margin. In particular, the Commission had not made all 
exports comparable to products in the analogue country before it conducted the calculation. In the fasteners dispute, the AB determined that the EU acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 by 
excluding from dumping determinations the models  exported by the Chinese producers that had 
not matched any of the models sold by the analog ue country producers. In the same dispute, the 
EU lost all the claims due to the inherent incons istency of the EU analogue country method with 
the AD Agreement. For example, the normal value information should have been disclosed to the G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Chinese exporters, while the analogue country pr oducers would normally be unwilling to do so. 
Further, many models exported by the Chinese producers had not matched any of the models produced by the analogue country producers. The calculation of dumping had to cover all export 
transactions. All those problems had resulted from the use of the analogue country methodology 
which proved to be hard to tackle in reality. The most efficient approach would be to treat China as 
a market economy in AD investigations. 
58.  China also raised two other concerns relating to  the EU's AD practices. The first had to do with 
the difficulties and obstacles that Chinese exporters often met upon trying to apply for new shipper 
or interim reviews in the EU. Some of them applied for years and submitted numerous applications and information, but no reviews were initiated which seriously damaged their interests. It hoped that the EU could start the review procedures ra pidly after receiving qualified applications. The 
other concern related to the discrimination which seemed to exist when Chinese exporters apply 
for extensions in trade remedy investigations by the EU. The EU had denied some Chinese exporters' time extensions to respond to the questi onnaires in the context of AD investigations on 
Chinese hot rolled flat products. However, in the same case, the EU generously granted extensions 
for the complainant and the European users. It urged the EU to treat Chinese European enterprises equally in its investigations. 
59.  On the Russian Federation comments, the EU emphasized that it was conducting its 
investigations in strict compliance with the WTO rules and the EU's Basic Regulation, without any 
discrimination against any country or producer. Neither the Russian Federation, nor the steel or metallurgical sectors were treated differently and all its investigations follow the same high 
standards with regard to rights of defence and tr ansparency in all the sectors and with regard to 
all countries' producers. With respect to the steel communication, it was just a summary of what the EU had done for the EU steel industry which had been suffering a lot from current overcapacity 
in the world market. As regards eliminating the LDR, the EU was still applying the LDR, which was 
a WTO-plus; the EU was among the very few countries which applied that rule. Even if the EU decided to eliminate the LDR - which was still pending in the Council - this would still be in 
compliance with WTO rules and the AD Agreement. 
60.  On the aluminium household foil investigation referred to by the Russian Federation, the EU 
explained that after in depth investigation the Commission imposed definitive ADDs on Russian exports of the product at the level of 12.2% in  December 2015. The final determination was the 
result of a thorough analysis of all comments and claims submitted by the interested parties and 
also after hearings that had been held in the presence of the hearing officer. As regards the pending cold rolled steel products investigation which was initiated in 2015 against China and the 
Russian Federation, not all three Russian cooperating producers were treated as fully non-
cooperative; this was the case for only one of them. This investigation was conducted within the applicable legal framework and to the highest standard that the Commission applied. The 
Commission fully respected the companies' right of defence. The Russian companies were 
specifically informed about the particular issues and were given the opportunity to comment and attend hearings. The investigation was underway and the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the provisional measures were imposed were disclosed to all interested parties. The 
Commission received comments on the disclosure on 8 March 2016, analysis of the comments was 
ongoing and a hearing with the Russian producers and their legal representatives took place on 
7 April 2016. The Commission was not in a position to disclose any final findings or to anticipate 
the possible outcome of the investigation, but a ssured the Russian Federation that the Commission 
would apply the highest standards including of transparency and rights of defence. 
61.  As regards the withdrawal of the undertaking, the EU stated that it would convey the Russian 
claim to Brussels and invited the Russian Federation to address this issue in writing or raise it in 
any other manner with Brussels. With regard to NMEs, the Russian Federation was granted the status of market economy back in 2007 and thus Ar ticle 2.7 of the EU's Basic Regulation would not 
apply to it. 
62.  As regards China's comments, the EU took into account the outcome of the compliance AB 
report in the fasteners dispute and started incorporating the findings of the AB in the EU's practice. That would apply for example to the treatment of the analogue country producer as an interested 
party, but with respect to provision of confidential information pertaining to the analogue country 
producers or an interested party as such, the EU would also take into account the confidential character of the information received. The analog ue country producer would be granted the same G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 12 - 
 
  treatment as the domestic industry which at the same time would not differ from the treatment 
the EU would accord to Chinese or any other ex porting producers. A proper balance should be 
struck between the right of interested parties to have access to the necessary information to defend their interests on one hand and the protecti on of confidential information on the other. The 
EU would change its practice, for example as regards dumping calculations, because it would 
include all exported models in the weighted average to weighted average calculation and would treat analogue country producers as interested parties. 
63.  On the fasteners case, the EU fully complied with the AB report by repealing the relevant 
measure. On the two concerns relating to interim and newcomer reviews, the EU complied with the 
WTO standards. There were no strict deadlines to initiate such interim reviews or new comer reviews when a request to initiate would be submitted by the exporting producer, but the EU 
would try hard to initiate as early as possible. Finally, on the issue of discrimination, it would be 
conveyed to Brussels. However, the AD Agreement provided a fixed deadline and as long as this 
deadline was not adhered to by the exporting producers, the EU would normally be entitled not to 
grant an extension. The hot rolled flat products investigation was at an early stage, but the 
Chinese comments would be relayed to Brussels and China would always be invited to comment on this issue which would then be duly taken into account and responded to in the course of the 
investigation. 
64.  On the semi-annual report of India , Japan indicated that although these investigations were 
not included in India's report, it came to Japan's attention that India received three investigation 
applications on cold rolled flat steel products, hot-rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel in 
coils, and not in coils in March and April, and that India had started its investigations in some of 
these new applications. As India had already initiated a safeguard investigation on similar products, Japan, from a systemic perspective, expressed concern regarding the abuse of trade 
remedy measures by India. Japan requested India to conduct the investigation carefully in a 
manner consistent with the relevant WTO agreements. 
65.  China expressed concerns regarding India's conduct of its recent AD investigations. In the 
second half of 2015, India initiated 8 AD investigations against Chinese products, including 
seamless pipes, porcelain tiles, metallurgical coke, etc. China criticized India's practices in these investigations of requiring all trading companies unrelated to the respondent company to cooperate and file the questionnaire response as well. Otherwise, the IA would not calculate 
individual export price and dumping margin for the respondent company on the ground that the 
complete value chain could not be established. Ev en if the respondent company cooperated to the 
best of its ability, the IA disregarded the questio nnaire response and applied facts available. In the 
porcelain tiles investigation, as early as in the stage of sampling, the IA rejected the sampling 
questionnaire responses of dozens of respondent companies on the grounds that there were unrelated trading companies which had not submitted questionnaire responses. China believed 
such practices to be inconsistent with the AD Agreement. 
66.  China further submitted that such practi ces imposed unreasonable burdens on respondent 
companies which would not be able to exercise direction or restrain unrelated trading companies and could not require the latter to cooperate and submit the questionnaire responses. Article 2.4 
of the AD Agreement required the IA not to impose  an unreasonable burden of proof on interested 
parties and Article 6.13 stipulated that the IA sha ll take due account of any difficulties experienced 
by interested parties. Therefore, the IA should not mandatorily require unrelated parties to 
cooperate and submit questionnaire responses. Mo reover, such a practice would violate the rules 
to apply facts available in the AD Agreement. Article 6.8 stipulated the conditions to apply facts available; i.e. in cases in which any interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not 
provide necessary information within a reasonable period or significantly impedes the 
investigation. Similarly, Annex II of the AD Ag reement also stipulated that even though the 
information provided may not be ideal in all respects, this should not justify the authorities disregarding it, provided the interested party has ac ted to the best of its ability. Therefore, if the 
respondent company cooperated to the best of its ability and filed complete questionnaire 
responses, the IA could have access to the nece ssary information regarding export prices even 
though not every unrelated producer or trading company filed responses. The IA should not 
disregard the export price information supplie d by the respondent company and apply facts 
available. China urged India to rectify such practice and to conduct fair and objective investigations strictly in compliance with the AD Agreement.  G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 13 - 
 
  67.  On the questions posed by Japan, India  explained that the AD investigation concerning cold 
rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel was initiated on 12 April 2016, while that pertaining 
to hot-rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel was initiated on 11 April 2016. India assured Japan that these new investigations, all AD and anti-subsidy investigations as well as all trade 
remedy investigations, would be conducted strictly in line with Indian law and the WTO 
agreements. Adequate opportunity would be provided to the interested parties to make submissions before the IA concluded these investigations. 
68.  On the questions posed by China, India explai ned that in the cases of seamless pipes and tiles 
preliminary findings were issued, but the investigations were yet to be completed. It encouraged China in case it had any specific problem with these investigations to make submissions. In fact, in both cases, the Chinese exporters would not often, despite of being given adequate opportunity, 
file complete responses. At times, the producer would file responses, but the exporter would not. 
If a producer sold goods domestically, they mi ght not know who the exporter was and where the 
exports were destined. India believed that if the pr oducer had exported to a trader who physically 
sold the exported goods to India, the trader sh ould be urged to file the response as well. 
Otherwise, lack of complete participation of exporters would limit the authority's scope to determine dumping margin meaningfully. It reques ted China to urge the producers to pursue the 
exporters also to file the responses in such cases during the course of the investigation. 
69.  With respect to sampling in the tiles invest igation, India had received many responses for 
sampling purposes, but without complete information. Certain responses did not have the addresses, others did not have the names of the exporters and certain responses had names of 
incorrect exporters. In such cases, the IA would find it problematic to accept such responses for 
sampling purposes to be considered for the final finding. Nevertheless, India noted China's concerns and would address them when issuing the final findings. It emphasized that adequate 
opportunity was being given in the course of the investigation. It welcomed comments from China, 
its producers and exporters who had responded an d those that had not responded and encouraged 
them to make submissions which would be duly examined and taken into consideration in the final 
finding.  
70.  On the semi-annual Report of Indonesia , Australia requested an update on the ammonium 
nitrate investigation. 
71.  Turkey explained that on 27 August 2014, th e Komite AD Indonesia ("KADI") initiated an AD 
investigation on wheat flour originating in Turkey, Sri Lanka and India. The final disclosure report 
was published on 18 December 2015 calculating dumping margins ranging from 0% to 28.9% for Turkish companies. It underlined certain issues previously highlighted in the last meeting of the 
Committee and during the public hearing held in Jakarta on 2 October 2015. First, the 
investigation lacked the sine qua non  requirements for initiation and taking any measure, such as 
a significant increase in dumped imports in the determination of injury within the context of 
Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement and deterioration in the domestic industry's economic indicators 
within the meaning of Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement. Since 2000, KADI has initiated five AD investigations and one safeguard investigation on the same product and the petitioner had always 
been the same. Considering that the final safeguard measure in the form of quota ended on 
4 December 2014, Turkey was highly concerned to observe that a closed market for wheat flour 
was sought by the petitioners. As the 18-month deadline stipulated in Article 5.10 of the AD 
Agreement had expired, Turkey requested an update  on the current status of the investigation.  
72.  Indonesia took note of the comments to convey to capital.  It invited Turkey to a bilateral 
discussion after the meeting. 
73.  On the semi-annual report of Israel , Turkey submitted that following a petition lodged by the 
domestic industry, Israel initiated an AD investigation on Turkish float glass imports on 
27 October 2015 and imposed provisional AD measures ranging from 29.2% to 70.7% on 6 April 2016. Turkey submitted its official views rega rding the initiation of the investigation and the 
non-confidential version of the complaint to the IA on 24 March 2016. In this connection, Turkey 
raised three issues. First, the non-existence of indices regarding the trends of the complainant's 
financial figures would not permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted for the initiation of the proceeding. Second, the share of the Turkish float glass imports 
in the Israeli market witnessed significant drops during the investigation period which clearly 
showed that the Turkish float glass imports had not posed a threat to the Israeli producers. Third, G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 14 - 
 
  the petition had insufficient injury-related evidence and adequate standards for the justification of 
the initiation of an AD investigation within the meaning of Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the AD 
Agreement. Turkey requested Israel to terminat e the investigation without the imposition of 
definitive measures.  
74.  Israel was not present at the time.  
75.  On the semi-annual report of Japan , Korea expressed its concern over the AD investigation 
on potassium hydroxide and the preliminary dete rmination by Japan which Korea believed had not 
met the procedural and substantive requirements of the AD Agreement. First, the use of facts 
available should be limited pursuant to Article 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement. Korea questioned whether the Japanese authority had met all the requirements to make a preliminary determination on the basis of facts available. The Korean company during the investigation had 
cooperated with the investigation and provided necessary information. However, such information 
was not fully taken into account by the IA. In particular, Korea had questions regarding the process of on-site investigation that took place on 28-29 January 2016. Domestic prices were 
essential information for the calculation of dumping margins; however, the IA had not investigated 
the domestic price during the on-site investigation on the grounds that the information submitted by the interested party was inadequate. The interested party made its best efforts to submit its 
response and supplemental response to the qu estions posed by the IA. Nevertheless, if the 
information was not ideal, the IA had a duty to verify and determine the true facts, using facts 
available only as a last resort. Korea believed that the domestic prices should be considered as a normal value according to Article 2.2. If there were no special circumstances in the Korean 
domestic market, the interested party should be given an ample opportunity according to 
Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement.  
76.  Second, the IA refused to accept an interest ed party's letter asking why domestic sales price 
and manufacturing costs were not included in the on-site investigation visit. Article 8 of Annex I 
stated that enquiries or questions put by firms of the exporting Members, for a successful on-site 
investigation should be answered before the visit is made. Korea had been actively engaged in 
consultations with Japan and would continue to participate in the ongoing investigation. As the 
Japanese IA also agreed, it was essential to grant an opportunity to present all evidence which it considered relevant to the IA's duly and fair review of the rebuttal regarding the preliminary determination submitted by the Korean company under investigation in early April 2016. Along 
these lines, Korea requested Japan to reach a definitive determination in compliance with the 
relevant WTO rules and taking full consideration of the views of the interested parties.  
77.  Japan explained that its IA initiated an investigation on potassium hydroxide from China and 
Korea on 26 May 2015, upon receipt of a written ap plication on behalf of the domestic industry. 
The Government of Japan notified the governments of the exporting Members before the initiation 
of the investigation. In the public notice of initiation, the IA notified several key deadlines related 
to due process and transparency. These were: 28 September for voluntary submission of written 
and oral evidence by interested parties, 26 October for requesting a meeting with parties with adverse interests and 26 November for presentation of views by interested parties and industrial users. In addition, interested parties could submit evidence and make comments upon request of 
the IA. Questionnaires were sent to interested parties on 26 May and 37 days were provided to 
submit responses. Extension of the deadline was granted upon request of responding parties. A 
Korean producer requested two weeks extension and was granted as requested. After the 
extended deadline of questionnaire responses, th e IA sent out a deficiency letter so that the 
responding parties could submit missing information. Supplemental questionnaires were sent to clarify the information provided as well as to provide a further opportunity to the responding 
parties to supplement insufficient information. Thus, there was ample opportunity for the 
interested parties, including the Korean producer, to submit evidence, to make comments and to express its views. 
78.  The Japanese IA made a preliminary determination on 25 March 2016. The interim report 
which explained the findings and conclusions of this  case in detail was available on the website of 
the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and th e Ministry of Finance. Both the public notice 
and the interim report were sent to the interested parties including the Korean Government, and 
three weeks of rebuttal and re-rebuttal opportunity were provided. Provisional measures were 
applied on 9 April 2016 and would be in force until 8 August 2016. Japan attached great importance to due process and transparency in its AD investigations. It assured Korea that the G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 15 - 
 
  investigation would be conducted in a fair and objective manner and would fully be consistent with 
the relevant WTO agreements, especially the AD Ag reement. It also suggested that Korea should 
read Japan's interim report of the investigation where the points raised were mostly addressed, but if Korea had any further questions, these should be submitted in writing to be conveyed to 
capital for consideration. In addition, Japan noted that it was not the Japanese IA which had a 
meeting with the Korean Government and that there was no submission from the Korean Government in the course of the investigation to date. 
79.  On the semi-annual report of Kazakhstan , the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/KZA/1 containing the written questions posed by Ukraine.  
80.  Ukraine expressed concern over several AD investigations and reviews which have been 
conducted by the Eurasian Economic Union ("EEU"), in particular in respect of bars and rods, 
ferrosilicon-manganese and certain steel pipes and tubes. As these investigations were reflected in 
the semi-annual reports of Kazakhstan and of the Russian Federation which were identical, Ukraine reserved the option to address these concerns in detail upon the review of the 
Russian Federation's semi-annual report.  
81.  Kazakhstan indicated that it had received the written questions recently and would provide 
written responses to Ukraine and to the Secretariat in due course. 
82.  On the semi-annual report of Morocco , Turkey indicated that Morocco had initiated an AD 
investigation against imports of hot-rolled steel sheets originating in Turkey and the EU on 
21 January 2013 and imposed an AD measure of 11 % ad valorem duty on the Turkish exports of 
the subject product on 2 October 2014. It repeated the concerns it voiced throughout the 
investigation process (official hearings, technical views submitted and bilateral meetings), as well 
as during the bilateral consultations which were held in the aftermath of the application of the measure. During these unofficial bilateral consultations, the Moroccan authorities acknowledged 
that certain discrepancies between the Moroccan and the Turkish statistics, which resulted in the 
application of facts available, were not because of the Turkish exporters' non-cooperation, but 
because of the Moroccan importers' failure to numerate the HS codes in a correct manner. It 
viewed the decision to apply AD measures on its exports to be entirely inconsistent with the 
relevant WTO rules and jurisprudence and should be repealed as soon as possible. It also reserved all its rights under the relevant agreements, including the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  
83.  Morocco referred to the bilateral consultati ons held with Turkey and the new information 
submitted. However, as the investigation was fi nalized and despite both Members' agreement on 
certain issues during the consultations; no particular agreement was reached at the end as the investigation was closed and the measures were imposed. Morocco expressed readiness to discuss 
this matter further with Turkey. 
84.  On the semi-annual report of Pakistan , Turkey referred to the AD measure imposed on its 
products of hydrogen peroxide since 27 September 2010. Following a petition lodged by the 
pertinent domestic industry, Pakistan initiated on 2 September 2015 a sunset review regarding 
that AD measure and Turkey submi tted its official views to the IA on 16 October 2015. Bearing in 
mind Article 11 of the AD Agreement, its related jurisprudence, the positive financial indicators of the applicants and Turkey's decreasing hydrogen peroxide exports to the world markets, Turkey 
was of the view that the extension of the pertin ent ADD on the Turkish subject product would no 
longer be necessary and its revocation would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury on the applicants or dumping. It requested Pakistan to repeal the ADDs imposed in 
this respect and expected to be informed about the current status of the ongoing proceeding. It 
also reserved all its rights under the AD Agreement.   
85.  Ukraine submitted that on 16 June 2015, Pakistan initiated an AD investigation on the imports 
of certain cold rolled coils and sheets. On 13 January 2016, Pakistan, inter alia , imposed 
provisional ADDs on Ukrainian companies at about 19% for a four-month period. Ukraine had serious concerns regarding the decision of Pakistan to initiate an AD investigation and apply such provisional AD measures. It urged Pakistan to reco nsider and withdraw the decision because of its 
incompatibility with certain provisions of the WTO Agreement.  G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 16 - 
 
  86.  Ukraine added that the IA had cumulated the imports of the product under investigation 
originating from China and Ukraine. It noted that the volume of the imports from China was incomparably larger than imports from Ukraine. For example, during the POI, the total imports 
from China were more than 50% of the total imports to Pakistan and 25% of the total domestic 
consumption in Pakistan. It was unclear whether the cumulative assessment of the effects of 
imports from China and Ukraine could not be applied in the light of different conditions of competition between Ukraine and China and the like domestic products as defined in Article 3.3 of 
the AD Agreement. Imports of the product from  Ukraine into Pakistan could be treated as 
negligible because of its share to the total imports which was about 5% and its market share of the domestic market in Pakistan which was about 2.5%. Ukraine emphasized that there were not sufficient grounds to include Ukraine in the investigation and that it should be concluded that 
Ukraine could not cause any material injury to the domestic industry of Pakistan with such low 
import quantities. It noted that the Pakistani domestic industry's indicators, in particular, production; volume; sales; domestic market share; capacity utilization; employment; wages and 
productivity had shown positive trends during the POI. Ukraine emphasized that the conclusion of 
the National Tariff Commission of Pakistan on th e existence of material injury contradicted the 
requirements of Article 3.4 of AD Agreement.  
87.  According to Article 3.5 of the AD Agreemen t, the IA should have also examined any known 
factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry. The injuries caused by these other factors must no t be attributed to the dumped imports. In this 
connection, Ukraine noted that the IA failed to examine properly the influence of other injurious 
factors injuring the domestic industry. Finally, it requested Pakistan to withdraw the provisional AD 
measures and terminate the present investigation without imposition of final AD measures.  
88.  Pakistan was not present at the time.  
89.  On the semi-annual report of the Russian Federation , the Chair drew Members' attention to 
document G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2 containing written questions posed by Ukraine. 
90.  Ukraine submitted that Armenia, Kazakh stan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian 
Federation, members of the EEU, had acted inconsistently with the provisions of the WTO 
agreements. It drew attention to numerous procedural and methodological infringements in the framework of AD investigations concerning imports of bars and rods, ferrosilicon-manganese and certain steel pipes and tubes originating in Ukraine. 
91.  It explained that on 20 November 2013, the Eurasian Economic Commission ("EEC") initiated 
an AD investigation concerning imports of bars and rods originating in Ukraine to the territory of the EEU, which consisted of three countries at the time. On 29 March 2016, the EEC adopted the 
decision to apply AD measures on imports of ba rs and rods originating in Ukraine to the EEU, 
currently consisting of five countries, four of which are WTO Members, namely Armenia, 
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation. Initiated in November 2013, with a 
final decision adopted in March 2016, this investigation took 28 months to be finalized. Ukraine 
emphasized that this clearly violated Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement. 
92.  During this lengthy period, the list of memb ers of the EEU had been extended significantly, 
following the accession of two new countries, namely Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic. However, 
the EEC failed to analyse the domestic industry of Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic so as to 
assess the material injury to the domestic indust ry of the EEU. Moreover, the EEC had recognized 
that the share of Armenia in the total imports of bars and rods from Ukraine as one of the five EEU 
countries was a substantive 7.4 %. Ukraine submi tted that such substantive volume of imports 
confirmed the existence of a developed market for the consumption of bars and rods in Armenia. It indicated that the EEC's approach for assessment of material injury to the domestic industry of the 
EEU violated the provisions of Article 3 of the AD Agreement. 
93.  The injury investigation period was established from 1 January 2010 to 30 September 2013 
and the measure would have entered into force as of 30 April. Thus, there was a two and a half year gap between the investigation period and the imposition of the measure, which indicated that 
the AD measures were not related to the actual situation of the Ukrainian exports of bars and rods 
to the EEU's territory and ignored the crucial decr ease in the volume of Ukraine's exports of the 
subject product to the EEU in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Therefore, there was no sufficient up-to-date G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 17 - 
 
  information evidencing the existence of dumping and its impact on the domestic industry of the 
EEU and the information used for the imposition of AD measures was not based on positive evidence as required by the AD Agreement and lacked credibility and reliability, particularly on injury determination, causal link and the examination of other factors which at the same time were 
causing injury to the domestic industry. 
94.  In the framework of this case, the 5% test and dumping margins were calculated on monthly 
basis within the established 9-month period for dumping investigation instead of making the 
calculation for the whole 9-month period or on a transaction-to-transaction basis. According to 
Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, a fair comparis on should be made between the export price and 
the normal value. In the course of this investigation, the IA failed to determine correctly the costs in relation to the products and used the approach of selective exclusion of non-profitable sales that 
led to incorrect determination of the normal value. Since the normal value of the products was not 
determined correctly, no fair comparison between  export price and normal value was possible to 
determine the margin of dumping. Given the above, the margin of dumping was incorrectly 
established as well. 
95.  Ukraine also recognized that in the course of this investigation, major indicators such as 
production, sales and capacity utilization were showing the positive dynamic development of the 
domestic industry. Consequently, the conclusions of the EEC on the material injury established in 
the report were irrelevant and the mentioned indica tors were not examined carefully. According to 
Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, the demonstrat ion of a causal relationship between dumped 
imports and injury to the domestic industry shou ld be based on an examination of all relevant 
evidences. The IA recognized the existence of "other  factors" affecting the domestic industry of the 
EEU such as the increase of production level by the other producers in the territory of the EEU. The omission of these other factors while conducting the material injury analysis, had led to the 
distortion of the findings of the investigation with respect to the causal link between the allegedly 
increased Ukrainian exports and the material injury to the domestic industry of the EEU. Ukraine believed that there were no legal grounds to apply AD measures against Ukrainian subject 
products due to the violations of numerous provisions  and basic principles of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of 
the AD Agreement.  
96.  On the AD investigation concerning imports of ferrosilicon-manganese originating in Ukraine, 
it was initiated on the basis of the application which was not provided by or on behalf of the 
domestic industry of the EEU as required by Arti cle 5.1 of the AD Agreement. The determinations 
of material injury were not based on positive ev idence and the examination of the impact on the 
domestic industry of the EEU was flawed as the injury indicators reflected the data of the 
producers that had not constituted the major proportion of the total production in the EEU. The IA 
had failed to determine the normal value correctly and used the specific approach of selective exclusion of non-profitable sales as well as determination of the cost of production, amounts for 
administrative, selling and general ("SG&A") costs which led in turn to unfair comparisons in 
violation of the requirements of Article 2 of AD Ag reement. It was stipulated by the IA that there 
were many indicators showing the dynamic develo pment of domestic companies and its positive 
state in the last six months of the POI such as production, sales, capacity utilization, productivity, 
wages, investments and cash flow compared to the relevant period of the previous year. 
Consequently, the conclusions of the EEC on material injury were irrelevant and the aforementioned indicators were not examined care fully. Ukraine emphasized that the IA, in this 
case, had not properly evaluated the influence of other factors injuring the domestic industry such 
as competition between the domestic producers, changes in the patterns of consumption, imports from other countries and volume of export as re quired by Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement. It 
believed that there were no legal grounds to initiate an AD investigation and to recommend 
applying AD measures against Ukrainian ferrosilicon-manganese in the light of the violations of numerous provisions and basic principles  of the AD Agreement and the GATT.  
97.  On the expiry review of the measures impose d on Ukrainian exports of certain steel pipes and 
tubes, Ukraine submitted that on 19 April 2016 the EEC published a report on the results of the 
expiry review of the AD measures concerning im ports of that product. Ukraine emphasized that 
the results of this review had not shown that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of injury. As stated in  the report, the indicators of the EEU's domestic 
industry showed positive trends with respect to production, sales and capacity utilization. The volume of imports from Ukraine decreased during the POI. The IA failed in calculating the normal 
value, particularly upon the determination of the amounts for SG&A costs which led to a false G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 18 - 
 
  conclusion supporting the continuation of dumpin g by the Ukrainian producers. Ukraine requested 
the members of the EEU to withdraw the decision to apply AD measures on imports of bars and rods originating in Ukraine; terminate the AD investigation on imports of ferrosilicon-manganese originating in Ukraine without applying measures and terminate the review of AD measures on 
certain steel pipes and tubes originating in Ukraine without the extension of AD measures. Ukraine 
urged the EEU members to provide written answers to its written questions
4. 
98.  The Russian Federation indicated that it would provide written responses in due course. 
99.  On the semi-annual report of Turkey , the Russian Federation pointed out that Turkey had 
recently terminated its investigation on flat hot rolled steel imports from inter alia  the Russian 
Federation without the imposition of a measure. It noted that according to the disclosure document published in February 2016, positive dumping margins for Russian exporters were 
calculated with the use of the cost adjustment methodology instead of calculating the cost of 
production based on the records kept by the Russ ian exporters which indicated that Turkey used 
the prices of inputs in third countries. The Pane l in DS473 – EU - Biodiesel had recently confirmed 
that such an approach would be inconsistent with Article 2 of the AD Agreement. The Russian 
Federation appreciated that Turkey reconsider ed its actions and eventually terminated the 
investigation without the imposition of a measure. 
100.  Turkey emphasized that the investigatio n was terminated without the imposition of a 
measure because the domestic industry withdrew it s complaint in accordance with Article 29 of the 
domestic regulation. It also confirmed that the notification pertaining to this termination would be made in the near future to the WTO. 
101.  On the semi-annual report of the US, the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/USA/5 containing the written question s posed by the Russian Federation regarding 
ammonium nitrate and to document G/ADP/Q2/USA/6 containing the US' written answers to the 
questions. The Russian Federation indicated that  it would review the answers and might come 
back with follow-up questions. 
102.  Japan reiterated its concerns relating to the lengthy US' AD measures against Japanese 
products. The US had 15 measures in force against Japanese products, five of which were in force 
for more than 20 years, and the longest measure was in force for more than 37 years. It referred to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and noted that  the AB had ruled that an affirmative likelihood 
determination might be made only if evidence demonstrated that dumping would be probable if 
the duty were terminated, and not simply if the evidence suggested that such a result might be 
possible or plausible. However, in about 100 sunset reviews against Japanese exports, there was no case of denying continuation or recurrence of dumping. As a result, exporters might have less 
incentive to participate in some sunset review proceedings. In addition, Japan understood that the 
IA would not provide the questionnaire of dumping investigation again in sunset review proceeding. Japan doubted that the IA would be able to obtain the evidence demonstrating that 
dumping would be probable and appropriately re cognize the requirement of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping as stipulated in Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement. Japan requested the US to swiftly revoke these unjustifiably long-standing measures. 
103.  China raised systemic concerns regarding the country-wide rate practice of the US in its AD 
investigations against China. Ch ina noted that ever since the 1990s, the US had been assuming 
that all Chinese exporters were under the contro l of the Government and had been requiring the 
respondents to pass the separate rates test to prove that their export activities were de jure and 
de facto out of the Government control. Otherwise, the punitive China-wide rate would be applied. 
For the past 20 years, a large number of Chinese companies had been denied the separate rate treatment and were subject to extremely high ra tes. Since the US' domestic litigation on the 
diamond blade investigation in 2013, this issue became worse. All state-owned companies' 
separate rate applications were rejected. The chan ge of the practice adopted by the US was unfair 
and unjustified for the Chinese companies. It furt her increased the burden of proof for the Chinese 
companies, inevitably inflated the AD rates and undermined the benefit of Chinese exporters. In 
recent cases, many state-owned companies were forced not to cooperate in the investigations 
including those pertaining to uncoated paper, certain corrosion-resistant steel products and cold-rolled steel flat products, etc. 
                                               
4 G/ADP/Q2/ARM/1-G/ADP/Q1/KAZ/1- G/ADP/Q1/KGZ/1-G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2. G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 19 - 
 
  104.  China submitted that according to Article 6. 10 of the AD Agreement the authorities shall, as 
a rule, determine an individual margin of dumpin g for each known exporter or producer concerned 
of the product under investigation without any conditions or tests required. According to Article 9.4 in cases where the IA uses sampling, the companie s which are not selected should be subject to a 
rate not higher than the weighted average rate. Therefore, China believed that the China-wide rate 
or the country-wide rate practices and separate rate test adopted by the US had no legal basis. Moreover, the Panel in DS429 – US – Shrimp ruled that a similar practice by the US was in 
violation of WTO rules and the US never appealed  the Panel's decision. China had been closely 
following the implementation of the Panel's decisi on by the US and requested the US to implement 
the Panel's decision in good faith and in a ma nner that would treat all WTO Members equally.  
105.  With regard to the concerns raised by Japan, the US reiterated that it found no basis for 
Japan's chronic complaints. The expiry proceedings conducted by the US were consistent with the 
US' obligations under the AD Agreement. Japan seemed to imply that an older measure was no longer valid solely on the grounds that the measure was old. The US disagreed and emphasized 
that the purpose of an expiry proceeding was to  allow the administering authorities to examine 
whether dumping and injury would be likely to co ntinue or recur if the measures were removed. 
The US explained that the expiry process was evidence-based and that the participation by 
Japanese companies in expiry proceedings would be helpful both in terms of the relevant 
information to be provided and the arguments to be  made by the interested parties. Furthermore, 
many measures involving Japanese exports had, in fact, been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry reviews, there had been  64 measures reviewed involving Japan. Of 
those, 51 or 80% had resulted in termination of the measure. 
106.  For the oldest measures that remain in effect – pre-stressed concrete steel wire strand and 
carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings - the Japanese industry had failed to meaningfully participate 
in any sunset review proceeding. In case of carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, a sunset review 
had commenced in March 2016 and again the Japanese industry had refused to participate. Out of the 13 orders in place with respect to Japanese products, Japan had not participated 11 times in 
the sunset reviews. Lack of respondent participat ion and the consequent lack of evidence provided 
by respondents limit the information provided to the IA. In other words, Japanese producers may themselves be partly responsible for the result. In many of the expiry processes that involved 
imports from both Japan and other Members, respondents from other Members have meaningfully 
participated in the review and have made relevant arguments as to why the measure should be 
terminated as to their specific country, and the measure had been terminated. The US suggested that Japan inquire with its own industries as to why there was a lack of interest in participating in 
the process, particularly given that participation had been a vital element in the termination of 
measures applied with respect to goods from othe r Members that also covered goods from Japan.  
107.  With regards to China's comments, the US took note and indicated that it would convey 
them back to Capital. 
108.  No comments were made with respect to semi-annual reports that the Committee did not 
previously have the chance to review due to late circulation. 
109.  The Committee took note of the semi-annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided. 
3  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS 110.  The Chair referred to the notifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/278, 279, 281, 282, 
283 and 284. During this period Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; the Dominican Republic; Egypt; European Union; India; Israel; Kazakhstan; Korea; Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; 
Morocco; Pakistan; Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine and the 
United States notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions, which were listed in these documents. Since document G/ADP/N/284 was circulated, Argentina, Australia, Brazil; Canada; Egypt, India, Japan; Mexico, Morocco; Pakistan; Russian Federation; South Africa; Trinidad and 
Tobago; Turkey and the United States had submi tted such a notification, which would appear in 
the next list circulated by the Secretariat. G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 20 - 
 
  111.  The Chair drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency concerning Members' antidumping actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard. He 
strongly urged all Members taking antidumping acti ons to provide these notifications of preliminary 
and final actions, consistently and in a timely fashion. The minimum information format for these notifications adopted by the Committee in October 2006 and revised in October 2009 (document 
G/ADP/2/Rev.2), contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified 
and the information that should be provided.  
112.  The Chair also noted that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc notifications 
pertaining to certain antidumping actions via different means; i.e. electronically, by fax and post. 
In certain instances, certain Members, while submitting new Ad hoc notifications, also tended to 
resubmit previously notified actions and in some  cases provided electronic links that did not 
correspond to the notification the Member submits. In addition, some of these notifications were 
not submitted to CRN directly, but to the Rules Division Secretariat which had to resend it to CRN 
for registration. He reminded all Members that a gi ven Ad hoc notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to CRN with a copy to the Secretary of 
the Committee and that any previously submitted noti fications should not be resubmitted. He also 
requested Members, instead of providing electronic links to general website, to attach directly the 
relevant document containing the action they wish to notify in WORD or PDF formats. He stressed the need to avoid any confusion; repetition or duplication as these notifications were the source of 
necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report.  
113.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statement made. 
4  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEET ING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION 
114.  The Chair stated that the Informal Group on  Anti-Circumventi on had held its meeting in the 
morning to discuss the paper submitted by the US  describing the Trade Facilitation and Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2015. This Act put in place a new mechanism to combat ADD evasion. The US 
provided a detailed explanation of this Act and the Group engaged in an active question and 
answer session regarding this Act. 
115.   The Committee took note of the statement made. 
5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTION  
116.  The Chair recalled that at the Rules week last October, the Working Group on 
Implementation had applied a new working method, on a trial basis, in an effort to re-invigorate 
the Group's work. The Working Group had di scussed a topic agreed by the Committee – 
administrative, arbitral and judicial review under Article 13 of the ADA. The discussion was 
animated by a discussant, Mr Justin Brown of Canada, who circulated an outline of issues to guide 
the discussion. Four delegations submitted papers, which were circulated as RD documents. A summary record of that meeting was circulated in document (G/ADP/AHG/R/37). At the end of that meeting, the Chair had informed delegations th at he would be consulting to explore Members' 
views about whether the Working Party should co ntinue with the new working methods, whether 
any changes could be made to improve those methods and, if the Group was to continue with the new working methods, to identify a new topic and discussant. 
117.  Because of the very busy run-up to Nairobi,  the Chair began his consultations only after the 
Christmas break, and spoke with many delegation s in a variety of formats. On 19 February 2016, 
the Chair sent a fax to all delegations indicating that he sensed wide support for continuing the 
new working method in April 2016, and accordingly he proposed in that fax to continue the new 
working methods on a trial basis at that meeting. He also proposed a topic and discussant for the meeting on the basis of his consultations and invited any reactions to his proposals. Having heard none, he asked the discussant, Mr Rodrigo Orozco Gálvez, to send an invitation and outline of 
possible issues for discussion on 10 March 2016. G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 21 - 
 
  118.  One issue that remained to be settled during the Chair's consultations related to the 
summary record of the meetings of the Working Group. Some Members considered that a disclaimer about the legal value of the summary reco rd would be desirable, or in any event that 
the summary record should be submitted for comment to delegations in advance and then 
circulated as a room document rather than a formal WTO document. Other Members disagreed. 
For the moment, and pending a solution to this issue, he indicated that the Secretariat would not be issuing a summary record of this meeting; an d that the next Chair would come back to this 
issue. The next Chair would need to consult more generally about the conduct of the next meeting 
of the Working Group, including whether to continue with the new working methods and, if so, to identify a topic and discussant.  
119.  He noted that the Working Group would be meeting immediately after the Committee 
meeting, and would be discussing the gathering and compilation of injury data. Mr Rodrigo Orozco 
Gálvez had kindly consented to serve as discussant, and had circulated a detailed outline of possible issues. The Chair encouraged all delegations to actively participate in this informal, non-
attributable discussion, so that Members would continue to learn from each other about their 
respective practices in this area.    
120.  Hong Kong, China indicated that while it had no problem in the continuation of the trial run, 
it was surprised and concerned that consultations have not been conducted in an open format. It 
urged that all consultations on matters of common interest be conducted in an open, inclusive and transparent manner so that all concerns could be heard and dealt with. In the same vein, it hoped that the pending consultations on whether to create working groups on implementation in the 
context of the Safeguards ("SG") and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM") Committees 
could also be conducted in an open, inclusive and transparent manner. 
121.  Brazil referred to its proposal for the creation  of implementation groups in the context of the 
SG and the SCM Committees and expressed its intention to table a draft proposal concerning the 
mandates of these groups for discussion. It also expressed willingness to receive comments and ideas from all Members to be reflected in this proposal. It considered the Implementation Group of 
the ADP Committee to be a model that could be used for both proposed groups. With regard to the 
procedures just established in order to choose the topic and discussants, Brazil appreciated the 
Chair's efforts for his hard work in consulting with Members in order to some agreed rules of 
procedure. Though still on trial basis, it wo uld be happy to keep following these rules. 
122.   On the matter of transparency and the consultations he undertook, the Chair mentioned 
that it would have been extremely difficult to conduct consultations during the very busy run-up to 
Nairobi period, during the Christmas and New Year holidays that followed, not to mention that he 
had to undergo a surgery and had to be absent for almost a month. However, he had tried his best 
to reach out to as many delegations as possible to keep this matter running. In addition, in his fax sent to all Members, he invited Members to make any comments if they so wish, which was not 
the case. 
123.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6  OTHER BUSINESS 124.  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. 
125.  China recalled its statement made at the October 2015 regular meeting of the Committee 
regarding the expiration of Section 15(a) of its Accession Protocol. China had repeatedly pointed 
out in various fora that these provisions were outdated, discriminatory, unfair by nature, and of a transitional nature expiring in any event on 11  December 2016, according to Section 15.d of the 
Protocol. China reminded those Members that were still using this surrogate and analogue country 
methodology based on Section 15, that the deadline was approaching fast and that there were less than eight months left during which those Members would have to go through the necessary internal procedures. It urged those Members to accelerate their steps to amend or adjust their 
laws, regulations or practices and terminate the use of this discriminatory methodology against G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 22 - 
 
  China both in their AD investigations and reviews before the deadline so as to faithfully implement 
the WTO obligations and avoid any unnecessary disputes. 
126.  China also referred to the issue of the EU's  Trade Defence Instrument ("TDI") modernization 
and acceleration, according to which the EU would modernize and accelerate its investigations and 
procedures to protect its industries. It referred to  the EU's report on policies for steel industry 
entitled "Steel: preserving sustainable jobs and growth in Europe" and inquired whether the due 
rights of the foreign companies under the investigations would be ensured if the EU accelerated its 
investigations and what the EU would do to achieve that goal and promote efficacy. It also 
requested the EU to provide an update to th e membership on the development of the TDI 
modernization, especially with respect to abolishing the LDR which the EU viewed as a WTO-plus obligation. It also requested the EU to explain how it would avoid the duplication of remedies in AD 
and anti-subsidy investigations initiated simultaneously on the same product.  
127.  As regards the modernization efforts, the EU explained that the Commission had published in 
2014 a notice in the Official Journal on its ideas about what this modernization should be 
comprised of and that the draft of the amending law was before the European Parliament and the 
Council with the process of possible adoption still pending in those institutions. It would be quite 
premature at this stage to share the content of the EU modernization package with Members; but 
following the adoption of the amending law, the EU would comply with its notification obligation in 
accordance with the AD Agreement. It added that the same would apply in case of the acceleration. The modernization package might enta il some elements aiming at speeding up the 
process of adopting provisional and definitive measures which were also referred to in the steel 
communication, but given the current stage of the modernization package, it would be premature 
to comment on this issue at this stage.  
128.  On China's statement urging Members to stop using the analogue country methodology 
before 11 December 2016, Mexico inquired whether China was of the view that if Members 
continued to use this methodology in any investigations initiated prior to that date that would 
constitute a violation of WTO rules. In response to a clarification requested by the EU, Mexico 
confirmed that its question had to do with any investigations initiated by any Member prior to that date and on what legal basis would China be basing such a view.  
129.  China explained that if the question had to do with whether investigations in which the NME 
methodology was used were initiated before the deadline, with final determinations issued after 
that deadline and whether this would be in violation with the investigating Members' WTO 
obligations, this was a tricky question. However, China believed that any action taken after the 
deadline of 11 December 2016 should be in line with the WTO obligations. After that deadline, the 
so-called NME methodology would be baseless as Section 15 (a) of China's Accession Protocol 
would expire and Members would not be allowed to use that methodology as it would become incompatible with the AD Agreement. If any Member  took a decision or a determination after that 
deadline using the NME methodology without any legal basis, that would constitute a violation of 
the WTO obligation. China indicated that this would be its own view, although it would understand that other Members might be  of a different view.  
130.  The US recognized that the legislative notification submitted by Kazakhstan was not up for 
review at this Committee meeting and would instead be reviewed during the October 2016 
meeting. It reserved its right to ask any questions regarding this legislation. That said, the US commended Kazakhstan for its efforts to comply with this notification requirement and appreciated 
how quickly these laws were notified given the volume of the notifications Kazakhstan had to 
submit both for itself and for the EEC throughout the WTO as a result of its accession. The US considered this to be a positive sign and hoped that the seriousness with which Kazakhstan had 
approached this obligation would co ntinue for the foreseeable future. 
131.  Kazakhstan appreciated the US' recognition. 
132.  Turkey expressed concerns regarding the un expected initiation of an AD investigation 
against Turkish refrigerators by Morocco on 21 Ma rch 2016 and indicated that the relevant Turkish 
exporters were preparing their responses to the exporter questionnaires. It underlined that it 
would closely follow the developments of this investigation and reserved its rights under the relevant WTO agreements.  G/ADP/M/50 
 
- 23 - 
 
  133.  Morocco explained that it launched an investigation on 21 March 2016. Only certain types of 
refrigerators were being investigated. The Turkish authorities were informed in accordance with 
the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement. The time frame for replies was set as 25 April 2016, but as Morocco had received a request to extend  this deadline it granted extra time for all 
requesting exporters until 2 May 2016. Morocco would always fully respect the AD Agreement and 
its requirements in all its investigations. 
134.  Turkey referred to the AD investigation cond ucted by Thailand on a vast range of imported 
hot-rolled non-alloy steel in coils and not in coils products on 18 January 2016. Turkey was not 
able to obtain the petition submitted by the compla inants for the initiation of the AD investigation 
within the context of Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, the Turkish Government was 
not duly notified regarding the public hearing th at took place on 28 March 2016. In this regard, 
Turkey reserved the right to file a fully-fledged submission during the investigation. It touched 
upon the injury allegations considering what it described as the solid productivity levels, cash flow and employment figures of domestic industry. It also drew attention to other known factors, such 
as the situation of the Thai steel industry which was described as "fragmented production facilities, 
lack of iron making, scrap base steel making limiting the capacity to produce high grade steel products" in the report published by the Iron an d Steel Institute of Thailand at the OECD Steel 
Committee Meeting in May 2012. Furthermore, failed  investment decisions of the complainants 
had also contributed to the alleged injury. Turkey  reserved all its rights under the relevant WTO 
agreements.    
135.  Thailand took note of the comments made an d indicated that it would will convey them to 
Capital. 
7  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 136.  The next autumn Regular meeting of the Committee will be held in the week of 
24 October 2016. 
8  ELECTION OF OFFCIERS 137.  On the election of the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the Committee pursuant to 
Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedures for the Commi ttee meetings, the Chair explained that as the 
consultation at the Council for Trade in Goods ("CTG") level regarding the selection of the new 
Chairperson of this Committee as well as of other Committees under the CTG was still under way, the Committee would not be in a position to elect a new Chair at the end of its April meeting. He 
suggested that the Secretariat send a fax once the CTG had completed its work, indicating the 
Chair identified by the CTG. The new Chair wo uld be deemed to be elected by the Committee 
absent any objection. This approach, which had been followed by the Participants on the Expansion 
of Trade in Information Technology Products and the Market Access Committees, would obviate 
the need for an additional meeting of the Committee.
5 On the Vice-Chairperson, he proposed to 
postpone the election of the new Vice-Cha irperson until the new Chair was appointed.6  
 
__________  
 
 
                                               
5 On 11 May 2016 a fax was sent conveying to the membership the appointment of Mr Peira Shannon 
(Australia) by the CTG as the Chair of the Committee. No objection was received and the Chair was deemed to be elected by the Committee.   
6 On 15 June 2016, Mr Peira Shannon, the Chair of  the Committee, sent a fax to the membership 
conveying the appointment of Mr  Luis Adolfo Fernández López  (Costa Rica) as the new Vice-Chair of the 
Committee. No objection was received and the Vice-Cha ir was deemed to be elected by the Committee.