RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/63  
 
16 June 2023  
(23-4123) Page: 1/27 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices  Original: English  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 3 MAY 2023 
CHAIR: MR. JUAN CARLOS ESTRELLA (ECUADOR)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on  
3 May 2023. 
2. As the meeting was held in person as well as virtually via Interprefy, the Chair  reminded 
Members of the different technical arrangements for participating remotely as reflected in the 
"Technical Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgra m convening the meeting.  
3. The Chair reiterated his request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that it could  update its contact details list, currently contained in 
document RD/ADP/3/Rev. 20. 
4. The Committ ee adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 39: 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – NEW NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ...................  2 
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations  
not previously reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental  
notifications of e xisting provisions not previously reviewed)  ................................ ..........  2 
1.1.1   Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.6)  ................................ ................................ ...........  2 
1.1.2   El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1.1.3   Iceland (G/ADP/N/1/ISL/2 - G/SCM/N/1/ISL/2)  ................................ .............................  3 
1.1.4   United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.16 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15)  ...................  3 
1.1.5   United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.32 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 - 
G/SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
1.2  Review of notifications of ne w or amended legislation or regulations with  
outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ ...............................  3 
1.2.1   Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  ................................ ....... 3 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  4 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2.1 United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12 -G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12; 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13; AND G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14)  ................................ ........  4 
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING  
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER  
THIS AGENDA ITEM AT PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  ................................ .............  4 G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.2 Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  ........  4 
2.3 European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2  
and G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.3)  ................................ ........  5 
2.4 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ...............  5 
2.5 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ..................  5 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/377/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: AD HOC NOTIFICATIONS  ... 20 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF  
THE INFORMALGROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ........................  22 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF  
THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................  22 
7 REPORTING BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE COMMITTEE ON  
THE REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ("CTG") ON  
THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE  RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC 
(DOCUMENTS G/L/1447 - G/ADP/30 & G/L/1448 - G/ADP/31) AND  
THE CONSULTATIONS HELD BY THE CHAIR OF THE CTG IN THIS REGARD  .....................  23 
8 NON-MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT IN ANTI -DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS  
– ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ .......................  25 
9 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 27 
10 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 27 
11 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ........................  27 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – NEW NOTIFICATIONS  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications  of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)1 
5. The Chair  indicated that i tems 1.1.1  through 1.1.5  of the agenda concern the review of new 
legislative notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee, the first of which had been 
submitted by Canada . He stated that, a s always, the reviews would be conducted in accordance 
with the relevant procedures adop ted by the Committee and described in 
document  G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1 . In addition, and pursuant to paragraph 8  of the same 
procedures, item  1.2 pertained  to the legislative notification of Saint Kitts and Nevis with 
outstanding written questions . 
6. The Chair ref erred to the past and future deadlines concerning the review of the new legislative 
notifications  as follows: any written questions were to be submitted to the Member concerned, and 
to the Secretariat by 11 April  2023 . Oral questions might have been asked at this meeting, and 
any Member wishing to receive a written  answer would  submit the questions asked orally also in 
writing, not later than 25 May 2023 . Written answers to all written questions should be submitted 
to the Member posing the questions, and to  the Secretariat by 15 June 2023 . 
 
1.1.1   Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl. 6) 
7. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
 
8. No statements were made by any Member.  
 
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
reviewed in the May 2023 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 510 - G/SCM/W/ 587 - 
G/SG/W/ 256. G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.2   El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2)  
9. Written questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/SLV/14 - G/SCM/Q1/SLV/14 - G/SG/Q1/SLV/13 – Questions from the 
United  States  
10. El Salvador  indicated that the questions had been conveyed to Capital and that it hope d to 
provide responses as soon as possible.  
11. The United States  indicated that it looked forward to receiving the written answers.  
12. Written answers were subsequently received , prior to the deadline, and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/SLV/ 15 - G/SCM/Q1/SLV/ 15 - G/SG/Q1/SLV/ 14 – Replies to the United State s  
1.1.3   Iceland ( G/ADP/N/1/ISL/2 - G/SCM/N/1/ISL/2 ) 
13. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
14. No statements were made by any Member.  
1.1.4   United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 6 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 5) 
15. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
16. No statements were made by any Member.  
1.1.5   United States ( G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/S uppl.32 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/S uppl.33 - 
G/SG/N/1/USA/1/S uppl.3) 
17. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
18. No statements were made by any Member.  
19. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions , and statements.  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written questions  
1.2.1   Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  
20. Written questions regarding this notification had been posed and could be fou nd in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KNA/1 – G/SCM/Q1/KNA/1 – Submitted by the United States  
21. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
22. Saint Kitts and Nevis was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been p rovided at 
the meeting, nor had written answers been received to date.  
23. No statements were made by any Member.  
24. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions and statement . G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE2 
25. The Chair  first recall ed the relevant procedures contained in document G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1 
and the deadlines. Members wishing to ask questions about notifications of legislation or regulations 
previously r eviewed by the Committee were to have submitted those questions in writing to the 
notifying Member and to the Secretariat no later than 20  March  2023. Members receiving such 
questions were to submit their written responses by close of business on 17  April 2023.  In this 
connection, questions were posed to the previously reviewed legislative notification of the 
United  Kingdom under agenda item 2.1  and answers have been received . 
26. The Chair indicated that f ollowing that , the Committee would turn t o the written questions 
posed under this agenda item at previous Committee meetings, which remain ed unanswered to 
date. These would be  discussed under agenda items 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 pertaining to the 
previously reviewed legislative notifications of Cameroon, Europe an Union, Ghana , and Liberia, 
respectively . 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  
2.1 United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.12 -
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.12; G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.13 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.13; and 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.15 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.14 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.14) 
27. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/9 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/9 - G/SG/Q1/GBR/11 – Follow-up questions from 
Canada  
28. Written replies were submitted and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/10 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/10 - G/SG/Q1/GBR/12 – Replies from the 
United Kingdom  
29. Canada  indicated that it was in the process of reviewing the United Kingdom's responses and 
that it would follow  up, if it had any further questions . 
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  
2.2 Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  
30. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SG/Q1/CMR/5 – Submitted by the United States  
31. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of October 2022.  
32. Cameroon  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, 
nor had written answer s been received to date.  
 
2 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the May 2023 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/510 - 
G/SCM/W/587 - G/SG/W/256.  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 5 - 
 
  33. No statements were made by any Member.  
2.3 European  Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.3)  
34. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding th ese notification s and could be found 
in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/EU/15 - G/SCM/Q1/EU/15 – Follow -up questions from the Russian Federation  
35. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of April 2022.  
36. The European Union  did not take the floor on this agenda item.  
37. The Russian Federation  indicated that it had repeatedly raised systemic concerns about the 
amendments to the European Union's AD legislation introduced by the AD Regulation EU 2017/2321 
and Regulation EU 2018/825. The Russian Federation stated that these amendments envisaged 
discriminatory and WTO -inconsistent methodologies. The Russian Federation added  that it wished 
to reiterate these concerns for the record of the Committee. First, the amendments introduced the 
terms  "significant distortions" for adjusting the costs based on o ut-of-country data and "raw material 
distortions" for the non -application of the lesser duty rule . Second, the amendments might  imply 
double punishment for the same situation labelled both as a significant distortion and a raw material 
distortion. Third, t he amendments authorized to issue reports on significant distortions in certain 
countries selected by the European Commission at its own  discretion and to use such reports as 
pieces of evidence. The Russian Federation referred Members to its previous state ments at the 
Committee meetings detailing its concerns. It called upon the European Union to abstain from using 
the methodology introduced by the amendments and to adhere to the WTO rules.   
2.4 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
38. Written  follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 – Follow -up questions from the 
United States  
39. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of April 2021.  
40. Ghana  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date . 
41. No statements were made by any Memb er. 
2.5 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  
42. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/3 – Follow -up questions from the United States  
43. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of October  2020.  
44. Liberia  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date.  
45. No statements were made by any Member.  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 6 - 
 
  46. Before moving on to the next  agenda item, the Chair inform ed Members that for the 
autumn  meeting of 2023 , according to the Committee's agreed procedures, any new legislative 
notification  to be placed on the agenda of that meeting must be circulated in all three 
WTO languages not later than 11 September  2023 . Shortly after this date, on 
15 September  2023 , the Secretariat would  circulate the annotated draft agenda informing 
Members of all l egislative notifications to be reviewed at the autumn meeting. As concerns the new 
and previously reviewed legislative notifications taken up at this meeting, Members were reminded 
that past the set deadlines, all unanswered written questions would  automat ically be retained on the 
agenda of the next Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Committee meetings 
under the respective agenda items until written answers were submitted . 
47. For the autumn 2023 meeting , the Chair  noted that the Kingdom of Saud i Arabia  had 
submitted new legislative notifications, which would be considered under agenda item 1 of the 
autumn 2023 meeting . Written questions concerning these legislative notifications and any new 
legislative notifications for the autumn 2023  meeting  would be submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat by 2 October  2023 .  
48. Concerning previously reviewed legislation , in order to place any such item on the agenda 
of the autumn  meeting for further review, questions would  be submitted in writing to the Member 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, not later than 11 September  2023 . Written answers to any such 
questions would  be submitted to the Member posing the questions and to the Se cretariat not later 
than 9 October  2023 . 
49. As usual , a document containing all these relevant deadlines would  be circulated soon after 
this Committee's meeting .3 
50. The Chair drew Members'  attention to the fact that some Members ha d yet to submit any 
legislati ve notification at all. This had been a matter of concern to all Members, from the point of 
view of transparency and for the purposes of better understanding each other's systems. For many 
Members all that would be required was a single nil notification. F or those Members that conduct ed 
antidumping  ("AD") investigations, but ha d not yet notified their legislation, it was all the more 
important for the Committee to have the opportunity to review and ask questions about that 
legislation. By way of reminder, Article 18.5  of the AD Agreement require d Members to notify their 
domestic laws and regulations relating to AD to this Committee. These notifications were in the form 
of the full texts of the relevant laws or regulations in English , French or Spanish. Any modification to 
the laws, regulations or administrative procedures also had to be notified promptly. As already 
mentioned, Members that ha d no AD laws or regulations should notify that fact by providing a nil 
notification. Member s that were  unable to notif y the text of existing legislation, should submit an 
explanation of why such legislation could not be notified. Thus, the Chair  encourage d all Members 
that ha d not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible . 
51. Finally, the Chair  referred to the list of authorities competent to initiate and conduct 
AD investigations within the meaning of Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement. The latest revision of this 
list was contained in document G/ADP/N/14/Add.58  – G/SCM/N/18/Add.58 . The Chair invite d 
all Members that ha d such an authority to submit the required notification pursuant to Article 16.5 
of the AD Agreement. The Chair  also invite d those Members that ha d already submitted such a 
notification some time ago to review its content and report to the Secretariat any changes as 
necessary . 
52. The United States  appreciate d the fact that most Members ha d submitted a notification with 
their domestic AD legislation or a one -time notification that they d id not have AD legislation.  
However, some countries which ha d not provided a notification of their legislative status ha d 
submitted Trade Policy Review repor ts indicating that they ha d AD laws in effect. In other words, 
the respective WTO Members ha d already gone through the effort of informing the WTO of their 
respective AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. The United States,  therefore, encourage d 
Members to review their respective situations and make the appropriate notification promptly.  It 
added that t he notification of AD laws, and any revisions to those laws, were a key element in 
maintaining transparency in the administration of the AD remedy.  The United States commended  all 
of the Members that had provided legislative notifications to this Committee for review and 
 
3 Relevant deadlines can be fou nd in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 511 - G/SCM/W/ 588 - 
G/SG/W/ 257. G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 7 - 
 
  encourage d all Members to submit future notifications promptly following the implementation of the 
relevant legislation . 
53. In additio n, the United States drew Members ' attention to the fact that it had put an agenda 
item to the Council on Trade in Goods ("CTG") that identifie d certain Members ' non-notification of 
items pursuant to certain WTO agreements, including the AD Agreement.  It explained that b y 
bringing this to the CTG, the United States'  intent was to raise awareness of this issue beyond the 
Committee, with a call to work with the Memb ers listed on their notifications.  As stated in the CTG, 
many of these notifications ha d been outstanding for over 25 years, so if Members ha d questions 
about their notification obligations, they should approach the Secretariat for guidance about how to 
meet the requirements under the applicable WTO agreements. Alternatively, if for some reason a 
Member was unable to reach out to the Secretariat, Members could  reach out to other Members for 
guidance and/or assistance. The United States added that given that  all Member s had to make a 
WTO notification for the first time , all Members  should be sympathetic to the challenges certain 
Members  might  face. The United States emphasized that timely and complete notifications  would  
allow the WTO 's negotiating arm to function, improve the operation of WTO agreements, and allow 
Members to better understand the trade practices of other Members . 
54. The United States call ed the Committee 's attention to the continuing work by the Friends of 
Transparency Group. On 30 March 2023, the Group organized a session called "Who Notices 
Notifications ?" where private sector representatives discussed why the information in 
WTO notifications was important to traders and how it enable d them to make informed business 
decisions. A summary of t hat session was made  available in the CTG room document RD/CTG/18, 
which include d a link to a recording of the session.  The United States encourage d Members to join 
the Friends of Transparency Group which would be  planning other activities for this year.  The 
United  States also welcome d discussion on possible technical level notification reforms that could  be 
made, or in assisting Members to make their requisite notifications .  
55. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions,  replies  and statements.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/37 7/…) 
56. The Chair  indicated that agenda item 3  cover ed the review of semi -annual reports of 
AD actions covering the period July – December  2022 . A request for semi -annual reports for the 
second half of 2022  was circulated in document G/ADP/N/377 , dated 15  December  2022 and a 
reminder followed on 13  January  2023. For those Members who had taken no AD actions, all that 
was necessary was to submit a nil notification through the AD portal or sub mit a simple email to the 
Centre of Registration and Notification (CRN) , with a copy to the Secretary of the 
Committee , confirming this twice per year. Of course, this did not apply to Members that had 
already submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement .  
57. The Chair was pleased to report that the use of the portal remain ed extensive, and the 
Secretariat continue d to provide all the necessary assistance through sessions tailored to the needs 
of each Member using th e portal . 
58. Turning to the semi -annual reports for the second half of 2022, the Chair referred to document 
G/ADP/N/377/Addendum 1 . Members that ha d submitted their reports were listed in 
paragraph  1 of the document. The reports were translated, to the extent  possible, but notifications 
received late m ight not yet have been available in all three WTO languages.  Members listed in 
paragraph 2  of the said documents notified the Committee that they had not take n any AD actions 
during the period in question . 
59. In add ition, paragraph 5  of the document set out the list of 53 Members  that ha d submitted 
a one -time notification pursuant to the format adopted by the Committee and circulated in document 
G/ADP/19 dated 3  November  2009. These Members ha d indicated that they ha d neither established 
an investigating authority nor had taken any AD actions. The Chair indicated that all such 
notifications were contained in the G/ADP/N/193 series . The Chair noted  that one -time 
notifications serve d a useful transparency function, as they assist ed Members that ha d not 
established an investigating authority to meet their notification requirements in a streamlined way. 
The Chair,  therefore , urged any Member in this situation that ha d not already done s o to submit a G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 8 - 
 
  one-time notification. The Secretariat stood  ready to assist Members  if in doubt as to whether they 
qualif ied to make such a notification or not . 
60. The Chair  pointed out that there were still a number of Members that ha d not yet responded 
to the request for semi -annual reports, which applie d to all Members whether or not they ha d taken 
AD actions during the period in question, except, as stated earlier, for those that ha d already 
submitted a one -time notification. Again, the Chair urged Members concerned to comply with this 
important notification requirement.  
61. The Chair also note d that, after the Committee  would have conclude d the review of the 
semi-annual reports covering the second half of 2022, any Member m ight, if it wishe d, raise any 
issue re garding a semi -annual report for a past period that ha d not yet been reviewed by the 
Committee . 
62. Regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports, the Chair recalled that while 
Members were free to raise any questions that they wish ed at the Committee's meetings, Members 
might  agree that raising issues that were subject to dispute settlement proceedings might  be better 
pursued in depth in other WTO dedicated fora.  
63. The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the second  half of 20 22. No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; Australia; Canada; 
Colombia; Dominican Republic; the member States of the Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia; 
Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz Republic; and the Russian Federation); El Sa lvador; the member States of the 
Gulf Cooperation Council "GCC" (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, the State of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of; Qatar; and United Arab Emirates); India; Indonesia; Japan; Mexico; Morocco; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; Paraguay; Peru; South Africa;  Türkiye;  Uruguay ; and Viet Nam . 
64. On the semi -annual report of Brazil , the United States  raised the investigation by Brazil on 
imports of hard empty gelatine  capsules from the United States.  It expressed significant concerns 
regarding Brazil' s preliminary positions and findings in the final disclosure in this investigation.  These 
concerns were outlined in the comments the United States had submitted on the record of this 
investigation on 6 January and 8 March 2023. This investigation was drawing to a close with just 
few days to the final determination. The United States  urged Brazil to take its comments into careful 
consideration, in particular its arguments and positions concerning standing, injury, and ca usal link, 
and to issue a final determination that would be  consistent with both Brazilian law and the 
AD Agreement . 
65. Brazil  indicated that it would transmit the concerns expressed by the United States to its 
investigating authority. It expressed its readin ess for bilateral discussions .  
66. Switzerland  referred as well to Brazil's investigation on hard empty gelatine  capsules from 
Mexico and the  United States.  It explained that, de facto , the underlying AD duties affect ed the 
exports of a firm headquarter ed in Switzerland.  Therefore, Switzerland wished to echo the concerns 
expressed by the United States and requested Brazil to ensure that its respective AD procedure was 
being ca rried out and finalized in conformity with bo th Brazilian law and the AD Agreement.  
67. Brazil  indicated that it would transmit the concerns expressed by Switzerland to its 
investigating authority .  
68. On the semi -annual report of China , Japan , first, express ed concern over the final 
determination made in J uly 2016 and the continued imposition of the AD duty regarding Japan's 
grain oriented flat rolled electrical steel.  Japan indicated that it had repeatedly pointed out from the 
beginning that there was no evidence of injury to the Chinese domestic industry and causal link 
between the Japanese imports and injury. Japan regretted that  AD measure s had been  applied  
in July 2016 and that the measure had been extended in July 2022  for five years as the result of  the 
sunset review . 
69. Second, Japan express ed concern over the final determination made in August 2015 and the 
continued imposition of the AD duty regarding dispersion unshifted single -mode optical fiber. Japan 
stated that it had repeatedly expressed its concern in the government opinions about the c alculation G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 9 - 
 
  of the dumping margin. It regretted that  AD measure s had been  applied  in August 2015 and that 
the measure had been extended for five years in December 2022  as the result of the sunset review . 
70. Third, Japan also expressed concern over the final determination made in July 2016 and the 
continued imposition of the AD duty regarding polyacrylonitrile fiber.  Japan submitted that it had 
repeatedly expressed its concern in its government's  opinions about the calculation of the dumping 
margin.  It regretted that AD measure s had been applied  in July 2016 and that the measure had 
been extended for five years in July 2022  as the result of the sunset review . 
71. Finally, Japan referred to  20 measures in force against Japanese products , including the 
measures mentioned above . The oldest  measures ha d been applied  for more than 12 years, and 
12 of them remained  in force for more than 5 years, for example, on Japanese exports of vinylidene 
chloride-vinyl chloride copolymer resin  and unbleached sack paper.  Japan noted that Article 11.3 of 
the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated on a date not later than 
five years from its imposition unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue 
the measure . Japan stated that  China' s reviews often lack ed objectivity in examining the likelihood 
of recurrence of injury to the domestic industry and the casual relationship. It urged China to apply 
Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and perform appropriate reviews in accordance 
with the Agreement. Japan encourage d China to  terminat e these AD measures which ha d been 
applied for a long period  of time.  
72. China  indicated that it had consistently  opposed the abuse of trade remedies which would not 
only provide excessive protection to domestic industries but would also distort the normal 
international trade order. It opined that AD measures should be applied in an objective, prudent and 
restrained manner. Such measures should also not last for unreasonably long periods. It submitted 
that the Chinese investigating authorit y carried out sunset reviews strictly in accordance with its 
domestic regulation and WTO rules, which provide an ample opportunity  for governments and 
enterprises of the exporting countries to fully express their concerns and submit necessary 
information . China also noted that its authority  made its determination s based on all information 
and comments provided by the stakeholders. Ch ina added that most of its trade remedy measures 
were usually terminated within 5 or 10 years.   
73. On the AD measure  regarding Japan's grain oriented flat rolled electrical steel , China explained 
that the Chinese investigating authority had initiated a sunset review in July 2021, which was the 
first sunset review since the implementation of AD measures in 2016. The investigating authority 
had finally issued a ruling on 23 July 2022 determining that the termination of these AD measures 
would l ikely result in the continuation or recurrence of dumping or injury and that it had therefore 
decided to extend the measure.  
74. On the AD measure  regarding polyacrylonitrile fiber , China stated that the investigating 
authority had initiated a sunset review in  July 2021 and had made the final determination on 
13 July 2022.   
75. On the AD measure  regarding dispersion unshifted single -mode optical fiber , China indicated 
that the investigating authority had initiated a sunset review upon the domestic industry 's applic ation 
in January 2022 and had made a decision on 31 December  2022. China explained that in this case 
producers and exporters  from Japan had not submit ted any response to the questionnaire or 
provide d any comments.  
76. China believed that the practice and ruli ngs of its investigating authority in all the 
above -mentioned sunset reviews had been in line with the relevant WTO rules. China invited Japan 
to participate in the proceedings and to fully cooperate with the investigation if Japan had any issues 
with any specific case. It noted that the investigating authority would take these concerns into 
consideration.  
77. On the semi -annual report of Egypt , Türkiye  submitted that f ollowing the petition for an 
AD investigation against imports of automotive batteries originating in or exported from Türkiye, the 
Ministry of Trade and Industry of Egypt had initiated an investigation on 7 July 2022.  Regarding the 
petition and initiation of the investigation, the Govern ment of Türkiye had submitted its written views 
on 12 September 2022. In March 2023 , the investigating authority had published its Essential Facts 
Report . G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 10 - 
 
  78. Referring to its written submission with regard to the initiation of the investigation and its 
commen ts that will be submitted regarding t he Essential Facts Report, Türkiye stated that subject 
merchandise imports from Türkiye increased by 27% in 2019, decreased by 11.1% in 2020 and 
increased by only 2.2% in 2021 , compared to 2018. Likewise, consumption in  Egypt increased 
by 33% in 2019 , decreased by 1.58% in 2020 and increased by 7.3% in 2021 , compared to 2018. 
Türkiye opined that based on  these figures, it was clear that the trend in imports from Türkiye 
followed the trend in subject merchandise consumpti on in Egypt . 
79. Furthermore, since almost all economic indicators of the petitioner , namely, sales volumes ; 
market share ; production ; capacity utilization ; profitability ; employment ; wages ; productivity ; 
investments ; and inventories displayed a positive trend during the injury period, injury findings in 
the report were groundless. In fact, the real reasons behind the alleged injury suffered by the 
domestic producers were the decrease in consumption and the increas e of imports from other 
sources.  Taking into account all above -mentioned points , Türkiye called on Egypt to terminate the 
investigation without the imposition of  measure s. 
80. Egypt  indicated that its investigating authority had taken into consideration all the co mments 
made by Türkiye , as reflected in the essential fact s report, following which the final decision would 
be issue d.  
81. On the semi -annual report of the European Union , China  noted that according to the data 
submitted by the European Union to the WTO, as of the end of June 2022, the European Union had 
116 measures in force, of which 8 were terminated and 108 measures were still in force. Out of 
108 measures in force, 69 measures had been reviewed in at least one sunset review and remained 
in force. Some of these measures had been in force for more than 30 years after multiple sunset 
reviews. Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulated that any definitive AD duties shall be terminated 
on a date no t later than five years from its imposition , unless the  authorities determine that the 
expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  
82. China believed that all Members should adhere to the principles and spirit of multilateral rules 
through the strict application  of Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and perform this obligation in good 
faith. China referred to the European Union's statement at the last Committee meeting where the 
European Union had stated that there were no legal limitations on the number of expiry reviews . 
Nonetheless, China  believed that having a measure in place for more than 25 years was beyond the 
economic reality and unjustified. China was of the view that such measures should have been 
terminated , noting that  the market s should be allowed  to function without unwarranted protection.  
83. China mentioned  that it had taken note of the views expressed by some Members, including 
the European Union, at previous meetings of the Committee. As an  example, it referred to the 
European Union's explanation that  its decision s on sunset review s were based on case -specific 
assessment s without regard to how long the measures  had already been in place . China argued that 
due to the ambiguity of the AD Agreement, sunset review s have been very subjective, in particular 
when dumping or injury did not occur while  the measures were in force. In such cases, the 
investigating authority would enjoy extensive discretion in determining whether  dumping or injury 
would recur. Given that exporters knew for a fact that the majority of the sunset reviews resulted  
in the extension of  the measures, it bec ame increasingly difficult for respondents  to invest 
considerable resources by participat ing in sunset reviews.  
84. China opined that such long -lasting measure s were trade restrictions which hinder ed trade , 
industrial innovation as well as competition and cause d extensive distortion to the international trade 
order and to the European Union's industries. China thus called upon all Members – including the 
Europea n Union – to tighten sunset reviews and avoid excessive protection of domestic industries 
and distortions of normal international trade.  China called for additional clarification of the sunset 
review rules in future negotiations, so as to improve the predi ctability of AD measures and protect 
legitimate rights and interests of interested parties.  
85. The European Union  observed that China's statement was similar to the one it had made at 
the last Committee meeting and recalled the  extensive discussion on the iss ue of sunset reviews. 
The European Union indicated that it understood the concerns linked to repeated sunset reviews. 
However, if the legal conditions were met and it was shown that dumping and injury  were likely to 
continue or recur , the investigating aut hority was under a legal obligation to extend the measures.  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 11 - 
 
  86. The European Union reiterated that if interested parties cooperated , as was the case in around 
90% of the reviews carried out by the European Commission on the measures applied  on Chinese 
exports, the Commission would decide based on the information submitted on the file . It called upon 
China to ensure such cooperation and relay the message to the concerned Chinese exporters 
involved in such reviews to make an effort to cooperat e. This would be the best way to obtain 
evidence and information that could allow the European Commission to determine that dumping and 
injury were not likely to continue or recur, resulting in  the termination of the measure. Otherwise, 
the Commission woul d base its decision on the fact s available on the file. The European Union also 
took note of China's comment to discuss the issue of sunset reviews in general.  
87. On the semi -annual report of Israel , Türkiye  indicated that o n 19 May 2022, Israel had 
initiated  a review investigation of the AD measure against low voltage copper cables  from Türkiye . 
On 16 June 2022 , Türkiye had submitted its views to the investigating authority regarding the 
initiation of the investigation.  On 3 January 2023, the investigating authority had notified the 
Decision regarding the Final Findings to extend the measure for 5 years subject to certain changes 
to the individual margins of the companies. For one of the Turkish companies the revised  margin 
of 1.6% was found to be de minimis  by the investigating authority as it was less than 2%. 
88. On 23 January 2023, Türkiye had submitted its views on the Decision regarding the Final 
Findings and had also expressed its views during  a public hearing on 5 February 2023.  However, the 
Ministry of Ec onomy and Industry , in its final decision  notified on 29 March 2023, determined a final 
measure of 1.6% for the company  concerned, as opposed to  the recommended "de minimis " margin 
in the Final Findings. Given that the final outcome involved an unexpected change from  what could 
have been anticipated based on the Final Findings, the Turkish Government and the company 
concerned had no opportunity to comment on the suggested margin and final measure. Türkiye  
opined that, therefore , its right to defend its interests according to Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement 
had been obstructed . 
89. Israel  stated that this remained an ongoing matter which was conducted in accordance with 
WTO rules. It requested Türkiye to provide its written statement so t hat Israel would reply in writing, 
if needed.  
90. On the semi -annual report of  the Republic of Korea , Japan  stated that t he AD measure on  
its exports of stainless -steel bar s had been  applied  in July 2004. The measure was extended for 
another five years by the fourth sunset review on 22 January 2021. On 30 November 2020, a 
WTO panel report was issued concerning  the measure by Korea  extend ing the imposition of 
AD duties on the same product as a res ult of the third sunset review. The panel found the extension 
measure by Korea  to be inconsistent with the AD Agreement, and it thus recommended th at Korea 
bring its measure into conformity with the AD Agreement. In view of the panel's determination, the 
fourth extension of the measure at issue lacked any basis . While Korea  should have terminated the 
imposition of the AD  measure upon the fourth sunset review, it decided favourably to extend the 
measure . 
91. Japan opined that t he determination could not explain why the lack of competitive 
relationships and export incentives in the third sunset review , as referred to by the panel, did not 
also affect  the fourth sunset review. The authority did not reasonably explain why the termination 
of the AD duties was likely to lead to the recurrence of  injury to the domestic industry. Japan urged 
Korea to re-assess  the competitive relationships, etc. by appropriately considering the findings  of 
the panel. Japan request ed the early termination of the AD measure which was, in its view, 
improperly applied  for a long period  of time . 
92. The Republic of Korea  indicated that its investigations were conducted in a fair and transparent 
manner, in accordance with the WTO rules and its dome stic laws and regulations. On the specific 
concerns raised by Japan, Korea  stated that it would convey such concerns to Capital and get back 
to Japan, as necessary.  
93. On the semi -annual report of Malaysia , Japan  express ed its concern over the initiation of an 
AD investigation concerning cold-rolled products of alloy or non-alloy steel of a width less 
than 1,300mm originating or exported from Japan. Japan  was of the view that this investigation had 
to accord fully  with the relevant WTO rules. In this regard, Japan  expect ed the investigation to be 
conducted carefully and request ed the following points to be considered.  First, t he imports of the G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 12 - 
 
  subject merchandise from Japan were genuine imports by users in Malaysia  that require d cold-rolled 
products of a width less than 1 ,300mm , much of which the petitioner was unable to produce and/or 
supply with the same qualities, characteristics and/or specifications to fulfil the special requirements 
of the end -users in Malaysi a. Second, i n the event that the Ministry of International Trade and 
Industry (" MITI") of Malaysia was  inclined to make an affirmative determination to apply  an AD duty 
on the subject merchandise, imports of the subject merchandise used in the automotive, electronics 
and electrical appliances and other manufacturing industries should be excluded from the measures. 
Lastly, Japan  request ed MITI to take into account not only the views from Japanese steel mills but 
also from other stakeholders , including user i ndustry/companies in Malaysia so that the public 
interest as a whole could  be duly reflected . 
94. Malaysia  indicated that it looked forward to receiving the written statement of Japan  to enable 
Malaysia to respond to the concerns raised.   
95. On the semi -annual report of the Philippines , Türkiye  stated that on 9 January  2015, the 
Tariff Commission of the Philippines (the "Commission") ha d applied  an AD  measure on imports of 
Turkish wheat f lour and that the Commission had conducted an expiry review regarding this 
measure. On 9 September 2020, the Commission decided  to extend the measure for another 
3 years.  Türkiye dr ew the Philippines'  attention to a n alleged  violation of the AD Agreement that 
resulted from the imposition of AD duties on the Turkish exporters who had de minimis  margins in 
the original investigation . 
96. Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement states that "[t]here shall be immediate termination in cases 
where the authorities determine that the margin of dumping is de minimis ". Moreover, panel and 
Appellate Body reports in several disputes , such as Canada – Welded Pipe , Ukraine – Ammonium 
Nitrate  and Mexico – AD Measures on Rice , concluded that the inclusion of producers found to have 
de minimis  margins of dumping would be incompatible with Article 5.8.  Therefore , Türkiye regret ted 
to see the Commission 's practice as a clear violation of the AD Agreement  and the relevant 
jurisprudence . Türkiye  added that it had also conveyed its views on this issue to the Commission 
and the relevant Secretaries in the Philippines . However, Türkiye  indicated that it  had not received 
any response. Similarly, Türkiye had expressed th is concern  during the previous ADP Committee 
meeting and had conveyed its views to  the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the WTO after 
that meeting.  Türkiye  added that in order to avoid any further difficulty, and to solve this issue 
bilaterally, it expect ed the Philippines'  authorities to rectify this matter . 
97. This notwithstanding , on 20 March 2023, the Commission had initiated another expiry review 
on the measure  concerned . Türkiye indicated that it would submit its written views on the initiation 
of the expiry review to the Commission. However, Türkiye believe d that the petition was not 
sufficient to initiate a review in accordance with the  AD Agreement. In this context, it believe d that 
the Commission should terminat e immediately this review.  Türkiye  stated that it reserve d all its 
rights stemming from  the AD Agreement . 
98. The Philippines  indicated that the expiry review in this case was still ongoing and encouraged 
the Government of Türkiye to fully participate in the proceedings to ensure that its concerns would 
be taken into consideration . 
99. On the semi -annual report of Chinese Taipei , Indonesia  raised a concern with respect to the 
final determination by Chinese Taipei on the imports of float glass in sheets , published on 
18 February 2023. As required by Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement, it is mandatory for the 
investigating authority to determine an individual dumping margin for each known exporter or 
producer of the product under investigation. However, in t his case, the investigating authority had 
declined to do so with respect to one of the Indonesian exporters, even though th at exporter had 
made every effort and had provided all the requested data and information to the investigating 
authority during the i nvestigation. Instead, the exporter concerned was treated as falling among the 
category of "others" and received a high AD duty  rate of 87.76%. Furthermore, the investigating 
authority only provided an opportunity for consultations to the Indonesian export ers after the final 
determination had been published, whe n there was no longer a ny possibility to adjust  the dumping 
margin . Indonesia submitted that this was inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement as 
Indonesian exporters did not have the full o pportunity to defend their interests, including a 
discuss ion of any issues concerning the determination of dumping margins  before the final 
determination was issued. Indonesia requested Chinese Taipei to take into consideration Indonesia's 
concerns and to terminat e the AD measures on this product.  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 13 - 
 
  100.  Chinese Taipei  indicated that it took note of Indonesia's concerns. It emphasized that the 
proceedings undertaken by its relevant authorities in this case had been fully consistent with the 
WTO rules and Chinese T aipei's domestic laws and requirements. It explained that the decision with 
respect to dumping and material injury had been made by the investigating authorities and that 
they were  considering whether or not to apply  final measures , and that to date the Ch inese Taipei 
Mission in Geneva had not been informed of the final decision in this respect. On the concerns raised 
with respect to the AD duty rates and the issue of whether exporters had been accorded the full 
opportunity to defend their interests and to participate in the investigation process, it requested 
Indonesia to provide a written copy of its statement that could be forwarded to the investigating 
authority for a response.  
101.  On the semi -annual report of Thailand , Türkiye  submitted that o n 11 May 2022, Thailand had 
initiated an expiry review investigation concerning  the AD measure on flat hot -rolled steel in coils 
and not in coils  from Türkiye . On 15 February 2023, the investigating authorit y had issued  its 
essential facts report . Based on the facts detailed  in this report , it came to the conclusion that "it is 
deemed appropriate to end the anti -dumping duty on hot -rolled steel sheets in coils and not in coils 
originating from the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Türkiye  as there is 
no basis to believe that the cessation of anti -dumping duty will result in continuation or recurrence 
of dumping and injury ". 
102.  Türkiye  added that o n 21 April 2023 , the investigating authority had disclosed the second 
essential facts report regarding the final determination of the expiry review. This tim e, however, 
even though the facts listed in this report were exactly the same as in the original report, the 
investigating authority came to the conclusion that "[f]rom all the above information it was found 
that there was sufficient information and eviden ce to believe that if you stop collecting the dumping 
duty, the dumping will continue or the dumping will be restored ". 
103.  Türkiye  indicated that it had difficulty to grasp how the investigating authority's decision ha d 
shifted in the opposite direction when the facts were the same in the first and second essential facts 
reports. Türkiye  opined  that t here was no factual basis for this new decision, and the investigating 
authority had not provided reasonable explanations for its new conclusion. Therefore, Türkiye  
expect ed a clarification as to  what ha d caused this change in the decision and request ed Thailand to 
act in line with its original finding and to terminate the measure . 
104.  Thailand  noted the concerns expressed by Tür kiye and that the case was still under due 
consideration by the Committee on Dumping and Subsidies of Thailand. As the review had not been 
yet concluded, it underscored that any information under consideration of the authorities  should be 
treated discreetl y. Thailand further confirmed that while duly consider ing this case , the authorities 
would comply with the sunset review provisions in the Anti -Dumping and Countervailing Foreign 
Products Act which accord with Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement. It added that should there be any 
inquiries with respect to the results of the review , Thailand would be ready to discuss such concerns.  
105.  On the semi -annual report of Ukraine , Ukraine  considered it necessary for transparenc y 
purposes to draw the attention of Members to its semi-annual report covering  the second half 
of 2022. Ukraine explained that this notification had been prepared by capital -based officials who 
were – along with their families – either hiding from attacks in bomb shelters or forced to flee their 
homes along with 10 million other Ukrainians seeking safe places to stay. Despite the horrors of the 
war waged by the Russian Federation and which lasted for over 14 months, capital -based officials 
continued to carr y out their duties and fulfilled  Ukraine's commitments in respect of the fundamental 
rules of the WTO. Ukraine added that the full -scale Russian invasion of Ukraine had already resulted 
in heavy damages to the Ukrainian  infrastructure and  economy.  It added  that significant production 
facilities of its industries were located in temporarily occupied territories or remained under constant 
fire.  
106.  Ukraine explained that the Russian  Federation's  invasion of its territories  had affected its 
production  capacity , cost of product ion and export potential. These circumstances had deprived 
interested parties from fully defending their interests in AD investigations or benefit ting from the 
AD Agreement provisions. Ukraine , however, affirmed its commitment to fulfil its o bligations under 
the AD Agreement. It requested all Members to take into consideration the reality of the Ukrainian 
economy during the war , acknowledge that its economy had dramatically changed and that such 
changes would be of long -lasting nature. It adde d that Ukraine's goods could no longer impose a 
threat of material injury to any market and hence should not be subject to AD measures or sunset G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 14 - 
 
  reviews. Ukraine appreciated the support it received from the global community and the Members 
that stood by Ukraine during this time and that did not remain indifferent in the face of the 
unprecedented and illegal aggression of the Russian Federation  
107.  Moldova  reiterated its support for Ukraine and its people and condemned in the strongest 
possible  terms this war . It indicated that it would continue to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and its 
people as long as it would take. It called upon the Russian Federation to stop this war immediately 
and unconditionally. On the semi -annual report of Ukraine, Moldova  noted that Ukraine maintained 
two AD measures against Moldovan products. It requested the revision and termination of these 
measures.  
108.  The United States  indicated that it condemned the Russian Federation's illegal, unjustifiable 
and unprovoked war as well as its disregard for the Charter of the United Nations and indifference 
to the impact its war was having on peoples worldwide. It added that the Russian Federation's 
actions also contravened the values and foundation of the WTO , including the principles o f fairness 
and openness. Meanwhile, Ukraine continued to participate actively in WTO committees and bodies 
despite the unimaginable conditions it faced at home. The United States commended Ukraine's 
commitment to this organization.  
109.  The United Kingdom  commen ded Ukraine's continued efforts to comply with its 
WTO obligations despite the Russian invasion. It confirmed its solidarity with Ukraine in the face of 
the Russian Federation's actions which it viewed as a violation of international law and the 
United  Nations Charter.  
110.  The European Union  stated that it commended Ukraine for its compliance with all the 
notification obligations across the board in the WTO, despite the illegal invasion by the 
Russian  Federation of its territory which the European Union continu ed to condemn in the strongest 
possible terms.  
111.  Australia  echoed the concerns expressed by previous Members. It commended Ukraine efforts 
and condemned the Russia n Federation 's invasion. It expressed support for Ukraine's sovereignty 
and territorial integrity and noted that it would continue to work closely with its partners to support 
Ukraine and allow it to resolve this conflict on its own terms. It added that aside from the  damage 
and loss of life in Ukraine, the war had been compounding human suffering and brought about crisis 
in the area of food and energy security.  
112.  Canada  commended Ukraine for its notification, despite the circumstances that had been 
hampering its ability  to participate in the multilateral trading system. It indicated that it continued 
to condemn unequivocally the Russia n Federation 's illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of 
Ukraine which it viewed as a violation of the international rules and sys tem. It added that Ukraine's 
commitment to the international system and upholding the rule of law under attack should be an 
example to all Members. Canada affirmed that it stood in unwavering solidarity with Ukraine and its 
people and that it would work wi th other Members to find ways to use trade to support Ukraine in 
building its economy and its society. It finally called upon the Russian Federation to immediately 
cease all hostile actions against Ukraine.    
113.  New Zealand  indicated that it appreciated Ukraine's efforts despite the devastating impacts of 
the Russian Federation's  illegal and unprovoked  war. It joined other Members in condemning in the 
strongest possible terms the Russia n Federation 's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine. It 
viewed the Russian invasion as an act of aggression under international law which had already 
caused thousands of deaths, a humanitarian crisis and a great deal of suffering. New Zealand 
indicated that it would continue to convey its support for Ukraine's independenc e, sovereignty, and 
territorial integrity. It requested the Russian Federation to cease further escalation of the conflict , 
end the invasion of Ukraine,  to abide by the international obligations, withdraw its troops and return 
to diplomatic negotiations in  order to resolve this conflict.  
114.  Japan  stated that it commended Ukraine's efforts during these difficult times and  strongly  
condemned the Russian Federation's  attacks on the civilian infrastructure in cities across Ukraine . 
Japan added that as it was the only country that had suffered from a nuclear  bombing during war 
time, Japan could absolutely not, under any circumstances, accept the Russian Federation's threats 
to use nuclear weapons. Japan urged the Russian Federation to stop the aggression and withdraw G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 15 - 
 
  immediately its forces from Ukrainian territories , as per its recognized international borders. Japan 
indicated that it would continue to work on the two pillars pertaining to  imposing firm sanctions 
against the Russian Federation on one hand and providing robust support  to Ukraine  through the 
international community  on the other hand . 
115.  Iceland  indicated that it commended Ukraine for its efforts and condemned in the strongest 
possible terms the unprovoked, unjustifiable an d illegal attack of the Russian Federation on Ukraine. 
It reiterated its support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.  
116.  The Republic of Korea  echoed the concerns expressed by previous Members. It commended 
the efforts of Ukraine to comply with WTO rules despite the current situation. It indicated that it 
condemned the Russian Federation's aggression in the strongest possible terms, continued to 
support Ukraine and its people and called upon the Russian Federation to stop this war immediately.  
117.  The Russian Federation  indicated that it had already heard  those baseless allegations at the 
Committee on Safeguards . It reminded Members that the WTO was n ot a political forum. It regretted 
that the WTO in general, and this Committee in particular, were held hostage due to a deliberate  
politicization and confrontation al rhetoric of certain Members acting as a group to promote their 
baseless views. It added t hat such unfortunate developments negatively a ffected the WTO 's 
activities. It called on Members to respect the pure economic nature of the WTO.  
118.  On the semi -annual report of the United Kingdom , China  indicated that following Brexit, the 
United Kingdom had decided to maintain and apply part of the European Union's trade remed y 
measures and conduct transition reviews on a case -by-case basis. It mentioned that it had 
expressed, in previous meetings, systemic concerns over the WTO compliance issues regarding this 
practice. China reiterated that this practice remained inconsistent with the WTO rules, infringed upon 
the legitimate interests of relevant Members and should be terminated immediately. It added that 
without prejudice to China's already expr essed position on this issue, it voiced concern regarding 
the investigation period of some transitional reviews. It noted that the investigation period in most 
transitional reviews exceeded 12 months and some even lasted for 24 months , such as in the case 
of the transitional review with respect to measures pertaining to wire rod and filament glass fiber. 
The investigation period for ongoing transitional review for measures on aluminium road wheels had 
exceed 18 months. China submitted that the investigation  periods for such transition reviews 
significantly exceeded the investigation period specified in Article 11.4 of the AD Agreement. It 
added that these long periods had extended the implementation period of relevant measures and 
had caused additional unpre dictability and uncertainty which seriously affected the business 
performance of the exporters and importers and infringed on their economic interest s and legitimate 
rights. China called upon the United Kingdom to correct these violations as soon as possib le and 
terminate the relevant investigations.   
119.  The United Kingdom  indicated that it had taken note of China's views regarding the 
United  Kingdom's transition policy. It referred China to the United Kingdom's interventions made at 
previous Committee meeting s since October 2020.   
120.  On the semi -annual report of the United States , Japan  express ed concern over the June  2021 
to May 2022 Administrative Review (3rd POR) under the AD Duty Order on glycine from Japan. It 
indicated that it had submitted a written opinion about the 2nd POR Administrative Review in 
April 2022. It requested the United States  Department of Commerce ("USDOC") to appropriately 
calculate the price difference in the review based on a fair comparison in accordance with Article VI, 
paragraph  1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, taking into consideration the 
approval and registration system related to pharmaceutical products and the fact that there were 
two different grades of glycine. Japan regretted that  without considerin g these facts, 
importer -specific assessment rate s were preliminarily decided in December 2022. The Government 
of Japan had submitted another written opinion in December 2022 for the 3rd POR Administrative 
Review and  had expressed the same concern. Japan  once again request ed the United States'  
authority to investigate and make immediately a determination that accord ed with the 
AD Agreement, taking Japan' s opinions into consideration . 
121.  Japan also raised concern over the prolonged United States'  AD measures against Japanese 
products. It submitted that c urrently, the United States  had 21 measures in force against Japanese 
products. The longest measures applied  for more than 44 years, and 16 of them were in force for G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 16 - 
 
  more than 5 years. For example,  the measure on certain cold -rolled steel flat products was extended 
for another five years by a sunset review.  Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any 
AD measure shall be terminated on a date not later than five years from its imposition unle ss the 
authorities determine the substantial necessity to continue the measure, namely that the termination 
of the AD duty would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan 
added that t he United States  should apply Article 11 .3 of the AD Agreement in a strict manner and 
perform appropriate reviews in accordance with the Agreement. Japan submitted that it did  not 
consider that old measures were no longer valid solely on the ground that the measures were old. 
Japan request ed the United States  to make a determination when conducting a sunset review, 
without simply assuming the likelihood of dumping or recurrence of injury but  by careful ly examin ing 
its existence. Furthermore, t he Government of Japan  had explained the matter to the  companies 
and recognize d that they were taking necessary steps to respon d. Japan further request ed 
appropriate examination in both procedural aspects and the content of the claims submitted by 
interested parties and encourage d early termination of these AD measures which have been 
continued for a long period  of time.  
122.  China  noted that AD proceedings con ducted by the USDOC featured the so -called non -market 
economy ("NME") treatment that involved a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the 
NME were subject to government control. Separate rates had been given to exporters who were able 
to success fully rebut such presumption. China indicated that it opposed such practice in which the 
United States considered China as an NME throughout its AD proceedings and discriminated against 
Chinese companies. In AD investigations or administrative reviews invo lving Chinese goods, an 
individual Chinese producer could seek to receive an individual rate, if it demonstrated the absence 
of de jure  and de facto  government control over their export activities. Failure to do so by the 
exporter would result in a country -wide AD rate which would usually be punitive.  
123.  China opined that such a single -rate presumption would place on China and other 
WTO Members – likewise determined as NME countries  – an extra burden of proof. This , in China's 
view,  would be a violation of Article I of the GATT which explicitly stipulated general 
Most-Favoured -Nation Treatment. It added that the DSB had already ruled that such a policy and 
practice adopted by the United States violated the AD Agreement. In the disput e US — Anti-Dumping 
Methodologies (China)  (DS471 ), the panel had found that a single -rate presumption violated – as 
such and as applied  in 38 determinations involving Chinese exporters – Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the 
AD Agreement by subjecting exporters to the presumption of government control and singularity. It 
submitted that the United States had not appealed that point and thus the ruling of the panel in this 
respect was in effect . It regretted that the United States had not to date implemented the rulin g of 
the DSB and had not changed its practice. China indicated that it believed that each WTO Member 
had an obligation to respect the WTO rulings and to uphold the multilateral trading system and its 
authority. China urged the United States to rectify its practice in respect of the single -rate 
presumption to the exporters from so -called NME countries , including Chin ese exporters , and accord 
them the right to participate in AD proceedings to defend their lawful interests.   
124.  China stated that it concurred with Japan on the issue of sunset reviews. It reiterated the 
concerns expressed by others on this matter in the Committee in recent years. China drew the 
United States' attention to the numerous AD measures maintained by the United States. It indicated 
that in  its last semi -annual report, the United States had reported that it maintained 16 measures 
on Chinese products that were applied  in the last century, among which were five measures targeting 
potassium permanganate, barium chloride, iron construction castings, petroleum wax candles and 
tapered roller bearings which were applied  in the 1980s and have been in place for more than 
35 years.  
125.  China added that it was not the only victim of the "sun never sets" AD measures of the 
United  States . The AD measures on prestressed concrete steel wire strands from Japan were applied  
in 197 8 and have been maintained for 45 years. Several other measures which were applied in the 
1980s were also still in force  targeting carbon steel butt -weld pipe fittin gs from Brazil and Japan; 
iron construction castings from Canada; brass sheet and strip from France, Germany, Italy and 
Japan; certain welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from India, Thailand, and Türkiye ; and in -shell 
pistachios nuts from the Islamic Repu blic of Iran . China indicated that pursuant to Article 11.3 of 
the AD Agreement , AD measures shall be terminated withing five years, unless the authorities 
determine through a sunset review that the expiry of the duty would likely lead to the continu ation 
or recurrence of dumping and injury. China opined that it would be unlikely that exporters kep t 
selling their subject merchandise to the United States at prices lower than the normal value for G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 17 - 
 
  decades and that the revocation of such an order would still be  causing injury to the domestic 
industry of the subject merchandise in the United States, especially after such domestic industry 
had been under the protection of the order for more than 30 years. It urged the United States to 
systemically adjust its own p rocedural and substantive rules of sunset reviews as soon as possible 
and carry out its sunset reviews in accordance with the AD Agreement.  China also took this 
opportunity to call on Members to actively consider clarifying and improving the sunset review rules 
in future Rules negotiations, in order to reduce the excessive use of market -distorting trade remedy 
measures which hindered fair competition and impaired the interests of all parties.  
126.  On the United States anti -circumvention ("AC") inquiries, China noted that in recent years 
AC inquiries had been frequently initiated by the USDOC. As of the year 2011, the USDOC had 
initiated a total of 96 AC inquiries which surpassed all other WTO Members. It submitted that if the 
USDOC would make a positive determina tion, then this would be included in the AD and CVD orders, 
i.e., these products involved would be subject to high AD and countervailing ("CV") duties without 
a full AD or CV investigation. This , in Ch ina's view, would create significant uncertainty among 
WTO Members . China opined that u nlike in case of the mature and normative system of multilateral 
rules in the area of AD and CV, AC  inquiries fell into a grey area with much less consensus. 
Members'  domestic regulations  in this regard were not as detailed or as reasonable as in the case of 
AD and CV  investigations . This granted investigating authorities'  significant discretion , while the 
lawful rights of interested parties were left unprotected. China indicated that in this context it had a 
number of questions to the United States.  
127.  First, China inquired how the United States would distinguish between investment s and 
circumvention in case a company decided to move abroad to start a business in a third country . 
China noted  that the United States ' law sti pulated that when  determining  whether the process of 
assembly or completion  in a third country  was minor or insignificant, the administrating authority 
should  take into account the level of investment, the level of research and development, the nature 
of the production process, the extent of the production facilities and the value of the processing 
compared to the total value of the product.  In making such determination, the administrating 
authority would also take into consideration factors, including the pattern  of trade, affiliation 
relationship s between the exporter and the manufacturer of the merchandise, and the use of the 
merchandise to produce another merchandise which would later be exported to the United States, 
as well as whether the import volume  of the merchandise used in the production had increased since 
the initiation of the investigation. China opined that none of these  criteria would be clear and 
objective enough to determine circumvention  and suggested whether this would provide the USDOC 
with broad discretion . 
128.  Second, under the U SDOC's AC regulation , China inquired whether the petitioner would need 
to establish that the products subject to the AC inquiry had materially  injured or threatened to cause 
injury to the domestic industry. It submitted that in a recent AC inquiry involving aluminium sheets , 
the USDOC primarily found that the Chinese product – 4017 aluminium sheet,  produced in China 
and exported to the United States – was an article that had been altered in form or appearance in 
minor respects and had thus circumvented the AC order. Although c ertain factors were taken into 
consideration , including overall physical characteristics, expectations of the ultimate users, use of 
the merchandise, channels of marketing and distribution, and cost of modification relative to the 
total value,  it was clear  that this new aluminium sheet product had never been investigated in the 
original proceeding . China inquired whether that meant that the USDOC could arbitrarily extend the 
product scope of the subject merchandise to encompass products not previously inclu ded in the 
original investigation .  
129.  Third, in the AC investigation concerning the scenario of products completed or assembled in 
other countries, China noted that the USD OC might  elect to limit the issuance of questionnaires to 
a limited number of responde nts. It referred to the circumvention inquiry on the AD and CVD orders 
on solar cells and modules from China with respect to Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet  Nam, 
where the  USDOC had selected two mandatory respondents in each AC inquiry. China opined that 
since this inquiry had been  conducted on a country -wide basis, this would lead to unfair results. It 
was of the view that companies selected as mandatory respondents  had a chance to r ebut and prove 
that they were not circumventing. If they succeeded in doing so, they would  not have to change 
their way of manufacturing. Other companies not selected  as mandatory respondents  did not have 
a chance to establish  that their investments consti tuted normal commercial practice s rather than 
circumvention. China added that i n order for them to continue to export to the United States, they 
would have to use wafers that were not made in China, or if they use d wafers from China, they G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 18 - 
 
  would have to demonstrate  that no more than two of the six inputs, including silver paste, aluminium 
frames, glass, back sheets, ethylene -vinyl acetate, and junction boxes, were produced in China. In 
other words, following the certification requirement of the United States  AC preliminary 
determination, these companies would have to change their production and procurement mode. 
China considered t his to be unfair and unreasonable, and it urged the United States to refrain from 
relying on such arbitrary requirement . 
130.  The Russian Federation  echoed China's concerns, in particular with respect to the single entity 
presumption. It also believed this methodology to be inconsistent with the United States' WTO 
obligations.   
131.  On its investigation of glycine  from Japan , the United S tates indicated that this proceeding 
was subject to litigation in the United States and that it would be inappropriate for the United States 
to comment. However, the United States confirmed that the USDOC remand determination was due 
on 9 August 2023. The United States noted that Japan requested the USDOC to take into account 
Japan's argument in the subsequent period of review, but as this proceeding was ongoing, it 
encourage d Japan to participate in the review and provide its arguments.  
132.  The United States  indicated that , as it had repeatedly stated  before , it did not see any basis 
for Japan' s chronic complaints  and that  the expiry proceedings conducted by the United States were 
consistent with the obligations under the AD Agreement. It explained that t he pur pose of the expiry 
proceeding was to allow administering authorities to examine whether dumping and injury would 
likely continue or recur if the measures were removed.  The United States added that the  expiry 
review process was evidence -based , and that  participation by Japanese companies in the expiry 
proceedings would be helpful both in terms of the relevant information to be provided, and the 
arguments to be made by interested parties. Furthermore, many measures involving Japanese 
exports have, in fact, been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry reviews, there had been 
seventy -four measures reviewed involving Japan. Of those, 56, or over 75%, had resulted in 
termination of the mea sure. 
133.  The United States further explained that f or the oldest ten measures that remain ed in effect, 
the Japanese industry had failed to meaningfully participate in any of the most recent sunset review 
proceedings (including two that were completed earlier in 2023 ). The United States submitted that 
lack of respondent participation, and the consequent lack of evidence provided by respondents, 
limited the information provided to the investigating authorities. In other words, Japanese producers 
might  themselves  have been partly responsible for the result. The United States indicated that i n 
many of the expiry processes that involve d imports from both Japan and other Members, 
respondents from other Members have meaningfully participated in the review when Japan h ad not 
and that such Members had made relevant arguments as to why the measure should be terminated 
as to their specific country, and the measure ha d been terminated . 
134.  In light of this, the United States suggest ed that Japan inquire with its own industries as to 
why there has been  a lack of interest in participating in the process, particularly given the fact that 
participation has been a vital element in the termination of measures applied with respect to goods 
from other Members as well as goods from Japan . 
135.  On China's comments, the United States indicated that it took note of its statement on the 
NME practice. On the United States'  AD measures involving imports from China  and the sunset 
proceedings , the United States indicated that its e xpiry proceedings were consistent with the 
obligations under the AD Agreement  and that , unlike Japan,  China seem ed to imply that an older 
measure would  no longer be valid solely on the grounds that the measure was old. The United States 
disagree d and submi tted that t he purpose of the expiry proceeding has been  to allow administering 
authorities to examine whether dumping and injury would likely continue or recur if the measures 
were removed.  The United States indicated that its expiry process has been  evide nce-based  and 
that pa rticipation by Chinese 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.  The 
United States added that to the extent that C hinese respondents had comments regarding any 
particular expiry review, the United States  suggest ed that the comments be submitted for the record 
of that particular review . G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 19 - 
 
  136.  The United States stated that it was surprised by China's comments regarding the 
United States' AD duty regime, as well as those of other Members.  It opined that w hen Chinese 
exports would be  legally found to be injuriously dumped into the United States  and other markets, 
China would object.  The United States would then see an effort to circumvent or evade the order in 
place to avoid having the duties applied to those exports. When that behaviour was exposed, China 
would object.  The United States added that d uring the sunset reviews, it determine d, based on 
five years of exporting behaviour, that the Chinese exporters could not  ship to the United States and 
other WTO Members without continuing the injurious dumping (or significantly reduc ing their exports 
because they could only ship limited amounts as fairly trad ed goods), so the orders remain ed in 
place. However , China would again object.  
137.  The United States added that it had not heard from China what it should have heard , i.e., 
condemnation of those trying to illegally avoid the fairly -established measures; actions being taken 
to reduce or eliminate this activity within its own borders, including businesses whose raison d' être 
would be  to help other companies circumvent or evade  established measures; or even simple 
statements that evading the application of other countr ies' import laws would  itself be wrong. The 
United States submitted that Members should be asking themselves for the reason why China was 
instead encouraging this behaviour . To that end, it noted that more and more Members were putting 
AC and duty evasion plans in place in their respective legal regimes . 
138.  On the issue of the length of the measures on Chinese exports and low " sunset rate" of those 
measures , the United States indicated that a ccording to China's semi -annual report  for July to 
December 2022 , China ha d maintained some of its AD measures for lengthy periods, including its 
AD measures on optical fiber from Japan and Korea , and its AD measures on chloroprene rubber 
from the United States, the EU, and Japan. All of these measures had been in effect for 18 years , 
since 2005.  Additionally, the United States noted that since 1997, China ha d conducted 188 expiry 
reviews of its AD and CVD measures, and o nly 11 of these measures, or 5.8%, were terminated as 
a result of these expiry reviews.  It noted, however, that of the 11 measures terminated, eight were 
terminated due to the petitioner withdrawing its interest in the measure. Just three measures, or 
1.5%  of China's total measures applied  since 1997, had been terminated due to a negative finding 
in an expiry review conducted by China's Ministry of Commerce . Therefore, the United States opined 
that as its exporters ha d frequently experienced, the chances of  the "sun setting" on an AD or 
CVD measure applied  by China were low. 
139.  On the comments made by the Russian Federation, the United States indicated that for 
obvious reasons, it would not wish to engage with the Russian Federation at this time.  
140.  China  referred to the explanation given by the United States with respect to the key element 
of participation in sunset review s. It noted, h owever, that it  often hear d responding companies and 
their lawyer s express difficulties and perplexity in the sunset revie w proceedings conducted by the 
USDOC. It explained that this was the main reason China raise d this concern at the Committee 
meeting . It added that it  might  offer explanations as to why the companies would be  so reluctant to 
participate in the U nited States' sunset reviews. It added that a ccording to its recent semi -annual 
report, the United States conducted 116 sunset reviews in the second half of 2022, while only 
4 AD measures were terminated during the same period. In other words, there was only a 3.4% 
chance of a "sunset" to occur. It indicated that  the Unite d States ' past record showed a n even lower 
rate. In the recent four semi -annual reports, the United States had reported 340 sunset reviews. 
However, only 4 measures were terminated, meaning that the a verage chance for a "sunset" was 
only less than 2%. Considering that the United States currently maintain ed 495 AD measures, and 
no more than 5 were terminated each year, China opined that if this ratio continue d, it would  take 
at least one century for the  United States to terminate all the existing orders, assuming  that the 
USDOC would  not initiate any new investigations . 
141.  During  the Committee's meeting held in April 2022, China invited the United States to clarify 
whether such a scenario exist ed in the real business world where an AD order ha d been in place  and 
the imports of the particular subject product kept increasing . During that meeting, the United States  
had offered two examples. One case related to silicone metal from Brazil and the other to hot-rolled 
steel from Thailand. China indicated that a fter it had careful ly studied both cases , it found  that in 
the case of silicon metal from Brazil, the reason to terminate the order was not because the US DOC 
had determined that the continued imposition  of the duty was not necessary to offset dumping. 
Rather, it was terminated because the U nited States International Trade Commission  ("USITC") had 
determined that the injury would not be likely to continue or recur if the duty was removed. In the G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 20 - 
 
  case of h ot-rolled steel from Thailand, the AD order was still in effect. China reiterate d its concern s 
as reflected in th ose cases  and mentioned  that it would not be  easy to find a case that would satisfy 
the criteria set by the USD OC. China added that a lthough the United States regard ed the sunset 
review proceeding as an evidence -based procedure, it would be  hard for any exporter to participate 
effectively in such a proceeding. In practice, the only venue for  responding companies to participate  
effectively in would be in  USITC injury proceeding s, while it was of little value for companies to 
participate in USDOC sunset proceeding s. 
142.  In China' s view, the reason that orders could not be easily revoked was that the existing 
multilateral rul es remained  too broad and vague, while Members' legislation and practice s were not 
always reasonable. In this respect, China made two  proposition s. First, trade remedy instruments , 
such as AD measures , should not be  permanent and long -lasting. As the safet y valve for the domestic 
industry, these trade remedy measures should be used as interim tools in response to the adverse 
impact brought about by market opening. In other words, these measures should have their time 
limits. Otherwise, they would become lon g-lasting protective tariff barriers not intended as such by 
WTO Members , and this phenomenon would  run counter to the notion of free trade. Second, China 
fully understood the complexity of the issues related to sunset review s and urge d all Member s to 
work together and continue the negotiation s with the aim of clarifying the rules on sunset review s 
of AD orders. It opined that Members should not  forego such opportunity due to stagnation in 
Rules  negotiations . It was of the view that  negotiation s of this kind were crucial to trade liberalization 
and facilitation. China indicated that as the United States was one of the most frequent users of the 
sunset review mechanism, it would be welcome to  contribute to the clarification of the rules, giving 
export ers more explicit guidance as to how to participate in the USDOC's  sunset review proceedings. 
China added that, as it underst ood so far, the exporters could only argue for the termination of the 
order at USITC 's injury proceeding s, having barely any chance  to participate in a reasonable and 
foreseeable way at the USDOC 's sunset review proceeding s. 
143.  In response to the United States ' comment on AC, China reiterated that the interpretation of 
the questions by the United States to the effect that China encourage d circumvention was wrong. 
In fact, China was of the view  that AC was a  grey area that need ed WTO Members ' discussion and 
clarification, so as to avoid the arbitrary use of this tool . 
144.  The United States  took note of the concerns expressed by China and thanked China for 
confirming that the United States' termination rate was significantly higher than that of China.  
145.  With respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not previously reviewed due to 
late submission and circulation, no comments were made, nor questions posed by any Member.  
146.  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: AD HOC NOTIFICATIONS  
147.  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/ 376/Rev.1 , 
G/ADP/N/ 378, G/ADP/N/ 379, G/ADP/N/ 380, G/ADP/N/ 381 and G/ADP/N/ 382. During this period, 
the following Members have notified preliminary and/or final AD actions which have been listed in 
these documents: Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; the European Union; India; 
Indonesia; Japan; Kazakhstan; Repu blic of Korea; Kyrgyz  Republic; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; 
Paraguay; Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese  Taipei; Türkiye; Ukraine; United Kingdom; 
United States; and Viet Nam. Since document G/ADP/N/382 was circulated, Argentina; Armenia; 
Australia; Brazil; the European Union; India; Indonesia; Kyrgyz Republic; Paraguay; 
Russian  Federation; South Africa; Türkiye; United States and Viet Nam have submitted such a 
notification, which would  appear in the next list s circulated by the Secretariat . 
148.  The Chair  drew the attention of Members to the continued apparent lack of full compliance 
with this important notification requirement . These notifications represent a key element of the 
required transparency concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not  effectively 
carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members d id not fulfil their obligations in this 
regard . G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 21 - 
 
  149.  The Chair, like his predecessors,  very strongly urge d all Members taking AD actions to provide 
these notifications of preliminary and final actions, regularly, consistently and in a timely fashion. In 
this regard, the Chair n oted that the minimum information format for these notifications adopted by 
the Committee in October  2006 and revised in Octobe r 2009 (document G/ADP/2/Rev.2), contain ed 
important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified and the information that should 
be provided . 
150.  The European Union  referred  to the United States AD investigation on tin mill products  
from German y and the Netherlands , initiated on 7 February 2023. The European Union indicate d 
that it understood that the USDOC had been working on determining whether these products had 
been sold in the United States' market for less than fair value. It highlighted t hat at this stage and 
based on Eurostat and on the United States ' import data, there was no indication of dumping from 
Germany or the Netherlands. The European Union expressed concern that the investigation covered 
all the imports of tin mill products into  the United States, with a total of 8 countries involved. It 
submitted that the case appeared to be more akin to  a safeguards case rather than a targeted 
AD investigation. The European Union and the exporters would continue to fully cooperate in the 
invest igation and constructively engage on the issue.   
151.  The United States  explained that as this was an ongoing investigation, the United States would 
not be able to comment. It requested the European Union to participate should it have any concerns 
which it might wish to be considered by the USDOC. It added that the USDOC inten ded to publish 
its preliminary determination, unless it was postponed , in less than 140 days of initiation.  
152.  Türkiye  submitted that o n 1 March 2023, the Eurasian Economic Union ("EAEU")  had 
initiated an AD investigation against, inter alia , Turkish originating cast aluminium  rims, following a 
complaint lodged by the Aluminium  Producers, Suppliers and Consumers Association.  
On 28 April 2023, Türkiye had provided  its views to the investigating authority regarding the 
initiation of the investiga tion and the complaint . 
153.  Türkiye  regret ted the E AEU's initiation of this investigation. It indicated that a s stated in its 
written submission, there was a clear decrease in imports from Türkiye during  the investigation 
period ( "IP") both absolutely and relatively. Furthermore, and d espite the serious decline in 
consumption , most of the complainants ' economic indicators showed positive results during the 
injury investigation period , such as market share, capacity, investment levels, prices and wages. 
Some economic indicators worsened during  the IP , such as sales, inventories, profitability and 
exports . However, these negative economic indicators stemmed from the serious decrease in 
consumption due to the sanctions against the Russia n Federation and related factory closures seen 
during the IP, which could not  be attributed to imports from subject countries.  Türkiye requested  
that the E AEU take these points into consideration and terminate the current proceeding without the 
imposition of  a definitive measure . 
154.  The Russian Federation  indicated that this investigation was initiated with respect to imports 
of this product, from inter alia  Türkiye, on 1 March 2023. It added that the investigation was still 
ongoing and that the Department of Internal Market Defence (the "DMD") of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission was analysing the submission made by the interested parties and gathering necessary 
evidence , including from the domestic industry. The deadline for submission of comments on the 
initiat ion of the investigation was on 30 April 2023. The Russian Federation acknowledged the receipt 
of the comments from the Turkish Ministry of Commerce and stated that the investigation team was 
carefully analysing the comments. It submitted that with respect to the initiation, the DMD noted 
that its decision to initiate this investigation was based on the petition filed on behalf of the domestic 
industry. The DMD examined the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the petition 
and determined that there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the investigation. The 
Russian Federation added that the public notice of the initiation  contained  prima facie  evidence that 
dumped imports from four countries had caused material i njury to the domestic industry of the 
EAEU. In the context of the initiation, it was concluded that for purposes of the initiation the petition 
contained data that allowed to assess the effects of imports from subject countries on a cumulative 
basis. The p rices of the allegedly dumped imports decreased and domestic industry prices 
experienced undercutting which led to the domestic industry exhibiting material injury. The 
Russian  Federation called for active participation in this investigation and recalled that comments 
submitted in a timely manner in accordance with the investigation procedure would form the basis 
of an objective evidence -based determination.  It encouraged interested parties to reach out directly 
to the DMD for any additional questions or co mments.  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 22 - 
 
  155.  Before moving on to the next agenda item, the Chair repeat ed a request also made by his 
predecessors, which ha d actually come up in the presentations made by the Secretariat at the 
2015 workshop on notifications. Materials from the workshop were available on the AD page on the 
WTO website, if Members  wished to consult them. This request to all Members was that a given 
ad-hoc notification, as was the case with all other notifications, should be sent, electronically and 
only once, directly to the Centre of Registration and Notification (CRN) , with a copy to the 
Secretary of the Committee, and that any previously submitted notifications should not be  
resubmitted. Members were  also requested, instead of providing electronic links to a general 
website, to attach directly the relevant document containing the action they wished to notify in 
WORD or PDF formats. The Chair asked  to avoid any confusion , repetition or duplication, as these 
notifications were circulated in monthly documents developed by the Secretariat and were the source 
of the necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report. Members'  
co-operation in this respect wo uld be much appreciated . 
156.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
157.  The Chair  stated that the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention was not  held. 
As for the Committee 's autumn  meeting of 2023, the approach agreed in the spring of 2015 would 
be applie d in deciding whether the Informal Group would meet.  
158.  The approach was as follows: First, if a new paper was submitted by the relevant deadline, 
the Informal Group would  be convened. Second , if no new paper was received by that relevant 
deadline, the annotated draft agenda would  so note and indicate that a meeting of the Group would  
be held only if a delegation s o request ed by the date for comments stated in that document . Third, 
if any delegation request ed a meeting by the date stated in the draft annotated agenda, a meeting 
would  be convened by airgram, as per current practice. If no delegations so request ed, no meeting 
would  be convened . 
159.  No statements  were made by any Member.  
160.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
161.  The Chair  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had held a hybrid meeting 
on 27 and 28 October 2022 at which Members discussed issues relating to (i) defining the product 
under investigation and like products; (ii) product comparisons in dumping margin calculations; a nd 
(iii) sunset review investigations . Mr Burak Güreşci  of Türkiye had served as discussant . 
162.  Mr Güreşci  had circulated a roadmap of issues in advance of the meeting to assist delegations 
in their work. The Working Group had held an excellent discussion at which representatives of many 
investigating authorities shared their practices and asked questions to each other about their 
experiences . 
163.  The Chair added that the Working Group would also meet on 4 May 2023 to discuss issues 
relating to (i) average, benchm ark and account -specific prices and price analysis in injury 
proceedings; and (ii) non -attribution analysis in causal link determination . Mr Greg Gallo, Director 
of Investigative Services and Chief Economist  in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal , would 
be serving as discussant. Mr Gallo ha d circulated an outline of issues for discussion which could be 
found in document RD/ADP/WGI/18.  The Chair encouraged all Members to attend, and to participate 
actively in the discussions.  
164.  Finally, the Chair stated that the topics and discussant for the next meeting of the 
Working  Group had not yet been determined by Members and that he would be contacting Members 
in order to identify the next topics and a discussant to assist at the autumn  meeting of the 
Working  Group.  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 23 - 
 
  165.  No statements  were made by any Member . 
166.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
7 REPORTING BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE REPORTS SUBMITTED 
TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ("CTG") ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE 
COMMITTEE AND THE RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC (DOCUMENTS G/L/1447 - 
G/ADP/30 & G/L/1448 - G/ADP/31) AND THE CONSULTATIONS HELD BY THE CHAIR 
OF THE CTG IN THIS REGARD  
167.  The Chair  indicated that this item was placed on the agenda of the meeting to report back to 
the Committee on the issue of the ongoing consultations at the level of the CTG regarding the 
WTO reform and the two reports the Chair  had submitted under his own responsibility to the Chair 
of the CTG – upon his request – on the functioning of the Committee and on the response to the 
pandemic (documents G/L/1447 also circulated as G/ADP/30 and G/L/1448 also circulated as 
G/ADP/31) . 
168.  The first report  concerned the current functioning of the Committee, i.e., the concrete actions 
that the Committee had adopted over the past  years to improve its work. The Chair's  report was an 
overview of the reforms that ha d already been introduced and where the Committee currently st ood. 
This exercise only focused on past actions and discussions. Since this was meant to be a stocktaking 
and information -gathering exercise to allow for a fact -based discussion among Members, the Chair 
had refrained from including recommendations or an assessment of what need ed to be improved as 
this w ould be for Members to take up, should they so  choose . 
169.  The second report  pertained to the WTO  response to the Pandemic and described the 
activities that the Committee had undertaken in the context of the pandemic over the past two  years . 
170.  The Chair recall ed that on 21  November  2022, he had sent both fa ctual reports to the 
Membership in a draft form, to provide Members with the opportunity to make comments. On 
28 November  2022, he had submitted both documents to the CTG . 
171.  Based on what was contained in those reports and in all other subsidiary bodies ' Chairs 
reports, the CTG Secretariat circulated on 11  January  2023 a "Comparison Matrix" contained in 
document G/C/W/824 providing a general overview of the main elements that seem ed to be 
comparable across the reports. The Chair noted that as explained in the  introductory part of that 
Matrix, this Matrix would  not replace the reports submitted by the Chairs and did not reflect all the 
information contained in those reports . 
172.  On 31  January  2023, the CTG held an informal meeting to which all 14 Chairs, including the 
Chair of the Committee , were invited along with all CTG Members. At that meeting, the Chair  of the 
Committee had provided a brief overview of both reports and listened to Members' comments. On 
the functioning of the Committees, although there were no s pecific comments directed to the 
ADP Committee's report per se , Members had made suggestions based on their reading of the 
different reports and of the Matrix. Their views reflected their own vision as to how to replicate what 
they considered to be good pr actices, while preserving the individuality of each Committee as clearly 
there could not  be a one -size-fits-all solution. The CTG Chair had noted that i t was clear to him that 
it would  be up to the Members of each Committee to discuss and decide whether any procedures, 
practices, or means of conducting business need ed an improvement or change. The CTG Chair 
recommended and encouraged discussion of those issues at the level of the Committees . 
173.  On the response to the pandemic, no specific questions o r comments had been  made on the 
ADP Committee's report. The main message was that all subsidiary bodies should be applying lessons 
learnt from the pandemic in line with their own mandates. The CTG Chair indicated that this was a 
steppingstone along the way  and that discussions on the issue would continue . 
174.  On 9 March  2023, the Chair of the CTG had sent to the Chairs of the 14 subsidiary bodies a 
communication requesting them to start discussions in their respective bodies, in the context of 
formal or informa l meetings, concerning the functioning of those  Committees. This would then allow 
Members to identify possible areas for improvement in that particular body taking into account the 
Comparative Matrix that was prepared by the Secretariat, a revised version of which was circulated G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 24 - 
 
  in mid -February in document G/C/W/824/Rev.1 . The Chair of the CTG had also emphasized that a t 
a later stage, all subsidiary bodies would  be requested to submit a written report to the CTG 
describing the discussions held and improvem ents introduced. To the extent possible, such written 
reports should  be submitted to the CTG for consideration at the last formal meeting of the CTG, 
which was tentatively scheduled to take place on 30  November  2023. In other words, such reports 
should be submitted to the CTG by mid -November at the latest . 
175.  On 22  March  2023, the Chair of the CTG had invited the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies to an 
informal brief meeting to exchange views and provide updates on where things  stood. In case of this 
Committee, the Chair  had made it clear that this would  be placed on the agenda of this meeting at 
which  he would  be reporting on the reports he had submitted to the CTG and open the floor for 
discussion and views . 
176.  Last, but not least, the Chair noted that  at its formal meeting of 3 -4 April 2023, the CTG Chair 
had provided a status report on his consultations under the agenda item "MC12  Implementation 
Matters: Functioning of the CTG and its Subsidiary Bodies and WTO  Response to the Pandemic". 
Members had requested the CTG Chair to share with the 14 Chairs of the subsidiary bodies the 
current status of work at the CTG, as reflected in document  JOB/CTG/28 . 
177.  In a communication sent to all 14 Chairs, the CTG Chair had particularly highlighted that the 
Council ha d thus far been able to reach formal agreement on the following four  issues, namely: 
adopting the use of the E-Agenda in the work of the CTG on a trial basis; extending the deadline for 
the inclusion of agenda items to 15  calendar days before the formal mee ting to allow Members to 
better prepare for the high number of trade concerns raised at the CTG; instructing the Secretariat 
to separate newly raised trade concerns and place them in the agenda before previously raised 
concerns; and instructing the Secreta riat to integrate the CTG  data concerning trade concerns into 
the Trade Concerns Database , subject to budgetary constraints . 
178.  In addition, there were approximately 11  other issues that the Council would  not discuss 
again, at least for the moment, because the Council ha d instructed either the CTG  Chair or the 
CTG Secretariat to take some action towards addressing the issues, or because they were 
cross-cutting issues that may need to be addressed at a horizontal level or ha d budgetary 
implications . 
179.  At the same CTG meeting, some Members had underlined that there was broad convergence 
on a number of issues that had been discussed at the CTG which should also be taken up for 
discussion under the subsidiary bodies, and in particular those related to assis tance to capital -based 
and Geneva -based delegates, planning and organization of meetings, and working procedures.  
180.  While the Chair of the CTG had indicated in his communication that the subsidiary bodies 
might find inspiration in some of the actions that had been taken by the Council, he emphasized that 
it went without saying that it would be  up to each subsidiary body to decide which issue to discuss 
and what kind of action to take to improve its functioning. He reminded the Chairs of the subsidiary 
bodies once more that they should  submit their written reports to the CTG describing the discussions 
held and improvements introduced and that, to the extent possible, such written reports should  be 
submitted for consideration at the last formal meeting of the CT G, which was scheduled to take place 
on 30  November  2023. In this regard, and to ensure a smooth transition, he requested all outgoing 
Chairs to brief the new Chairpersons with respect to this area of work as soon as they were 
appointed . 
181.  The Chair a pologiz ed for his lengthy statement but  wished to be as thorough as possible when 
he drew Members' attention to those issues . He invited Members to provide any suggestions they 
might have based on his reports to the CTG, on his reporting at the meeting  and on how Members  
wished to take up this issue in future Committee meetings . 
182.  Before open ing the floor for comments and suggestions, the Chair requested Members – while 
making such comments – to also focus on the future path of this discussion.  
183.  First, with respect to the mode of the discussion, formal vs. informal . The Chair indicated 
that i n his view and in order to ensure a free exchange of views, he could  foresee – if Members  
agree d – that the discussions at this meeting  as well as all future discussio ns on this matter could G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 25 - 
 
  take place in an informal mode. That would allow for a frank and open discussion  among Members . 
If consensus would be  reached on any improvements to be introduced to the functioning of the 
Committee, a decision could  be taken on that basis at the October meeting or in a special meeting, 
or via a written process. The Chair noted that he  would appreciate Members'  input in this respect . 
184.  Second , while there would  be an obvious focus on the issue of the functioning of the 
Committee,  he also remined Members of  the issue of the response to the pandemic  and whether 
Members  wished to pursue any further substantive discussions in t his respect. He recall ed that 
indeed some Members had submitted legislative notifications illustrating the procedural adaptations 
they undertook in their trade remed y investigations as a result of COVID -19, while others had 
notified AD actions referring to  the COVID -19 pandemic. He also recall ed that Members had held an 
informal discussion on the adjustments introduced to their laws, practices or procedures as they 
continued to operate during the pandemic period and the different approaches followed by Memb ers 
in this respect. The Chair queried whether  there was any further discussion Members  wished to 
pursue on the matter . 
185.  It was decided  that the Committee would conduct its discussion in an informal mode .  
186.  After reverting to the formal mode, the Chair indicated that following the meeting, the 
Secretariat would circulate a room document4 containing the list of items and suggestions for future 
discussions/exploration/consideration. He added that he would be circulating – along with the 
two outgoing Chairs of the Committees on Safeguards and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
– a joint communication5 on the way forward to follow  up on these issues. The room document 
reflecting the list of issues would be at tached to that communication. The rest of the process would 
be taken up by the new Chairs upon their election. He also added that Members could, if they so 
wished, place any additional suggestions on the table for discussion.  
187.  The Committee took note of the statements made  in the formal mode . 
8 NON-MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT IN ANTI -DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
188.  The Russian Federation  indicated that it requested to place this item on the agenda to draw 
Members' attenti on to certain treatments applied by some Members to other Members for the 
purpose of AD investigations. It submitted that for many years Members had been gathering in this 
Committee to review Members' AD laws which were traditionally intended to address un fair trading 
practices by private businesses. However, these days, certain AD policies had moved far away from 
their original purpose. To examine the limits of a state's right to regulate without punishment had 
become the new norm of a growing number of WT O Members' investigating authorities.  As part of 
these developments, some Members unilaterally labelled foreign markets as significantly distorted 
or as non -market economies and, consequently, allowed investigating authorities to depart from a 
strict compa rison between export prices and normal values obtained in the exporter's internal 
market.   
189.  The Russian Federation recalled that the United States had recently examined Russia's 
economy, although the United States itself was far from being a role model. It added that the scale 
of the United States' Government involvement in the economy was impressive. It invited Members 
to take a look at the large-scale monetary interventions of the United States' authorities as one of 
the main causes of turbulence not only in the United States, but around the world owing to the 
status  of the United States' dollar ("USD") as a global reserve currency. A telling example was the 
United States' actions to counter the COVID -19 crisis. The United States'  Government had injected 
into the economy more than USD 4 trillion, approximately USD  2.5 trillion of which were provided 
in the form of award spending, caus ing a global inflationary wave. To fight the inflation, the 
United  States had aggressively raised interest rates from 0.25 % to 5% in less than a year, which 
had catalysed another financial turmoil.   
190.  The Russian Federation added that restrictions on the convertibility of the USD into certain 
other currencies, such as the Russian ruble were one example of government influence on  the 
United  States'  economy. The United States banned the supply of USD bills to Russia, prohibited 
 
4 RD/ADP/36.  
5 Circulated on 10 May 2023 . G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 26 - 
 
  transactions with major Russian financial institutions (including the Bank of Russia), and promoted 
the disconnection of major Russian banks from SWIFT.  Another example  concerned the large extent 
of the involvement of the United States' Government in the ownership or control of the means of 
production. The Russian Federation submitted that the United States practice d nationalization of 
companies, usually in t he form of bailout s in which the government acquired  a controlling interest. 
Most vivid examples were the bailouts of AIG in 2008 and of General Motors Company in 2009. By 
the autumn of 2021, the United States'  Government -sponsored enterprises held about 
USD 8.3 trillion in assets, which represented more than one -third of the country's then annual GDP. 
The most recent example was the current United States' Government policy towards Silicon Valley 
and Signature Banks.  
191.  The Russian Federation indicated that an other illustration of the United States' Government 
involvement was its influence on the allocation of resources and on the price and output decisions 
of enterprises in the real sector of the economy. In 2022, President Biden accused oil companies of 
profiteering from hikes in energy prices  and threatened  them with legalisation to impose a windfall 
tax unless they increase d output. The Russian Federation added that lower -level price controls were 
also present in the United States' economy and that it was ty pical of the United States  Government 
agencies to limit the price that some monopolistic utilities charge d. Certain United States  health care 
programs set reimbursement rates for relevant goods and services, which were effectively price 
controls. One of th e latest examples occurred in May 2022, when New York's Mayor Eric Adams 
declared a state of emergency to prevent baby formula price increases.   
192.  The Russian Federation also mentioned that the United States'  economy was replete with 
examples of state interv entions. One example could be seen in liberalizing clauses of the 
United  States legislation that benefit ted local producers. Based on such clauses, the United States 
judicial branch of government – in USDOC 's parlance – effectively supported a trademark theft by 
ruling that cheese does not have to come from the Gruy ère region in Switzerland to be sold under 
the name Gruy ère. Other examples could be found in many recent United States  trade -related 
measures that were prohibited by WTO rules. For instance, the United States  CHIPS Act contain ed 
a provision that would distort competition and violate the rights of investors by de facto  and explicitly  
prohibit ing relations of the recipient companies with peer businesses in Chin a, Russia, the 
Islamic  Republic of Iran and North Korea. Furthermore , the United States  Inflation Reduction Act 
envisaged about USD  800 billion to – among other  things – drive climate -smart agriculture and 
renewable energy initiatives, contingent upon hars h localization provisions. Therefore, 
implementation of this Act would risk distorting trade and investment.  
193.  The Russian Federation added that state interference was also considerable in the agricultural 
sphere. Due to the high levels of trade -distorting d omestic support, internal production significantly 
exceeded  domestic consumption, which led to spill-over effects as regards export  performance, this 
representing de facto  export subsidization. In the 2019/2020 marketing year, the United States  
trade -distorting domestic support reached USD  34.5 billion, i.e., over 30 % year-on-year growth. 
State involvement could also be observed in the energy sector. In March 2022, the United States 
issued a statement describing the commitment to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian energy. 
This effectively translated into an anti -competitive domestic industry support measure, as in 2022 
the United States L NG exports to the European Union increased by 140% year -over-year in 
quantitative terms. Since the domestic price of na tural gas in the United States was several times 
cheaper than its export price to the European Union, the United States  gas producers along with 
United States  exporters of energy -intensive goods turned out to be among the largest beneficiaries 
of the Europ ean energy crisis.   
194.  The Russian Federation finally indicated that a comprehensive  analysis of the United States 
economy was not the aim of its intervention , but that it illustrate d that on e could  find government 
intervention in any economy. Hence , if AD instruments evolve d into an evaluation of government 
influence instead of pricing behaviour of exporters, opportunities to export would turn into a myth.   
195.  The United States  indicated that for reaso ns that were obvious to everybody, it would not be 
engaging with the Russian Federation on this issue, except to note that it was unclear to the United 
States how any aspect of the Russian Federation's statement was within the terms of reference of 
this Co mmittee.   
196.  The Committee took note  of the statements  made .  G/ADP/M/63  
 
- 27 - 
 
  9 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
197.  The Chair recalled that by decision of the Committee, its two regular meetings take place in 
the spring and the autumn of each year, in the last week of April and t he last week of October, 
respectively. For the autumn 2023 meeting, the next regular meeting of the Committee, along with 
the meetings of the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention and the Working Group on 
Implementation, would be held in the week of 23 October 2023 . 
198.  It was so decided .  
10 OTHER BUSINESS  
199.  The Chair  encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to give sufficient notice to the Members concerned prior to the meeting in order to ascertain 
whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting . 
200.  No issues were raised by any Member under "other business ".  
201.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.   
11 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
202.  The Chair recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedures for the ADP Committee meetings 
indicates that : "The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices shall elect a Chairperson and may elect 
a Vice -Chairperson from among the representatives of Members. The election shall take place at the 
first regular meeting of the year and sha ll take effect at the end of the meeting. The Chairperson 
and the Vice - Chairperson shall hold office until the end of the first regular meeting of the following 
year."  
203.  As the consultations at the CTG level regarding the selection of the new Chair of this  
Committee as well as of other Committees under the CTG were still under way, a new Chair could 
not be elected at the end of the meeting . In these circumstances, the Chair  suggest ed that the 
Secretariat send a communication once the CTG has completed its w ork, indicating the proposed 
Committee Chair identified by the CTG.  The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the 
Committee absent any objection.  This approach, which has been taken in previous years, would 
obviate the need for an additional meeting o f the Committee . 
204.  It was so decided . 
205.  India wished the Chair all the best in his future endeavours and commended him for holding 
the meetings of this complex Committee with a lot of patience and dignity.  
 
__________