RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/48  
 
6 August 2015  
(15-4053)  Page: 1/17  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 29 APRIL 2015 
CHAIR: MR ANDREW STAINES (UNITED KINGDOM) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
29 April 2015.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/3: 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVI EW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR 
AMENDED LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIO USLY REVI EWED) .................................................................... 2
 
1.1   Armenia (G/ADP/N/1/ARM/S uppl.3-G/SCM/N/1/ARM/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/ARM/1 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 2  
1.2   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/APD/N/1/B HR/3-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2-G/SG/N/1/BHR/3 and 
G/APD/N/1/BHR/3/Corr.1-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/ 2/Corr.1-G/SG/N/1/B HR/3/Corr.1 ........................... 2  
1.3   Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Su ppl.2), (G/ADP/N/1 /BRA/3/Suppl.3), 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4-G/ADP/N/1/BRA /2/Suppl.11-G/SG/N/1 /BRA/3/Suppl.2), 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.5) and (G /ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.6), ............................................... 2  
1.4   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1 /SAU/2-G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2 -G/SG/N/1/ SAU/2) ........... 3  
1.5   US (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.18–G/SCM/N/1/USA/Suppl.18) ........................................... 3  
1.6   Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1 /Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 3  
2   NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONT INUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE ........................................ 3  
2.1   Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3  & G/ADP/N/1/BR A/3/Corr.1) ................................................... 3  
2.2   Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/2-G /SCM/N/1/QAT/2-G/ADP/N/1/SG/2) ....................................... 3  
3   SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/265)............................................................................................................... 4  
4   PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ................................................ 13  
5   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMV ENTION .................................................................................................. 15  
6   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTA TION ......................................................................................................... 16  
7   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 16  
8   DATE OF THE NEXT  REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................... 17  
9   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS ............................................................................................ 17  
 
 G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREV IOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATI ONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED) 
1.1  Armenia (G/ADP/N/1/ARM/Suppl.3-G/SCM/N/1/ARM/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/ARM/1/Suppl.1)  
3.  The written questions concerning the notification of Armenia  can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ARM/5–G/SCM/Q1/ARM/ 5–G/SG/Q1/ARM/2 - Submitted by the United States 
("US") 
 
4.   Oral response was provided at the meeting and followed up with written answers to the 
written questions which can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ARM/6–G/SCM/Q1/ARM/6–G/SG/ Q1/ARM/3 - Replies to the US 
 
1.2  Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/APD/N/1/BHR/3-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2-G/SG/N/1/BHR/3 and G/APD/N/1/BHR/3/Corr.1-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2/Corr.1-G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Corr.1 
5.  The written questions concerning the notification of Bahrain, Kingdom of  can be found in the 
following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/7–G/SCM/Q1/BHR/7–G/SG/Q1/BHR/7 - Submitted by the US 
 
6.  Oral response was provided at the meeting and followed up with written answers to the written 
questions which can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/8–G/SCM/Q1/BHR/8–G/SG/Q1/BHR/8 - Replies to the US 
 
1.3  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.2), (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.3), (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.4-G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.11-
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.2), (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.5) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.6), 
7.  The written questions concerning the notification of Brazil  contained in the notification 
contained in document G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.2  can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/23–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/23 - Submitted by the US 
 8.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/27–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/27 - Replies to the US 
 9.  The written questions concerning the notification of Brazil  contained in the notification 
contained in document G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.6  can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/29–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/29 & G/ADP/Q1/BRA/29/Corr.1–
G/SCM/Q1/BRA/29/Corr.1 - Submitted by the US 
 
10.  Oral response was provided at the meeting and followed up with written answers to the 
written questions which can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/30–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/30 - Replies to the US 
 G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.4  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2-G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2-
G/SG/N/1/SAU/2) 
11.  The written questions concerning the notification of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  can be found 
in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/SAU/1–G/SCM/Q1/SAU/1–G/SG/ Q1/SAU/1 - Submitted by the US 
 12.  Oral response was provided at the meeting and followed up with written answers to the 
written questions which can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/SAU/2–G/SCM/Q1/SAU/2–G/SG/ Q1/SAU/2 - Replies to the US 
 1.5  US (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.18–G/SCM/N/1/USA/Suppl.18) 
13.  No written questions concerning the notifications of the  US were posed by any Member. 
1.6  Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) 
14.  The written questions concerning the notification of Cameroon 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 can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3–G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3–G/SG/Q 1/CMR/3 - Submitted by the US  
 15.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 
16.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
2  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
2.1  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3 & G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Corr.1) 17.    The written questions concerning the notification of Brazil can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/26–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/26 - Submitted by the US 
 18.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/28–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/28 - Replies to the US 
 2.2  Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/2-G/SCM/N/1/QAT/2-G/ADP/N/1/SG/2) 
19.    The written questions concerning the notification of Qatar can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/QAT/1-G/SCM/Q1/QAT/1-G/SG /Q1/QAT/3 - Submitted by the US 
 
20.  Oral response was provided at the meeting and followed up with written answers to the written questions which can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/QAT/2-G/SCM/Q1/QAT/2-G/SG/Q1/QAT/5 - Replies to the US 
 G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 4 - 
 
  21.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifications from Australia and Qatar, as well as any 
others received and circulated by the applicable deadlines1, would be on the agenda for review at 
the autumn Regular meeting of the Committee.  
22.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that could be required is a nil notification. He encouraged 
Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
23.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.39 and Corr.1, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the 
information required by Article 16.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement (the "AD Agreement"), and 
encouraged Members to review and update prev iously submitted information where necessary. 
24.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements. 
3  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-D UMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/265) 
25.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the second half 
of 2014 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/265 and G/ADP/N/265/Suppl.1. Members 
taking no anti-dumping ("AD") actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This would not apply to the 43 Members that had already submitted a one-time notification under 
Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement. Since document G/ADP/N/265/Add.1 was circulated, 
Ecuador has submitted a nil notification. 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 
Members that had already submitted a one-time notification. Members were urged to comply with 
this important notification requirement. 
26.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual report s for the second half of 2014. No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Brazil; Canada; Colombia; 
Costa Rica; Egypt; Guatemala; Israel; Japan; Malaysia; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; the Russian Federation; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Uruguay and Vietnam. 
27.  On the semi-annual report of Argentina , Thailand referred to the ongoing review of the 
AD measure on air conditioning products from Thailand. It submitted that Argentina had not 
imported that product from Thailand since 2009 and therefore, the imports from Thailand might 
not have caused any injury or likelihood of injury that Argentina might find during the review. 
Thailand requested the termination of the AD measure. 
28.  Peru expressed its concern with respect to the expiry and changed circumstances reviews of 
the AD measure imposed by Argentina on 8 October 2009 on locks and chains from Peru, initiated 
under resolution 723-2014 and published in the official journal on 27 October 2009. This procedure 
was not conducted pursuant to Article 11.3 of the AD  Agreement as it was initiated after the expiry 
of the AD measure. In other words, the review was not conducted within five years which is the 
maximum period for the application of such  a measure. The AD measure expired on 
8 October 2014, but the Argentinian investigating authority ("IA") initiated the reviews on 27 October 2014; i.e. 19 days after the measure had expired. This procedure threatened to maintain unjustified restrictions on exports from Peru to Argentina in respect of this product and 
has been causing considerable trade damage to Peruvian exporters for over six years. In addition, 
the trade balance between Peru and Argentina has demonstrated a deficit in favour of Argentina in 2014. Peru would monitor closely the ongoing reviews and requested Argentina to conduct this 
procedure in accordance with multilateral trade standards.  
29.  Argentina welcomed the comments of Thailand and Peru and indicated that they would be 
conveyed to capital. 
30.  On the semi-annual report of Australia , Turkey referred to the ongoing AD investigation on 
its steel reinforcing bar products since 17 October 2014. Turkey submitted its technical comments  
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/492-G/SCM/W/564-G/SG/W/233. G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 5 - 
 
  to the Anti-Dumping Commission ("ADC") of Australia and reiterated its concerns. On 
13 March 2015, the ADC calculated a preliminary dumping margin of 8.2% for uncooperative Turkish exporters with which Turkish officials di sagreed. Turkey had a single exporter of the 
subject merchandise to Australia during the invest igation period of 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014. 
Subsequently, the ADC calculated a company-specific preliminary dumping margin of 4.7% for this 
cooperative exporter. Given that this was the sole company that exported steel reinforcing bar to Australia in the dumping assessment period, Turkey believed that the ADC should not calculate a 
separate all others rate and that the aforementioned company's margin should be used for all 
other Turkish exporters of the subject product. Moreover, pursuant to Article 7.1(iii) of the 
AD Agreement, provisional measures may be applied only if the IA finds such measures to be necessary to prevent injury being caused during the investigation. However, the ADC had disclosed 
the preliminary affirmative determination ("PAD") report, without publishing the evidence. Turkey 
expected the ADC to immediately issue the relevant  findings and revise the PAD in light of these 
findings. Turkey would await the ADC's statement of essential facts on 17 August 2015 and 
believed that the ADC would confirm Turkey's und erstanding of the non-existence of dumped 
Turkish originating imports, as was the outcome in another AD investigation on rod and coils.  
31.  Australia acknowledged that the Turkish Go vernment provided a number of submissions and 
raised concerns in relation to this investigation. In the context of making a preliminary affirmative 
determination, the Commissioner of the ADC was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for imposing provisional measures in relation to certain exports. The next stage in the investigation would be the publication of the statement of essential facts, which was due on 1 July 2015. The 
comment from Turkey would be considered in preparing this statement.   
32.  On the semi-annual report of China,  Japan referred to three investigations conducted by 
China. First, Japan expressed its concern over China's investigation on optical fibre preform. In this 
case, China sampled two exporters, although there were only four Japanese exporters. Japan was 
of the view that such a sampling method would likely be inconsistent with Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement. In addition, Japan believed that there was no threat of material injury to the 
domestic industry by imports from Japan based on the data contained in the application and other 
information obtained from public sources which Japan requested China to take into consideration while conducting this investigation. Secondly, Japan commented on China's investigation on methyl methacrylate. Japan requested China to determine the injury and causal relationship 
pursuant to the AD Agreement. In particular, China should examine the factors objectively 
pursuant to Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agr eement and ensure price comparability between the 
imports and domestic products. Japan requested China to take into account the exporters' claims 
ensuring the transparency and due process of the investigation. Finally, Japan commented on 
China's sunset review on polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") which was the first case, at least for Japan, where China initiated a second sunset review. Japan was concerned about unjustifiably long 
measures, and requested China to appropriately examine the requirements for the continuation of 
dumping and injury in Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement.  
33.  China responded individually to the questions posed. First, on the optic fibre preform 
investigation, it explained that it was initiate d on 19 March 2014 and extended by 5 months. The 
sampling in the case was done according to the resources of the IA and the specific situation of the 
parties involved. The IA would properly consider the arguments of all parties, including Japan's, and reach a final conclusion in a transparent and fair manner. Second, in case of methyl 
methacrylate, the investigation was underway and the Chinese IA had yet to make a preliminary 
determination. The investigation was expected to be concluded by 8 August 2015, but it might be extended by six months according to China's laws and regulations. Throughout the investigation, 
the Chinese IA has fully insured the rights of the interested parties to respond. On 
10 February 2015, a public hearing was held upon requests submitted and interested parties from 
Japan, Thailand and Singapore attended and presented their arguments accordingly. The IA would give proper consideration to any arguments made by the Japanese interested parties as well as 
other parties and carry out the investigation in line with WTO rules. Lastly, on the PVC review, it 
was initiated according to a properly documented application from the domestic industry. China encouraged the interested parties of Japan to participate and cooperate in the investigation so that 
their views and arguments could be known to the IA of China.  G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 6 - 
 
  34.  On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic , the Chair noted that the 
Dominican Republic has provided written answers2 to the written questions3 posed by Turkey. He 
also noted the corrigendum from the Dominican Republic introducing some modifications to the measures in force annex of its semi-annual report.  
35.  Turkey submitted that the answers by the Dominican Republic were neither sufficient nor 
substantial. Turkey reiterated that the impositi on of a country-wide definitive measure where one 
of the cooperating parties had a minus 0.49% dumping margin, was a clear violation of the 
prevailing provision of the AD Agreement.  
36.  The Dominican Republic took note of the comments made by Turkey and referred to its replies 
in document G/ADP/Q2/DOM/2. 37.  On the semi-annual report of the European Union ("EU"), China raised concerns on the 
simultaneous AD and countervailing investigation conducted by the EU on stainless steel cold 
r o l l e d  f l a t  p r o d u c t s  ( " S S C R " )  f r o m  C h i n a .  F i r s t ,  t h e  E u r o p e a n  C o m m i s s i o n ' s  ( " E C " )  d e c i s i o n  t o  include precision strip in the product scope lacked reasonable support. Precision strip has 
dissimilar characteristics, uses and production facili ties compared with SSCR so that it should have 
been excluded from the product scope. Second, The EC chose the US as the analogue country, while China and the US are quite dissimilar in terms of production processes and sourcing of raw 
materials. China believed that the analogue count ry should be a country or region with similar 
economic development level, market and product situations. Third, China considered the EC's injury analysis to be flawed. In the preliminary determination, the aggregated data for all nine 
EU producers was used as macro-economic indicators, while data of four sampled producers was 
used as micro-economic indicators. The separate  examination of the macro and micro economic 
indicators would not lead to accurate and object ive findings. In addition, the EC had not fully 
considered the effects of the price fluctuation of nickel and chromium on prices of SSCR. On the 
causal link issue, the EC failed to examine the effects of exports from India, South Africa and 
Korea which have similar prices compared with Chinese exports. Therefore, China requested the EU to fully consider the arguments made by the Chinese interested parties and reach a reasonable 
and fair conclusion.  
38.  Japan commented on the EU's AD investigation on grain oriented electrical steel (GOES). In 
this investigation, the EU decided to investigate almost all third countries that produce and export 
GOES. Japan would have supported this if the EU imposed AD duties ("ADDs") on all imports, but 
in this case, the output of the EU producers would not be enough for the entire territory of the EU. 
In particular, the amount of the high quality product would be insufficient for the demand in the 
EU territory and if the EU decided to impose ADDs  on all the imports from countries outside the EU 
it might weaken the EU's industrial competitivene ss and some industrial users in the EU might be 
forced to move their manufacturing bases overseas. Japan noted that the exporters had made studious efforts to respond to the questionnaires and facilitate verification, and that the industrial 
users had submitted their views. Japan requested the EU to take into account the views of 
interested parties including those of industrial users.  
39.  The Russian Federation expressed disappoin tment regarding the continued use of the cost 
adjustment methodology by the EU in AD investigations, an EU practice that is being challenged by 
several Members in WTO dispute settlement. The EU was yet to show willingness to bring its 
practice into compliance with WTO rules. Following an expiry review, the EC extended the ADD on ammonium nitrate imported from the Russian Federation for five additional years. The level of 
duty, which was previously calculated with adjustment of energy costs, remained the same. 
Adherence to this practice was also demonstrated by the EU during the partial interim review of AD measures on certain seamless pipes and tubes from the Russian Federation, and during the 
expiry review of AD measures on imports of  welded tubes and pipes originating in the 
Russian Federation. As in the case of ammoni um nitrate, the measures were extended for 
additional five years with the same level of duty calculated earlier using the adjusted energy costs. 
Considering these facts, the Russian Federation reiterated that the cost adjustment methodology 
was inconsistent with the commitments of the EU under the AD Agreement, certain provisions of 
GATT and other WTO agreements. It requested the EU to abstain from applying such practices 
                                               
2 G/ADP/Q2/DOM/2. 
3 G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1. G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 7 - 
 
  during the ongoing AD investigation on aluminium foils and GOES originating in the 
Russian Federation.  
40.  The Russian Federation added that apart fr om breaching WTO rules by using such practices 
applied to non-market economies, the EU violated the AD Agreement and has not adhered to the 
basic WTO principle of non-discrimination. This was illustrated during the expiry review of the 
AD measures on certain welded tubes imported from  the Russian Federation. First, after the period 
of gradual reduction of imports, the Russian goods considered in 2013 constituted only 0.46% of 
EU consumption of such goods, which made the co nclusion of the EC on alleged injury doubtful. 
Secondly, the dynamics of imports of these goods from the Russian Federation were similar to those of the other WTO Member, whose imports were, however, excluded from the expiry review. The Russian Federation failed to understand why its exports were treated differently. It also found 
it discriminatory that the EC decided to terminate the measure only with respect to welded tubes 
originating in Ukraine, notwithstanding the EC's own findings of the existence of likely dumping during the investigation period from all exporting parties, including Ukraine. Furthermore, the EC 
did not take into account the significant increase  of welded tubes imports from India and Turkey 
during the review investigation period. For the likely continuation or recurrence of injury tests, the Russian Federation believed that this was an essential factor which had a much more destructive 
effect on the EU's producers. Having disregarded this factor, the EC came to incorrect findings 
regarding the causal link analysis and has thus failed to fulfil the requirements of Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement. Since the ADDs were imposed by the EU for approximately 12 years, the fact that the EU's industry has not yet recovered from the injury could demonstrate that the injury was 
caused by factors other than dumped imports. The Russian Federation urged the EU to consider all 
relevant factors that caused injury to the EU's domestic producers and to adhere to the WTO principles and agreements in conducting the investigations and reviews.  
41.  On China's comments pertaining to stainless steel cold rolled products where there were 
parallel AD and anti-subsidy investigations, the EU explained that the product scope issue raised 
was duly addressed in the implementing regulati on no.501-2015 precisely in recitals 30 and 31. 
On China's concerns regarding the analogue country, this issue was also addressed in this 
regulation. In this respect, the US was chosen as the analogue country because the EC viewed it as a competitive market, while the Chinese Taipei  market was dominated by one player and the 
level of consumption was much lower than in the US or Chinese markets. On China's comments 
regarding the separate analysis of macro and micro indicators, it was argued by the 
Chinese exporters that all injury indicators should  be analysed on the same basis; i.e. based on 
the information supplied by the sampled union producers. However, the EC was of the opinion that 
it was not warranted to disregard information available for certain injury indicators simply because 
it was not available for other injury indicators. Indeed, it was more important and more relevant to use all available information because this made the injury analysis more precise. On the causal link 
and the price fluctuations issues, these were also duly addressed in the provisional regulations 
and, of course, the Chinese exporters or the Chinese government would be invited to make comments which would be properly addressed in the course of the investigation.  
42.  On the concerns raised by Japan in relation to the ongoing investigation on GOES, the EU 
explained that this investigation was underway. The AD Agreement allowed the initiation of an 
investigation where there is prima facie evidence of dumping, which the EC had in this case concerning a number of countries. With regard to the comments on the inadequate supply by the 
EU of quality products and the product in question, the EU recalled that the purpose of the 
AD instrument is to address allegations and findings of dumping and resulting injury to domestic industry. However, the EU applied a public interest test which was not required by the 
AD Agreement, but nevertheless these issues raised  by interested parties in the context of the 
investigation would be duly addressed.  
43.  On the questions raised by the Russian Federation concerning the cost adjustment 
methodology, the EU acknowledged this to be the subject of an on-going dispute in the WTO and 
asserted that its application of the regulation would be in full conformity with the WTO 
requirements. On the Russian Federation's comments on the welded tubes investigation where the EU was accused of breaching the non-discrimination principle, the EU submitted that the fact that 
there were only 0.47% of the Russian market shar e in welded tubes market in the EU does not 
exclude the fact that it may be likely that the Russian imports would continue to be dumped and be likely to cause injury to the EU's industry, which was the conclusion of the investigation in this 
case. It referred the Russian Federation to re gulation no. 110 of 26 January 2015, where also the G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 8 - 
 
  issue of why the EC does not foresee a likelihood of recurrence of dumping or injury for Ukraine 
was explained. This issue was properly addressed and analysed in this regulation and all the comments of the Russian exporters were, if any, also addressed. 
44.  On the semi-annual report of India , the EU addressed two AD investigations pertaining to 2-
ethyl hexanol and butanol, respectively. These investigations were similar because the 
complainant was the same and both products were produced from the same raw material, propylene. The EU saw no causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and any injury. It 
was concerned that any ADDs would be used just to remedy injury caused by other factors and 
certainly not by dumped imports. The fact is that the supplier of the raw material, propylene, had difficulties in 2013 and 2014 caused by a fire accident and could not supply sufficient raw material and this led to a loss of production of 212 days for the complainant. Lack of causal link was also 
confirmed by an analysis of the injury indicators as  profit started to decrease before an increase in 
imports and the complainant's production and sales increased in line with increasing demand. The real difficulties occurred only in 2013-2014 due to the lack of raw material. The EU regretted that 
these two investigations were initiated because these were clearly cases where the injury was 
caused by other factors than the allegedly dumped imports and should therefore be terminated immediately. The EU had already filed a detailed su bmission and was confident that the Indian IA 
would terminate the investigation in full compliance with India's WTO obligations. The EU would 
continue to closely follow developments in these investigations.  
45.  Korea, Republic of raised concerns over India's recent determinations to impose ADDs on 
acetone and purified terephthalic acid as well as the initiation of an AD investigation on phenol 
originating from Korea. The Indian IA decided no t to determine and grant individual margins to 
Korean producers claiming that the value chains of the exports were incomplete since unrelated trading companies had not filed exporter questionnaire responses. First, it cannot be justified to 
require that the entire value chain from producer  to exporter and/or consumer be completely 
established as a prerequisite for the determination of the individual margin. Nowhere in the AD Agreement is the term value chain used or required. In this regard, the IA is required to construct 
the export price based on the price to the first independent buyer whether located in or outside 
India and the IA should adopt the same for computing dumping margins. Korea submitted that such an interpretation was erroneous and arbitrary and should be reconsidered. Second, Article 6.8 provided that an IA may resort to facts available only where a party refuses access to 
or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period or significantly 
impedes the investigation. In other words, an IA is not entitled to disregard the submitted information and use the information from another source whenever the specific considerations of 
Article 6.8 and Annex 2 have not been established. In this particular case, however, India based 
its determinations on the facts available treating Korean producers and exporters as non-cooperative even though they had provided comple te information in response to the query raised 
by the IA. In addition, it is unreasonable to deem  Korean producers and exporters to be affiliated 
with unrelated companies located in third countries of which Korean companies have no control at all. The Korean companies simply delivered the prod ucts to India on the request of sellers in the 
third countries. Korea believed that it was inconsistent with the AD Agreement to reject the 
information provided by the Korean companies on the grounds that information has not been 
submitted on unrelated parties. Korea hoped that India would take its concerns into consideration while conducting its investigation on imports of the subject product.  
46.  Ukraine referred to India's AD investigation and measures imposed on sodium nitrate. This 
investigation was initiated on 5 June 2013 and th e final decision was taken on 10 February 2015 
after final findings were reached on 9 January 2015. Ukraine requested India to explain whether 
this investigation, which was conducted during a period exceeding 18 months, was in compliance 
with Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement. On 19 March 2014, India published a decision to impose provisional measures on imports of sodium nitrate under two customs headings. Along with this, according to the semi-annual reports, India imposed provisional measures on imports of sodium 
nitrate under a single customs heading. Ukraine requested India to clarify the coverage of the 
measure taken. In addition, some relevant economic factors and indexes of the domestic industry indicated positive growth trends comparing the period 2009-2010 where production increased by 
31.8%, plant capacity increased by 25% and domestic sales increased by 47%. Such dynamics 
definitely confirmed the stable and positive deve lopment of the domestic industry and the absence 
of injury. India failed to prove the existence of inju ry to the domestic industry as well as a causal 
link between injury and dumped imports, pu rsuant to the Articles 3.4 and 3.5 of the 
AD Agreement. Taking into account such fact s, Ukraine requested India to explain how the G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 9 - 
 
  provisional and definitive measures complied with Articles 3.4, 3.5 and 5.8 of the AD Agreement. 
Ukraine concluded that the AD investigation on imports of sodium nitrate originating in or exported inter alia  from the Ukraine was conducted in violation of Articles 5.8, 5.10 and 12.2 of the 
AD Agreement and called on India to abolish the measures. Ukraine indicated that it would forward 
these questions in writing to India.  
47.  India indicated that the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties ("DGAD"), has 
been following the procedures laid down in the AD Agreement and the corresponding domestic 
rules and Members were free to make representations before the DGAD. India requested all 
affected Members to participate in the investigation process and discuss such matters with the DGAD before the final findings are issued. On Ukraine's observation that the investigation on sodium nitrate has exceeded the 18 month time-period, India noted that the investigation was 
initiated on 5 June 2013 and the final findings we re issued on 12 November 2014 which was well 
within the 18 month time-period. India requested to receive specific queries on any specific product in writing.  
48.  On the semi-annual report of Indonesia,  the US referred to a statement by high level 
Indonesian officials indicating that Indonesia intends to use the ADD mechanism as a way to 
address its current balance of payments issue. The US explained that this is not the purpose of 
AD instrument which is a WTO-consistent way to address sales made at less than normal value 
and which are causing material injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry. It requested Indonesia to explain how what has been reported to have represented the intended use of AD, is 
consistent with the principle referred to by the US.  
49.  Korea, Republic of raised concerns over In donesia's AD sunset review investigation on hot 
rolled coil from Korea. It is evident from Arti cle 11.3 of the AD Agreement that the purpose of 
conducting a sunset review is to determine whether or not to terminate ADDs which are already in 
place. More specifically, through the sunset review  process, an IA might not increase the amount 
of ADDs in effect by newly imposing ADDs on an exporter that was not subject to the ADD prior to the sunset review. Moreover, in the Mexico – Beef and Rice case,  the Appellate Body confirmed 
that as a logical consequence of excluding exporters found not to be dumping above the de 
minimis  levels, those exporters may not be subject to an administrative or a changed 
circumstances review. Accordingly, Korean exporter s excluded from definitive AD measures should 
not be subjected to any subsequent review, including the sunset review. Korea requested 
Indonesia to take its concerns into consideration while conducting the sunset review on hot rolled 
coil. 
50.  Turkey  submitted  that on 27 August 2014, the Committee on Anti-Dumping of Indonesia 
("KADI") initiated an investigation against wheat flour from Turkey, Sri Lanka and India. Since the 
year 2000, KADI had initiated many trade remedies investigations against wheat flour. To be more specific, KADI had so far initiated five AD investigations on the same product, against Australia, 
the EU and United Arab Emirates ("UAE") in 2000; against China; India and the UAE in 
March 2004; against the UAE in September 2004; against Australia; Sir Lanka and Turkey in 2008 which was terminated by KADI four years after its initiation without the imposition of any measures against Turkey, Sri Lanka or India; and a safeguard investigation against the same 
product in 2012. Since 2000, the same complainant has been filing, every four years, a petition 
against wheat flour imports. Considering that fina l safeguard measures in the form of quota ended 
on 4 December 2014, Turkey was highly concerned that the complainant was still trying to 
maintain a closed market by submitting the current petition for this investigation. Regarding this 
petition, Turkey underlined two important points . First, while Article 3.2 of AD Agreement 
necessitated a significant increase in dumped imports in the determination of injury, the imports 
from the alleged countries, namely Turkey, India and Sri Lanka continued to decrease during the 
investigation period. Second, while Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement necessitated the deterioration of the domestic industry's economic indicators, the economic indicators in this case showed a 
positive trend in general. Therefore, the petiti oner's claims of dumping, injury and causal 
relationship were unsubstantiated.  
51.  The Russian Federation expressed concern regarding the definitive AD measure imposed by 
Indonesia on imports of hot rolled coil products, extended in 2013 as a result of a sunset review 
and currently in force. In this case, the determination of threat of material injury was not based on 
positive evidence. During the period of injury determination which was 2008-2011, the total volume of allegedly dumped imports into the In donesian market decreased by 34%. Therefore, G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 10 - 
 
  reduction in imports of hot rolled coil products could not have caused a negative effect on prices of 
the like products in the domestic market. In addi tion, during the period of injury determination, 
the growth in production and productivity by 10% as  well as the increase in production facilities 
by 20% illustrated positive trends in the development of the Indonesian domestic industry. 
Accordingly, the decision to extend the measures  was not based on sufficient grounds and should 
be reviewed in full compliance with WTO standards with respect to the dumping and injury determinations.  
52.  On the comments made by the US, Indonesi a referred to the bilateral consultations and 
requested the US to provide the press report quot ing the Indonesian Minister of Finance. With 
respect to all other comments made, it explained that Indonesia's procedures for the initiation of an investigation and the extension of measures were consistent with its obligations and WTO rules. 
It requested Members to submit their concerns in writing. 
53.  Korea, Republic of indicated that it has already transmitted a letter through its Embassy in 
Jakarta for Indonesia's favourable consideration.  
54.  The US indicated that it would share the press article with Indonesia in due course.  
55.  On the semi-annual report of Korea , the US posed a question about the recently expired 
measure on imports of craft paper from the US and other countries. While it welcomed the 
expiration of this measure through the normal ex piry review process due to lack of domestic 
industry interest in maintaining the measure, it inquired whether Korea had a practice whereby such expirations were not published. Korea has lo ng been a proponent of transparency in trade 
remedy proceedings, particularly in AD, so it was somewhat puzzling as to why such an important 
development related to a specific measure was not made more widely known.  
56.  Korea, Republic of noted that it had bilateral consultations on this question with the US at 
which it provided clarification. The ADD on craft paper was extended in April 2012 for 3 years with 
a public notice that specified the date of termin ation as 9 April 2015. The ADD was terminated that 
day. It added that Korea would not conduct a revi ew unless there was a specific request from an 
interested party. No such request has been made in this case and no review was conducted. It 
understood the US' concern and indicated its openness to further discussion on the question of 
public notice with the US.  
57.  On the semi-annual report of Mexico , the Russian Federation expressed its concerns 
regarding AD measures on certain steel products imported from the Russian Federation, namely 
thick hot rolled coils, thin hot rolled coils, thick hot rolled plate and cold rolled coils. These 
measures were imposed more than 15 years ago and subsequent reviews and the determinations of dumping were carried out on the basis of the so-called non-market economy methodology; 
i.e. the information provided by the Russian pr oducers was disregarded and data from the third 
markets was taken as the basis for calculation of the dumping margins. Three out of four measures concerned were applied at the same level of duties as those at the WTO accession 
of the Russian Federation. As for the ongoing review of the measure on thin hot rolled coils, it 
urged Mexico to consider properly the use in its determinations of information provided by Russian producers. Moreover, it expected that in the course of ongoing and future reviews, Mexico 
would reconsider its dumping determinations based on discriminatory non-market economy 
methodologies to bring them in line with its WTO obligations.  
58.  The US commented on Mexico's preliminary determination in the AD investigation on 
ammonium sulphate from the US. Respondents submitted extensive comments regarding the 
preliminary determination on, for example, the need for full disclosure of aggregated data on 
which the preliminary determination was based, the nature of the dumping calculation, the nature of Mexico's examination of the conditions of competition for cumulation and injury purposes and 
consistency in the use of domestic industry's data when looking at injury. It trusted Mexico to 
evaluate those comments carefully and give them full consideration in the final determination.  
59.  On the comments made by the Russian Federation, Mexico referred to various bilateral 
discussions at which Mexico stressed the need and timeliness to have exporters and 
Russian companies participating in the reviews carried out in Mexico, but thus far it had not 
received a favourable response. It urged Russian companies to participate more in order to have a G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 11 - 
 
  determination which would be favourable for both countries. With respect to the comments made 
by the US, Mexico confirmed that it would of course be taken into account and that all information and comments made would be taken into account if they were in line with the relevant WTO provisions. 
60.  On the semi-annual report of Morocco , Turkey made a statement regarding the AD measures 
imposed against imports of hot rolled steel sheet s from Turkey. On 12 August  2014; the Minister 
of Industry, Commerce, Investment and Numerical Economy of the Kingdom of Morocco published 
its final determination regarding the AD investigation on imports of hot rolled steel sheets 
originating in Turkey and the EU, which was initiated on 21 January 2013. The Ministry determined to apply an AD measure of 11% ad valorem duty for the Turkish exporters. This measure entered 
into force on 2 October 2014 following its publicat ion in the official gazette of Morocco. Turkey 
repeatedly raised its concerns during the whole investigation procedure especially during the 
official hearings, bilateral meetings and submitted its technical views. First, Turkey stated that 
Morocco's final determination, which was based on the determination of non-cooperation and 
verification of facts available, was unacceptable as the relevant Turkish exporters were in full 
cooperation with the Ministry in each and every step of the investigation, by questionnaire responses, on the spot verification, etc. Second, the final disclosure providing the basis for the 
final decision of the IA was not disclosed in a timely manner so as to give the exporters the 
opportunity to defend themselves inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, 
the import surveillance system that was implemente d by the IA in parallel with the investigation 
concerned could be considered as a specific acti on against dumping of exports in violation of 
Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement. Furthermore, considering that the investigation was initiated on 
21 January 2013 and the final determination was ma de on 12 August 2014, Turkey believed that 
the duration of the investigation was inconsistent with Article 5.10 of AD Agreement, which states 
that investigations shall, except in special circumstances, be concluded within one year, and in no 
case more than 18 months after the initiation. The decision of Morocco to apply an AD measure on Turkish exporters was entirely inconsistent with WTO rules and jurisprudence. Turkey reserved its 
rights under the relevant WTO agreements, includin g taking the issue to WTO dispute settlement.  
61.  Morocco submitted that Turkish exporters were not subject to provisional measures unlike 
other European exporters, as the IA didn't have  the elements necessary to apply a provisional 
duty. However, during the investigation, it was seen that a major volume of imports to Morocco 
was from Turkey through traders, not through Turkish producers directly. At that point, following 
an investigation carried out with respect to those exporters and a further investigation in which the Moroccan statistical data institutes were involved, it was seen that imports through traders came 
directly from Turkish producers and exporters. At that point, there was documented evidence of 
lack of cooperation by Turkish exporters which re sulted in them being subjected to the measure. 
Morocco exceeded the 12 month period for this  investigation due to the complexity of the 
investigation, but it was nonetheless carried out within the 18 months and the final determination 
was issued within that period. On the surveillance system, it is a pre-import declaration system, not a specific measure which could by any means limit imports of goods subject to the investigation. It explained that before importin g, the importer would submit the data to the 
Ministry in charge of the investigation so that it would have prior knowledge of the amount 
imported. However, no further requirements, permits, or prior authorization would limit importation. It is not a measure, but a parallel procedure to the investigation enabling the Ministry 
to have an early warning for statistical purposes. 
62.  On the semi-annual report of South Africa , the EU raised concerns regarding South Africa's 
AD investigation on frozen chicken from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom where 
measures were imposed in February 2015. It referred to certain issues identified during the 
investigation, which, in the EU's view, were not sufficiently addressed by South Africa's IA. On the dumping determination, the EU expressed concer n over the lack of transparency. In this 
connection, the information on adjustments was not disclosed, not even following several 
comments and requests. Concerning injury and causal link, the EU was concerned that its 
submissions relating to the market share movement s were not addressed. Furthermore, the IA did 
not disclose details of the price undertaking calculat ions despite the EU's several requests to do so 
and where it was unclear whether the IA had made all the necessary adjustments to ensure fair 
comparison. The IA eventually concluded that th ere was price suppression, but never replied to 
the EU's requests to analyse the reasons for the significant increase in the cost of production. 
While the EU was disappointed that the issues raised remained unaddressed despite being 
particularly relevant for causality which remained questionable in this case, it strongly encouraged G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 12 - 
 
  South Africa to better address issues raised by the parties in any future dumping investigations, 
thus observing transparency and right of defence for the interested parties.  
63.  South Africa took note of the comment s made by the EU to convey to the IA. 
64.  On the semi-annual report of Turkey , the US expressed concern over the many procedural 
and substantive problems with Turkey's self-initiated AD investigation of cotton from the US. 
US raised its concerns directly with the Ministry of Economy on 4 December 2014 and again on 5 March 2015 and had not received any response. The US reminded Turkey of its commitment to 
conduct its investigation fairly, objectively and consistently with WTO rules and to ensure that it 
would give full consideration to the argu ments made by all interested parties.  
65.  Turkey took note of the statement made by the US to convey to capital. 
66.  On the semi-annual report of Ukraine , the Russian Federation made two statements. First, 
the Russian Federation expressed concerns regard ing Ukraine's ongoing partial interim review of 
the AD measure on float glass imported from the Russian Federation. The review was initiated with the aim of readjusting the existing ADD for protection of the only Ukrainian float glass producer, 
the Lysychansk Glass Factory Proletariy. The review investigation period was the second half year 
period of 2013 and the first half year period of 2014. However, the injury has actually been caused 
by factors other than dumped imports. The work of the factory was stopped on 2 April 2013, which 
was before the start of the review investigation period. The reasons were related to outdated 
technology, state of funds, cash delivery system and debts. Thus, imports of float glass from the 
Russian Federation were not the source of injury to the Ukrainian domestic industry. In fact, due to lack of production during the review investigation period there was no domestic industry within 
the meaning of Article 4 of the AD Agreement, as  such. Therefore, the ADD in question was no 
longer necessary since, as provided for in Article 11 of the AD Agreement, the ADD shall remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping causing injury.  
67.  Second, the Russian Federation expressed co ncern over the extension of the AD measure on 
point works from the Russian Federation. The peri od of application of the measure was extended 
by five years on 29 November 2014 following the expiry review. Some of the provisions of the 
AD Agreement were violated during the investigation. In determining likeness of the point works 
produced in Ukraine and those imported from  the Russian Federation, the IA disregarded 
important characteristics of the point works reflected under different project numbers in construction documents. Such characteristics included different methods of production of the point 
and the frock of the point works. These characteristics are substantial since the end use of 
products with different project numbers varied considerably, hence the actual difference in method of production of point works and the distinction of the end use would have deemed the imported 
and domestically produced point works not to be alike in all respects or to have characteristics 
closely resembling those of each other as provided for in Article 2.6 of the AD Agreement. It expressed doubts with respect to compliance with the dumping determination during the review 
and requested Ukraine to double check its findings. It also urged Ukraine to adhere properly to the 
WTO standards when determining likeness of products in the future.  
68.  Ukraine took note of the issues rais ed to convey to capital and requested the 
Russian Federation to provide its comments in writing. 
69.  On the semi-annual report of the US, Japan reiterated its concern on the use of US 
AD measures. The US had 15 measures in force against Japanese products. Five of these were 
more than 20 years old and the oldest was around 36 years old having been in force since 1978. 
Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulated that an y definitive ADD shall be terminated on a date 
not later than 5 years unless the authorities determine in a sunset review that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to a continuati on or recurrence of dumping and injury. The 
Appellate Body determined that affirmative likelihood determination may be made only if the 
evidence demonstrated that dumping would be prob able if the duty was terminated and not simply 
if the evidence suggested that such a result ma y be possible or plausible. However, in about 
100 sunset review cases against Japan's exports, there was no case of denying continuation or 
recurrence of dumping. As a result, the exporters had less incentive to participate in sunset review 
proceedings. Japan requested the US to swiftly revoke these unjustifiably long measures. G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 13 - 
 
  70.   Norway indicated that although it was no t subject to any of the actions mentioned in the 
semi-annual report of the US, it wished to raise a systemic concern and join Japan in expressing 
concerns regarding the length of US AD measures. It also referred to the concerns raised about the length of other Members' measures which reflected the way in which the sunset review 
provisions were applied by certain Members resulting in the extension of the AD after being 
imposed for 5 years, despite the original intention of the negotiators. Given the realities of the market place, it was highly unlikely that an expo rter could continue dumping for over an extended 
period of 5 years or more. If this was the case, it would probably reflect a fundamental problem 
with the calculation of normal values which did not reflect market realities. It encouraged all Members to remain true to the balance of interests contained in Article 11.1 of the AD Agreement.  
71.  On the comments made by Japan, the US reiterated that it did not see any basis for Japan's 
complaints. The expiry proceedings conducted by the US were consistent with its obligations under 
the AD Agreement. Japan seemed to imply that older measures were no longer valid merely because they were old. The purpose of the expi ry proceeding was to allow the IA to examine 
whether dumping and injury would be likely to co ntinue or recur if the measures were removed. 
The US expiry process was evidentiary-based and participation of the Japanese companies in the 
expiry proceedings would be helpful both in terms of the relevant information to be provided and 
the arguments to be made by interested parties. Furthermore, many measures involving Japanese 
exports had in fact been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry reviews there had been 
64 measures reviewed involving Japan. Of these, 51, i.e. 80%, had resulted in termination of the measures. For the oldest measures that remained in effect, pre-stressed concrete steel wire 
stranded carbon steel butt well pipe fitting, th e Japanese industry had failed to meaningfully 
participate in any sunset review proceeding. Lack of the respondents' participation and the consequent lack of evidence provided by the respondents, would limit the information provided to 
the IA. In other words, Japanese producers might th emselves be partly responsible for the results. 
In many of the expiry proceedings which includ ed both Japan and other Members, respondents 
from other Members had meaningfully participated in the review and had made relevant 
arguments as to why the measures should be terminated as applied to their specific country and 
the relevant measures were terminated. It urged Japan to conduct inquiries within its own industries as to why there was a lack of interest in participation in the process, particularly given that participation had been a vital element in the termination of other Members' measures that 
also included Japan. In response to Norway, the US  took note of the general systemic concern.   
72.  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. 
73.  The Committee took note of the semi-annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided. 
4  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS 
74.  The Chair referred to the no tifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/264, 266, 267, 268, 
269 and 270. During this period, the following Memb ers have notified preliminary and/or final AD 
actions: Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Egypt; the EU; Guatemala; India; Japan; 
Korea; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Russian Federation; South Africa; Trinidad 
and Tobago; Turkey; Ukraine; the US and Vietnam. Since document G/ADP/N/270 was circulated, Argentina, Australia; Canada; Egypt; India; Japan; Mexico, Pakistan; Peru; Turkey and the US had 
submitted such a notification, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
75.  Korea, Republic of expressed concerns over the EU's AD investigation on GOES originating 
from Korea. First, Article 3.4 of the AD Agreemen t states that the examination of the impact of 
dumped imports on the domestic industry shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic 
factors and indices, including whether there is actual and potential decline in market share. It should be noted that Korean imports are competing with the product from foreign sources in the high end market, instead of displacing the product manufactured in the EU. Statistics in the 
application showed that the EU industry's ma rket share increased by 2.5% between 2012 and 
2013, while Korea's imports increased by 40%. This implied that the Korean product did not replace the product manufactured by the EU's indu stry, and that Korea's imports did not cause any 
material injury to that industry. Indeed, there ex isted a view, even within the EU, that the EU's 
industry no longer needed the protection of ADDs . Second, the global market price of the product G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 14 - 
 
  was rising rapidly and in light of the current mark et situation, the imposition of an AD measure 
was likely to have an adverse effect on downstream industries and consumers in the EU. Such a measure would substantially weaken the comp etitiveness of the EU's power transformer 
manufacturers, who largely depend on imports of the product from foreign sources. Korean high 
quality products contributed to the development of technologies to produce eco-friendly and 
energy efficient transformers, which is in line wi th the EU's energy policy. Korea requested the EC 
to conduct a fair and objective investigation in compliance with the AD Agreement and taking into 
account all the relevant information. 
76.  On the GOES investigation, the EU indicated that the case is currently pending and submitted 
that the initiation and conduct of the investigation were carried out in full respect of its legal 
obligations under the AD Agreement and the basic regulation of the EU. The particular concerns 
raised by Korea would be addressed in any document, if the EU decided to adopt them, with 
respect to both the public interest aspect and the injury side of the investigation.  
77.  The EU raised two investigations carried out by Australia  and Brazil , respectively. On the 
investigation conducted by Australia , it explained that on 19 January 2015, Australia initiated a 
new AD investigation on prepared or preserved tomatoes originating in the EU. This investigation was limited to two exporters, for which no dumping was established in a comparable investigation 
on the same product concluded in April 2014. While the AD Agreement did not foresee any 
limitations regarding the reopening of an investigation within this time-period, attention of the Australian IA should be drawn to paragraph 7.1 of the Doha Ministerial decision, which stated that IAs shall examine with special care, any application for the initiation of an AD investigation where 
an investigation of the same product, from the same Member, resulted in a negative finding, 
within the 365 days prior to the filing of the application and that unless this pre-initiation 
examination, indicates that the circumstances have changed, the investigation shall not proceed. 
However, Australia has initiated this investigation in such a short time-period, following the 
original closure of the case. The two exporters affe cted by this case had fully cooperated during 
the original investigation, but would now need to again spend resources, time and money, to reply 
to questionnaires and cooperate in this investigation on the same product in less than a year. The 
EU urged Australia to refrain from such practices which would have an impact on trade flows from the EU.  
78.  The second investigation related to exports of emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber from the EU 
which Brazil  initiated in February 2014. This investigation closely followed on from a previous 
investigation on the same product, which was initiated, but concerned imports from both the EU and Argentina. However, that investigation was abruptly terminated. Thereafter, the investigation 
was shortly reopened but this time excluding Argentina and including only imports from the EU. 
This was an issue of concern as to why Argentina was excluded and why the EU would appear to have been targeted. On the injury front, it woul d appear that overall the Brazilian industry has 
been doing relatively well. The EU expressed concerns over the insufficient disclosure of the results 
at the end of the investigation which has now been finalized and the Department of Trade Remedies ("DECOM") has already sent its recommendation to the Council of Ministers of the Chamber of Foreign Trade ("CAMEX") to take th e final decision. The EU's exporters had only 
received some basic information concerning the dumping margin calculations, but had not had 
access to full details. As a result, they were not aware of what the final duty would be if duties were imposed. The EU urged Brazil to reconsider this investigation and to take into account the 
EU's concerns.  
79.  Australia explained that that the issue raised by the EU pertained to the ongoing 
AD investigation into the alleged dumping of preserved and prepared tomatoes from two 
Italian exporters and that it was also raised in recent discussions in Brussels and in a submission 
made regarding this investigation. This investigation is a new investigation which follows a properly documented application from an Austra lian industry. In making an assessment about 
whether or not to initiate the investigation, the ADC properly considered the evidence provided in 
the application and all relevant information which included information relating to previous 
investigations. At this stage, no findings have been made in this investigation and the ADC invited further submissions from the EU on this particular  issue. The statement of essential facts for this 
investigation was due to be issued on 9 May 20 15, unless extended, and any views provided on 
that particular statement would be taken into account. Interested parties would also have 20 days to make further submissions in response to that statement.  G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 15 - 
 
  80.  Brazil explained that it had initiated the inve stigation on emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber in 
February and terminated it two months later. Upon conducting on-spot verification on the 
premises of the Brazilian producer of the rubb er Lanxess Company, inconsistencies between the 
information presented to DECOM and the figures found  at the time had led the IA to terminate the 
investigation. The domestic industry was requested to update its information and file a new 
petition with DECOM. Upon lodging its new petition , the domestic industry requested the initiation 
only for the EU and excluded Argentina. As a gene ral rule, DECOM would be restricted to what the 
petitioners request.  
81.  On the initiation itself and bearing in mind paragraph 7.1 of the Doha Ministerial decision, 
Brazil found no reference in the current AD Agreement which would prohibit any Member to initiate an investigation if another one on the same product was just terminated, even if there was a 
negative determination of dumping, injury or causal link, which was not the case in this 
investigation. It was just a question of obtaining the correct information from the domestic producer. In terms of injury, there was no undercu tting in case of the EU's product exported to 
Brazil, but depression of the price of the domest ic industry was found. In terms of disclosure, 
Brazil disagreed with the EU and explained that it  had disclosed the relevant information and that 
to disclose all the information, a final determination should be reached first. The calculations made 
for the dumping margins for each exporter were also included and made available to exporters. 
The figures used for the injury purposes were non- confidential figures pertaining to the volume of 
production, volume of sales, weighted average pr ice, and also the figures of turnover of the 
domestic industry. Such information was available to all interested parties. On the disclosure of the 
final duty, information might not be publically accessible as it might not be known yet whether a 
final measure would be applied or not. In case of the application of a lesser duty, it might also not be publically accessible, bearing in mind that the calculations might depend on very detailed 
information regarding imports and information obtained from the domestic industry. For that 
purpose, the IA should consider the different cate gories of the product, channels of distribution, 
the quantities of the like product sold in the do mestic market and the level of trade. This would 
entail that this information should not be made available to all interested parties as it could contain 
confidential information. 
82.  The Chair drew Members' attention to the cont inued apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency 
concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations. All Members taking AD actions were strongly urged to notify their preliminary and final actions, consistently and in a timely fashion. The 
minimum information format
4 contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information which should be provided. 
83.  Finally, the Chair reminded all Members that a given Ad hoc notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and on ly once to WTO CRN with a copy to the Secretary 
of the Committee and that any previously submitte d notifications should not be resubmitted. He 
also requested Members to verify the electronic lin ks provided to the Secretariat to make sure it 
would correspond to the notification submitted. He  emphasized the need to avoid any confusion, 
repetition or duplication as these notifications, which are circulated in monthly documents 
developed by the Secretariat, are the source of necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report. 
84.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
85.  The Chair reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met in the morning. 
The US submitted a new paper entitled 'Anti- Dumping Duty Evasion Services' and Members 
engaged in an interesting discussion. A number of delegations indicated that they were aware of 
such evasion, while other delegations were no t. Some delegations addressed the issue of 
circumvention through transhipment and misstatement of origin, and the Group discussed the 
extent to which such behaviour was subject to sanctions under existing legislation governing customs fraud, and the implications flowing from this.   
                                               
4 G/ADP/2/Rev.2. G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 16 - 
 
  86.  Regarding the process, the Chair explained that the Group had a new approach to the 
scheduling of meetings. First, if a paper was su bmitted by the relevant deadline, the Informal 
Group would be convened. This relevant deadline would usually be approximately 6 weeks before the actual meeting. The precise date would be identified in the "note from the Secretariat" 
circulated several weeks after each Committee meeting. Second, if no paper was received by that 
relevant deadline, the draft annotated agenda woul d so note and indicate that a meeting of the 
Group would be held only upon a delegation's request by the date for comments stated in that 
document. Third, if a delegation requested a meet ing by the date stated in the draft annotated 
agenda, a meeting would be convened by air gram as per current practice, but if no delegation 
made such a request, no meeting would be conv ened. Whether or not the informal group met, 
there would be a standing item on the agenda of the Committee's semi-annual meetings regarding 
the Group and delegations would be free to raise issues relative to the operation of the Group 
under that agenda item. The new approach was not intended to imply that the work of the Group 
was unimportant, but simply to achieve efficiency and avoid convoking meetings on occasions 
where no delegation had any point to discuss. In accordance with this new approach, should a 
paper be submitted or should any delegation otherwise request a meeting of the Informal Group, that meeting would be held back-to-back with the Autumn meeting of the Committee which would 
take place in the week of 26 October 2015 with the exact date to be confirmed later.
5  
87.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
6  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION 88.  The Chair reported that the Working Grou p on Implementation had met this morning to 
discuss how the work of the Group could be re-invigorated. Members agreed to test, on a trial 
basis at the autumn meeting of the Committee, a new approach for work with four main elements. First, a topic centred discussion. For the October meeting, the agreed topic would be 
administrative, arbitral and judicial review und er Article 13 of the AD Agreement. Second, a 
discussant would be assisting the Chair to facilitate the dialogue. It was agreed to ask Mr Justin Brown of Canada to serve as the discussant at that meeting. Third, deformalizing 
Members' submissions. These could be made either orally or through papers. Papers could either 
be a W document or a room document under documents for meetings on the Members' website or even a room document made available in the meeting room. Finally, general non-attributable summary report would be circulated by the Secr etariat following the meeting as per the current 
practice. Members agreed that shortly after the autumn meeting, the Chair would hold 
consultations on whether the new approach was helpful, whether Members wanted to apply it also in the spring 2016 meetings and if so, what the topic and who the discussant could be. Topics and 
discussants would have to be acceptable to all delegations. The Group agreed to schedule its next 
meeting for the week of 26 October 2015 with the exact date to be confirmed later.
6  
89.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
7  OTHER BUSINESS 90.  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. 
91.   The EU referred to the investigation initiated by Turkey  on 28 January 2015 concerning hot 
rolled coils from France, Romania and Slovakia. The EU believed that the grounds for initiation of 
the case were very weak and highlighted several issues. First, concerning dumping, the complaint 
did not contain sufficient information to establish the extent of alleged dumping and thus it was 
not possible for exporters targeted by this investigation to understand how normal value was calculated for them. Second, as far as injury is concerned, the information contained in the 
complaint was unclear and not sufficiently detailed. The information available pointed to structural 
problems of the Turkish industry, rather than to problems caused by dumped imports. Third, the 
EU expressed concern over the lack of informat ion and prime facie evidence concerning causal 
                                               
5 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the spring 2015 meeting can be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/492-G/SCM/W/564-G/SG/W/233. 
6 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the spring 2015 meeting can be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/492-G/SCM/W/564-G/SG/W/233. G/ADP/M/48 
 
- 17 - 
 
  link. Finally, it noted that imports from the EU foll owed a clearly decreasing trend, both in absolute 
and relative terms. The EU regretted the initiation of this investigation by Turkey on the basis of a complaint which included only basic information and was missing some key elements. The EU had already filed a detailed submission and trusted that the Turkish authorities would address its 
concerns properly during the investigation.  
92.  The Russian Federation expressed concern over the AD investigation initiated by Turkey  on 
28 January 2015 on flat hot rolled steel from the Russian Federation. Having analysed the 
application of Turkey's producers, it believed that it was not substantiated enough to initiate the 
investigation. In particular, the information on constructed normal value of the exported goods in the domestic market was concealed. The applicants didn’t even mention the source that was used for the calculation of this indicator and there was no opportunity to check whether the calculations 
were correct. It was also clear from the application that there was only one indicator of 
constructed normal value and no distinction was made between the countries of export. The same applied to the volume of imports of the goods in question. Such consolidation of indicators for all 
the exporting countries precluded the analysis of ca usal link between the injury and exports from a 
particular country, so there could be no accurate findings of causation. As was clear from the application, the share of the Russian goods in  the Turkish market decreased in 2014. This 
illustrated that exports from the Russian Federation  could hardly be the source of injury. Besides, 
not all the relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the Turkish industry were considered in the determination of causal link. Thus, the requ irements of Article 5.2(iv) of the AD Agreement 
were not met. The Russian Federation stressed that the application of the Turkish producers 
cannot be deemed as sufficient evidence for the start of the investigation. It requested Turkey to 
use more adequate evidence and conduct the investigation in compliance with WTO rules.  
93.  Turkey took note of the concerns raised to convey to capital.  
94.  Japan commented on China 's AD investigation on unbleached sack paper initiated in 
April 2015. Japan had doubts regarding the creditably and accuracy of the data included in the 
application. It requested China to ensure the transparency and due process and to conduct the 
investigation consistently with the AD Agreement.  
95.  China explained that this investigation had been initiated on 10 April 2015 and that it was at a 
very preliminary stage. It encouraged Japanese interested parties to participate actively in the 
investigation and cooperate with the IA, which would in turn take full notice and fully consider any 
comments and arguments made by the Japanese interested parties in this investigation and would 
also carry out the investigation in a transparent and fair manner in accordance with WTO rules.  
8  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
96.  The next autumn Regular meeting of the Committee will be held in the week of 
26 October 2015. 
9  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
97.  The Committee elected by acclamation Mr Hamed El Etreby (Egypt) as Chair and 
Mr Peira Shannon (Australia) as Vice-Chair to hold office until the end of the Committee's spring 
meeting of 2016. 
__________