RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/47  
 
2 February 2015  
(15-0698)  Page: 1/17  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 29 OCTOBER 2014 
CHAIR: MR ANDREW STAINES (UNITED KINGDOM) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
29 October 2014.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/4373: 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVI EW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR 
AMENDED LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIO USLY REVI EWED) .................................................................... 2
 
1.1   Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Su ppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/BRA /2/Suppl.10) ...................................... 2  
1.2   Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR /1/Corr.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Corr.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Corr.1) and (G/ADP/N/1/C MR/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 2  
1.3   Congo (G/ADP/N/1/COG/1–G/S CM/N/1/COG/1–G/SG/ N/1/COG/1) ................................... 2  
1.4   European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/ Rev.1), (G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1/Suppl.3-
G/SCM/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.1-G/S G/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.1) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1/Suppl.4-G/SCM/N/1/E U/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/1/ EU/1/Suppl.2) ................ 2  
1.5   Mexico (G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/S uppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.4-
G/SG/N/1/MEX/1 /Suppl.4) ................................................................................................. 2  
1.6   Montenegro (G/ADP/N/1/MNE/1 /Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/MNE/1 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 3  
1.7   New Zealand (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/S uppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/N ZL/2/Suppl.5) .............................. 3  
1.8   Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/2–G/SCM/N/1/QAT/2–G/SG/N/1/QAT/2) ...................................... 3  
1.9   US (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.16–G/SCM/N/1/USA/Suppl.16) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.17–G/S CM/N/1/USA/Su ppl.17)  ....................................................... 3  
2   SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/244)............................................................................................................... 3  
3   PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ................................................ 12  
4   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMV ENTION .................................................................................................. 13  
5   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTA TION ......................................................................................................... 13  
6   PRODUCT SCOPE DETERMINATION IN  ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS AND 
MEASURES BY CERTAIN MEMBERS – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION .................................................................................................................. 1 3
 
7   COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS REGARDING G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 2 - 
 
  BRAZIL'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................. 14  
8   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 15  
9   DATE OF THE NEXT  REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................... 17  
10   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6) ............. 17  
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREV IOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATI ONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED) 
1.1  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.10)  
3.  No written questions concerning the notification of Brazil  were posed by any Member. 
1.2  Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Corr.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Corr.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Corr.1) and (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) 
4.  The written questions concerning the notification of Cameroon contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 can be found in 
the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3–G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3–G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 - Submitted by the United States 
("US")  
 
5.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 
1.3  Congo (G/ADP/N/1/COG/1–G/SCM/N/1/COG/1–G/SG/N/1/COG/1) 
6.  No written questions concerning the notification of Congo  were posed by any Member. 
1.4  European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1), (G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1/Suppl.3-
G/SCM/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.1) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/EU/1/Rev.1/Suppl.4-G/SCM/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.2)  
7.  No written questions concerning the notifications of the European Union ("EU") were posed by 
any Member. 
1.5  Mexico (G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.4-
G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.4) 
8.  The written questions concerning the notification of Mexico  can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/22–G/SCM/Q1/MEX/22–G/SG/Q1/MEX/6 - Submitted by the US 
 
9.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/23–G/SCM/Q1/MEX/23–G/SG/Q1/MEX/7 - Replies to the US 
 G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.6  Montenegro (G/ADP/N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1) 
10.  The written questions concerning the notification of Montenegro  c a n  b e  f o u n d  i n  t h e  
following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MNE/3–G/SCM/Q1/MNE/3–G/SG/Q1/MNE/3 - Submitted by the US 
 11.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MNE/4–G/SCM/Q1/MNE/4–G/SG/Q1/MNE/4 - Replies to the US 
 1.7  New Zealand (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.5) 
12.  No written questions concerning the notification of New Zealand  were posed by any Member. 
1.8  Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/2–G/SCM/N/1/QAT/2–G/SG/N/1/QAT/2) 
13.  No written questions concerning the notification of Qatar  were posed by any Member. 
1.9  US (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.16–G/SCM/N/1/USA/Suppl.16) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.17–G/SCM/N/1/USA/Suppl.17) 
14.  No written questions concerning the notifications of the  US were posed by any Member. 
15.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifications from Brazil, along with questions posed by 
t h e  U S  t o  o n e  o f  B r a z i l ' s  n o t i f i c a t i o n s ,  a s  w e l l  a s  a n y  o t h e r s  r e c e i v e d  a n d  c i r c u l a t e d  b y  t h e  
applicable deadlines1, would be on the agenda for review at the spring Regular meeting of the 
Committee.  
16.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that could be required is a nil notification. He encouraged 
Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
17.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.38, the Chair invited Members that  had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement (the "AD Agreement"), and encouraged 
Members to review and update previously submitted information where necessary. 
18.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
2  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-D UMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/244) 
19.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the first half of 
2014 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/259 and G/ADP/N/259/Suppl.1. Members taking 
no anti-dumping ("AD") actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This would not apply to those Members that had already submitted a one-time notification under 
Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement. Since document G/ADP/N/259/Add.1 was circulated 
the Kyrgyz Republic, Montenegro and Zimbabwe ha d submitted nil notifications. He noted that a 
significant number of Members had not yet respon ded to the request for semi-annual reports. This 
notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had taken AD actions during 
the period in question, except for Members that had already submitted a one-time notification. Members were urged to comply with this important notification requirement. 
20.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual reports for the first half of 2014. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Egypt; EU; Israel; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; the Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey and Uruguay. 
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/491-G/SCM/W/563-G/SG/W/232. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 4 - 
 
  21.  Chinese Taipei made a general statement addressing its systematic concern on Members' 
current AD practices. It noted the growing number of trade remedy cases simultaneously involving 
AD and countervailing measures in recent years. It urged Members resorting to such dual trade remedy actions to ensure that their investigation procedures, especially those pertaining to the 
determination of AD and countervailing margins, are consistent with the WTO Agreements. It also 
requested Members to avoid the use of trade remedy instruments as protectionist measures. Japan shared its general concerns on the growing number of protectionist trade remedy measures.  
22.  On the semi-annual report of  Argentina,  Chile  referred to the investigation on Chilean 
exports of copper-based fungicides. It submitted th at the Argentine investigating authorities' (IA) 
final report on dumping, injury, causal link, and its final recommendation, were inconsistent with the AD Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994. In  calculating the dumping margin, the IA did not 
use the best information available, in violation of Article 6.8 and paragraph 6 of Annex II of the AD 
Agreement. In the injury analysis, the IA based its conclusions on a limited number of indicators, in which the domestic industry seemed to be in a less favourable condition than the IA considered 
to be reasonable. In addition, the IA overused conf idential data on cost and reasonable profitability 
in order to estimate the undercutting effect of imported products vis-à-vis the domestic products, while excluding the sales price of the domestic pr oduct, because this would not cover the cost of 
production. The IA had ignored other factors which could be relevant for evaluating the domestic 
industry's situation, in particular the conditions of competition between the imports and national production. Furthermore, the analysis of causal link ignored any possible effect of imports from other investigated origins. The IA submitted that there was no presence of dumping in such origins 
and that imports from countries in which dumping was noted was more significant. In its analysis, 
the IA confused the review of injury with the review of dumping, as Argentina's import figures for the most recent period showed exactly the opposi te; Chile had less exports of the subject product 
than exporters from other countries that were found not to practice dumping, although their prices 
were much lower than those of the Chilean product. This investigation was terminated on 17 October 2014 with the imposition of measures. Chile expressed concern over the negative 
effect of such imposition on bilateral trade and Chilean interests in the Argentinian market.  
23.  Argentina  confirmed that the  investigation was terminated with the imposition of measures 
and that the WTO was duly notified. It requested Chile's comments in writing to convey to capital 
for consideration.  
24.  On the semi-annual report of  Australia, Turkey reiterated its concerns over the investigation 
on Turkish rod in coils since 10 April 2014. Turkey's technical views were submitted to the AD 
Commission of Australia ("Commission"). In line with Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, any 
negative impact on the financial status of the applicant caused by any other known factors, 
including high value of AUD, declining domestic demand and negative impacts of the Carbon Tax, 
should not be attributed to Turkish imports. Cont rary to the assertion of the applicant concerning 
the existence of causal link between alleged dumped imports and the alleged injury, pursuant to 
Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, a considerable num ber of the applicant's financial indicators, such 
as sales; production; cost; price; profit; return on investment; employment and productivity, had not demonstrated any negative sign during the injury period. The applicant enjoyed the 
monopolistic status of setting the price in the Australian rod in coils market. This had undermined 
fair competition in that market. Turkey hoped that the Commission's "Statement of Essential Facts" due on 15 January 2015 would affirm the Turk ish position on the non-existence of dumped 
Turkish exports of the subject product. Furthe rmore, Turkey expressed disappointment with 
respect to the initiation of another AD investigation against steel reinforcing bar only a few months after the above-mentioned investigation in response to a petition by the same applicant. It noted 
Australia's adversely changing approach to free trade by more frequent resort to trade remedies 
and underlined that Turkey reserved its ri ghts under the relevant WTO Agreements.  
25.  In connection with Australia's investigation on quenched and tempered steel plate, Japan 
regretted that Australia had not considered Japanese exporters' claims sufficiently in the 
preliminary determination and the disclosure of e ssential facts. These exporters claimed that the 
injury to the domestic industry was caused not by imports from Japan, but by decreasing demand. Japan requested Australia to fully consider the exporters' claims when determining injury and 
causal link.  
26.  Australia explained that the investigation into rod in coils from Indonesia, Chinese Taipei and 
Turkey was initiated on 10 April 2014 and is still on-going. There had been a number of extensions G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 5 - 
 
  relating to the Commission's publication of the Statement of Essential Facts. The matter is 
currently under investigation and the Statement is due to be published on 15 January 2015. As to the matters raised by Turkey, issues such as non-attribution of injury from other causes and finding of material injury caused by dumped impo rts are requirements of the Australian legislation 
in compliance with the AD Agreement. Interested  parties could make submissions on these issues 
which would be considered and reflected in the Statement. Interested parties would have an opportunity within 20 days of that publication to make further submissions. Submissions received 
within that time must be consider ed in making the final report.  
27.  The investigation on Steel Reinforcing Bar from Korea and Turkey was initiated in response to 
an application from the Australian manufacturer on 17 October 2014. The investigation was in its early stages and submissions were required by 26 November 2014. Turkey and any other 
interested Member were encouraged to make submissions in the context of this process. 
28.  On the  Australian investigation on Quenched and Tempered Steel Plate from Japan, Finland 
and Sweden which was, initiated on 8 January 2014, Australia indicated that the statement of 
essential facts was published on 27 August 2014. There was a slight delay in publishing that 
statement given the number and nature of issues  raised, submissions by parties and the number 
of interested parties, including Japanese exporter s that took the opportunity to make submissions 
in relation to that statement within a 20-day period provided for in Australia's legislation. Having 
considered those submissions, the Commission sought further extension of its report to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Industry to enable it to give full consideration to all of those submissions. The final report of the Co mmission was submitted to the Parliamentary 
Secretary to the Ministry of Industry on 27 October 2014. The Parliamentary Secretary then had 
30 days, unless circumstances required him to have longer time, in which to make his decision. The point at which the Parliamentary Secretary's Decision is made, his decision would be notified 
and the Commission's report with recommendations would be published as statement of reasons 
for the Parliamentary Secretary's Decision. At the publication date, parties would then have 30 days to apply for administrative review of those decisions to the AD Review Panel.  
29.  On the semi-annual report of Brazil , Peru reiterated its concern regarding the AD 
investigation on biaxially oriented polypropylene from Peru, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, India and 
Chinese Taipei. There were various irregularities with regard to the dumping margin calculation, analysis of injury and causal link at the beginning of the investigation, in the preliminary stage, as 
well as in the statement of essential facts. To begin with, the calculations were based on 
information which did not correspond to the product under investigation, i.e. BOPP films, but to a different product, which had higher added value. As a consequence, the calculation for the 
dumping margin at this stage of the process was distorted.  
30.  The preliminary report showed that the main  analysed indicators having a bearing on the 
domestic industry in Brazil, especially with respect to sales and inflation, demonstrated a positive 
trend. However, the IA determined the existence of  injury and causal link without evaluating other 
factors which could be seen as causes for this injury. In this connection, although the information pertaining to the exports of various countries investigated, including Peru, was inaccurate, the MFN tariff applied to this product increased from 16% to 25%. In addition, the price of supply for this 
Brazilian product was higher than that used by co mpetitors due to the fact that these imports were 
affected by the AD measures. 
31.  The statement of essential facts pertaining to calculation of the dumping margin did not 
comply with WTO standards. The IA had determined  the price for one of the investigated products 
in the domestic market by comparing it with one domestic sale of 59 kilograms, not with the price of 5 million kilograms in order to calculate an intermediary 70% margin, instead of calculating the 
average which was 15%-34%. The IA has also failed to demonstrate the elements relevant to 
domestic production before making a final decision to impose AD measures. 
32.  Peru emphasized that the application of AD measures on Peruvian exports would cause 
s i g n i f i c a n t  d a m a g e  a t  a  t i m e  w h e n  P e r u  h a d  b e e n  t r y i n g  t o  o p e n  u p  i t s  m a r k e t  t o w a r d s  B r a z i l  
without imposing any tariff or non-tariff barriers. It hoped that this matter could be resolved in the 
context of the multilateral and bilateral agreemen ts and urged Brazil to make it final decision 
taking into consideration Peru's comments and concerns.  G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 6 - 
 
  33.  Chile expressed concern regarding the Brazil's investigation on BOPP films from a number of 
countries, including Chile. Chile participated actively in the investigation and provided comments 
with respect to what it considered to be shortcomings in the investigation process. It associated itself with Peru's statement and highlighted some elements in the statement of essential facts 
recently issued by the Brazilian IA. First, the calculation of the dumping margin for Chile estimated 
in that report was arbitrary. It was carried out by selecting as a normal value, for the purposes of comparison with the FOB price of the Chilean expo rts to Brazil, the export price of Chile to a 
particular destination and at a particular period of time, which yielded a positive dumping margin. 
Second, the statement of essential facts showed that in the case of Chile, there was no price undercutting in the recent period and it would not be possible to state that imports from Chile were the cause of possible injury. Third, imports fr om Chile played a very small role compared to 
all imports of Brazil of the product under investigation. A decade ago, Chile was the origin of one-
third of Brazilian imports, while in 2013 it accoun ted for only 5% of such imports. During that 
same period, Brazil's imports from the rest of the world more than doubled, despite the fact that 
there were tariff preferences granted to increase reciprocal trade. The Brazilian IA recently 
extended the deadline to give a final determination. Chile hoped that this deadline would be used to adequately evaluate all of the evidence, background and viewpoints submitted during the 
investigation before any final determination was reached. Chile hoped that this would lead to a 
result which would not have a negative impact on the already limited presence of Chilean products in the Brazilian market.  
34.  Colombia associated itself  with the statements of Peru and Chile with respect to the Brazilian 
investigation on BOPP films, as a non-traditional product with high value-added. It highlighted that 
several issues were already discussed with Brazil  bilaterally. It expressed concern regarding the 
methods used by the IA to evaluate normal value in Colombia which was based on criteria other 
than those used to calculate the constructed normal value. It also cast doubt on the methods used 
to consider factors such as energy value, labour cost and the analysis of imports from each country investigated in relation to total Brazilian imports. Colombia noted that Brazil had not 
imposed provisional measures and requested more information in this respect, as this might have 
a bearing on the final stage of the investigation. 
35.  Korea, Republic of referred to positive in dications shown by Brazil, at bilateral meetings, 
regarding the AD investigation on bus and truck tires from Korea. It hoped that the upcoming final 
determination would reflect that. It made one general comment on the use of constructed price as 
normal value. Article 2.2 of AD Agreement allowe d the use of constructed price when sales in the 
exporting country do not permit a proper comparison because of the low volume of such sales, and 
its footnote 2 provided the ratio of such sales to  b e  5 %  or more  of the  s ale s  to the  imp orting  
Member in order to be a sufficient quantity. It inquired about the meaning of the term "sales in exporting country". One interpretation was the to tal sales of the like product and another could 
only include sales in the ordinary course of trade ("OCT") excluding sales below cost. Brazil 
seemed to adopt the second approach, while most IA s follow the first. Given that the application of 
constructed price usually increases the dumping margin, IAs should be very careful not to expand the use of constructed price too far. It noted that the 5% rule is to see whether home market sales 
are sufficient as a representative data source, not to determine dumping margin itself, so it is not 
reasonable to exclude sales below cost.  
36.  On the issues raised by Peru, Brazil explai ned that for the purpose of initiation, the dumping 
margin was calculated based on a product that was not exactly the like product sold in Peru. 
However, in accordance with Article 5.2 of the AD Agreement, the IA considered that the application contained the information reasonably available to the applicant at the moment it 
submitted the petition. The petitioner was not privy to information pertaining to all the categories 
or types of the product exported to Brazil and sold  in Peru. Obviously, during this course of the 
investigation, information on specific types or categories of the product was taken into consideration. 
37.  Concerning the preliminary determination of  injury, according to Article 3.4 of the AD 
Agreement, the IA had analysed all relevant factors listed in that Article. Nevertheless, it clearly indicated that none alone nor several of them were determinative. It added that reaching a 
positive determination of injury does not necessita te that all such factors have been negatively 
impacted. On causal link, in its preliminary report, the impact of the preferential tariffs was analysed by the IA. In addition, the increase of tariffs applied by Brazil, which could have 
negatively impacted imports from countries for which no preferential treatment was granted, had G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 7 - 
 
  actually not affected such imports which had, to the contrary, increased in volume during that 
particular period. 
38.  With respect to the Brazilian producers' costs,  the main raw material used for the production 
of BOPP film is propylene resin, a petrochemical commodity widely produced all over the world. 
Therefore, the domestic industry had several sour ces of supply. It highlighted that the dumping 
mentioned by Peru was restricted to only one coun try. For the margin of dumping indicated in the 
essential facts, the preliminary determination took into account the data provided by the exporter 
in the questionnaire response. Therefore, the figures shown in the essential facts differed from 
those of the preliminary determination because of the results of the on-the-spot verification conducted after the preliminary determination.  
39.  In terms of procedure, Brazil mentioned that all interested parties had access to the files and 
were able to submit arguments. The essential facts report issued by DECOM was of 194 
comprehensive pages. However, this was not the final determination and other factors to be considered with respect to the injury determination were included in that report, even though 
there was no analysis of such figures. It referre d to item 6, pages 134-188 of the essential facts 
report listing all such factors. On the non-application of provisional measures, even though there was a positive preliminary determination, DECOM decided to make a deeper analysis of non-
attribution after carefully considering all other factors raised by interested parties to come to a 
final conclusion. 
40.  On the comments made by Chile, Brazil submi tted that no arbitrary criteria were used in that 
case. The investigated Chilean company failed to  provide a questionnaire response or adequate 
information during the on-the-spot verification and thus the dumping margin was calculated based 
on facts available. Another important point is the concept of undercutting, which was of relative importance in this case. In cases where there is a sharp decrease in the prices of the domestic 
industry, i.e. the prices were depressed by reason  of dumped imports, undercutting as such might 
no longer exist. It reminded Chile of the provisio ns of Articles 5.8 and 3.3 of the AD Agreement, 
which clearly stated that a cumulative assessment of imports could be conducted, if the conditions 
provided for in Article 5.8 were met.  
41.  On the question posed by Colombia with rega rd to BOPP films, Brazil clarified some of the 
procedures undertaken by its IA. With respect to the use of normal value vs. constructed normal 
value, the procedure was adopted through a preliminary determination before verification took 
place, as the company had not provided in its response information about costs. So it was 
impossible to proceed to the below cost test and also there was no explanation with regard to the methodology, which was used to calculate those costs. So the normal value calculated was the 
basis for the normal constructed value. In this connection, the essential facts statement, to which 
all interested parties had access, described the normal methodology of calculating the normal value. With regard to the application of the energy  tariff and labour costs, it was important to take 
into account figures used for the calculation of the constructed normal value at the beginning of 
the investigation. On the comments relating to the omission of real values of imports and the analysis of the imports from each country investigated in relation to the total Brazilian imports, Brazil noted that all parties had access to the facts of the investigation, where it was possible to 
find information about the imports and participation of each of the countries being investigated. 
Brazil would issue its decision in November 2014. 
42.  On the issues raised by Korea, Brazil  referred to its AD Regulation, and explained that the 
viability test is performed after the OCT test is  conducted. The AD Agreement did not indicate 
when such test should be performed. The first se ntence of Article 2.2 indicated that the second 
and third methods for determining normal value may be used when there are no sales in the OCT. 
It interpreted that to mean that the IA should have conducted the OCT test before the viability 
test. For example, if the volume of sales in th e domestic market represented 50% of the export 
volume, and the viability test was conducted first, the IA would come to the conclusion that the first method for determining normal value should  be used. Nevertheless, in conducting the OCT 
test, the IA concluded that 100% of the domestic market sales were made below cost; i.e. all 
domestic sales were not made in the OCT. As a consequence, the viability test made before had to be revised and an alternative method for dete rmining normal value had to be applied.  
43.  On the semi-annual report of  China,  Japan expressed concern regarding China's investigation 
on optical fibre preform, as the sampling method used was likely to be inconsistent with G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement. In addition, Japa n believed that there was no threat of material 
injury to the domestic industry as a result of Japan's exports, considering the data contained in the application and other information obtained from public sources. Japan requested China to conduct its investigation accordingly. 
44.  China explained that this investigation was still on-going, and that it would not make specific 
comments on the issues raised. However, it confirmed that its investigation was strictly conducted 
in accordance with its law and regulation, and that any determination regarding threat of material 
injury would be based on the objective evaluati on and examination of positive evidence and 
information presented to the IA. If the interested parties had any requests, arguments or counter-arguments regarding the specific issues still in the process of investigation, the IA would always be open to such comments.  
45.  On the semi-annual report of  the Dominican Republic, Turkey referred to the definitive AD 
measure imposed on Turkish steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement since 13 June 2011. 
Turkey explained that given the non-existence of  an ongoing injury, the Dominican IA violated 
Article 7.1 (iii) of the AD Agreement in its application of a provisional anti-dumping duty; acted 
inconsistently with the non-attribution principles under Article 3.5; and violated Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 9.3 through the imposition of a country-w ide definitive measure whereas one of the 
cooperating parties had a – 0.49% dumping margin. Turkey requested written answers to its 
written questions
2 and reserved its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements.  
46.  The Dominican Republic took note of the Turk ish statement. It indicated that recently there 
were changes in its IA. It promised to convey Turkey's comments to capital and would come back 
with replies as early as possible. 
47.  On the semi-annual report of  India, Australia requested an update on India's flexible 
slabstock polyol investigation.  
48.  India clarified that the time for completing the investigation had been extended to 
11 January 2015 and that the investigation was on-going. It encouraged Australia to direct any 
concerns it might have to the IA, so that they could be addressed in the final findings.  
49.  On the semi-annual report of Indonesia , Turkey indicated that on 27 August 2014, the 
Komite Anti-Dumping Indonesia ("KADI") initiated an AD investigation against wheat flour 
originating in Turkey, Sri Lanka and India. Turk ey was of the view that Indonesia has been 
implementing protectionist policies affecting the im ports of wheat flour. On 24 August 2012, KADI 
initiated a safeguard investigation against wheat flour, although it had initiated an AD investigation 
against the same product on 17 November 2008. Although the AD investigation was terminated without the imposition of measures due to the wi thdrawal of the application by the complainants 
on 23 April 2012, it inevitably deterred import s of wheat flour. Moreover, the safeguard 
investigation was finalised with the application of a safeguard measure in form of a quota, which had been in force since 4 May 2014. This clearly showed that Indonesia had frequently resorted to 
trade policy measures to block imports of wheat flour. Turkey reserved its rights under the 
relevant WTO Agreements. 
50.  Indonesia explained that the IA had found ev idence of dumped imports of wheat flour from 
India, Turkey and Sri Lanka, whic h had caused injury to Indonesian domestic producers of that 
product. As the initiation of this investigation took place in July 2014, it would report it in its next 
semi-annual report for the period July-December 2014.  
51.  On the semi-annual report of  Korea, Japan  referred to the investigation on valves for 
pneumatic transmissions and submitted that Korea had not sufficiently considered the Japanese 
exporter's claims in its preliminary determination. Some of the Japanese imports did not compete with the Korean domestic like products, because the imports differ in use and quality, and thus 
could not cause injury to the Korean domestic product. Japan asked Korea to take full account of 
the exporters' claims when determining the injury and causal relationship.  
                                               
2 G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 9 - 
 
  52.  Korea, Republic of explained that the Kore an IA ("KTC") understood Japan's concerns. During 
the forthcoming proceedings KTC would provide all interested parties, including Japanese 
producers and exporters, with adequate opportunities to present their views and would conduct the investigation in a fair and transparent manner.  
53.  On the semi-annual report of  Morocco, Turkey indicated that on 12 August 2014, the Ministry 
of Industry, Commerce, Investment and Numerical Economy of Morocco published its final 
determination regarding the AD investigation on imports of hot rolled steel sheets originating in 
Turkey and the EU, which was initiated on 21 Janu ary 2013. The Ministry determined to apply an 
AD measure of 11% ad valorem  duty on Turkish exporters. This measure entered into force on 
2 October 2014 following its publication in the Official Gazette. Turkey had raised concerns repeatedly throughout the whole investigation proced ure; i.e. official hearings, bilateral meetings 
and submitted its technical views. Morocco's final determination, which was based on its 
determination of non-cooperation and application of facts available, was unacceptable as the relevant Turkish exporters had fully cooperated with the Ministry in every step of the investigation, 
via questionnaire responses, on-the-spot verifications, etc. 
54.  As stated in Article VI:1 of GATT, the imposition of an ADD necessitates the existence of 
dumping. However, no dumping was found for the relevant Turkish exporters and the provisional 
duty was therefore initially determined as 0%. However, in its final disclosure, the Ministry based 
its decision on facts available and imposed a final duty of 11%. Moreover, the final disclosure explaining the basis for the IA's final decision was not disclosed in a timely manner so as to give the exporters the opportunity to defend themselves, which is inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the 
AD Agreement. The Ministry's import restrictio ns, through the application of a surveillance 
procedure during the investigation, were incons istent with WTO rules. Although there was no 
reference to such procedure in the AD Agreement, in practice, no licence was given to Turkish 
exporters, which restricted exports from Turkey. Considering that the investigation was initiated 
on 21 January 2013 and that the final determination was announced on 12 August 2014, Turkey believed that the duration of the investigation was not in compliance with Article 5.10 of AD 
Agreement. Turkey reserved its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements.  
55.  Morocco confirmed that Turkey have cooperated with Morocco throughout the entire 
procedure. With respect to hot-rolled steel, the domestic company which submitted the petition 
had suffered considerable injury due to dumped imports. Morocco had thus initiated an 
investigation and contacted all the interested parties, although with some delay, and provided 
notification concerning the preliminary and final determinations. Concerning the surveillance procedure, this procedure was meant to allow the Ministry to follow in a timely fashion the circuit 
of imports from the parties concerned. It was thus not an import restriction, but rather a daily 
follow-up procedure. It was also applied in connection with safeguards and countervailing measures, as well as import licensing. Morocco added that information pertaining to import 
surveillance was always provided to the Committee on Import Licensing and it had always been 
careful not to create any inconsistency with the AD Agreement. On all the other issues raised by Turkey, Morocco requested to receive them in writing.  
56.  On the semi-annual report of  Philippines, the Philippines referred to the provisional AD 
measure on Turkish wheat flour. The Philippines, through Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) 
No. 12-2014 and CMO No. 17-2014, applied this provisional measure on wheat flour covered under the ASEAN Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature (AHT N) 1101.00.10. The 4-month long provisional AD 
measure was terminated on 30 September 2014. The final investigation by the Tariff Commission, 
which began in May 2014, had yet to be completed. An important factor in the delay, similar to the Department of Agriculture's preliminary investigation, was the difficulty in obtaining information 
during the August summer break and due respect for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The 
entire investigation was still within the 12-18 months maximum period of investigation pursuant to Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement. Ocular inspection s of the facilities of the domestic producers and 
importers as well as an inspection of the faciliti es of the main Turkish exporters to the Philippines, 
was conducted during the period May-June 2014. The IA held its public consultations and hearings 
on 15-17 September 2014. The Tariff Commission would disclose in writing to all interested parties the essential facts and findings as contained in a draft Report before end-October 2014, after 
which parties would be given 5 days from the date of receipt to respond and/or comment in 
writing. The final investigation would then be concluded by submitting the Report of Findings to the Secretary of Agriculture and the publication of its Notice of Conclusion of Formal Investigation. 
All parties, including Turkey, would be furnished copies of the Report. For more information, the G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Philippines invited Members to read Sections 15-20 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of 
the Philippine Anti-Dumping Act of 1999 contained in WTO document G/ADP/N/1/PHL/2.  
57.  On the semi-annual report of  Ukraine, the Russian Federation expressed its concerns 
regarding the recent interim review by Ukraine of the AD measure on nitrate ammonium 
originating in the Russian Federation. The review resulted in an increase of the duty level for 
Russian producers and the normal value was calcul ated by Ukraine on the basis of the so-called 
cost adjustment methodology. A similar methodol ogy applied by the EU was being challenged at 
the moment by the Russian Federation and some other Members within the WTO dispute 
settlement ("DS") mechanism. Given that, it identi fied some elements of the review related to 
both methodology and procedures, which appeared to be inconsistent with the Ukraine's WTO obligations. 
58.  On the substance of the applied methodology of dumping margin calculation, for the purpose 
of its dumping margin determinations, Ukraine rejected actual costs of the product under consideration, especially costs of gas. These co sts had been recorded in the Russian producers' 
records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and reasonably reflected the 
costs associated with the production of ammonium nitrate. Ukraine had also replaced the exporters' actual cost data with fictional purported market cost data. The new data included prices 
for gas outside of the Russian Federation, which wa s the country of origin and exportation of the 
product under consideration. Such replacement was made for determination whether sales were made in the ordinary course of trade and for subsequent construction of the normal value. Naturally, the external price for gas chosen by Ukraine significantly increased the normal value 
and, consequently, the dumping margin for Russian  producers. The Russian Federation could not 
see any legal basis in the AD Agreement for such cost adjustment methodology and considered it to be inconsistent with Articles 2 and 3 of the AD Agreement and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994. 
59.  On procedure, Ukraine did not provide the interested parties with all data pertaining to the 
dumping margin calculation and injury determinations. Ukraine has thus failed to disclose to the interested parties the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the results of 
the interim review. This had deprived the exporter s within the meaning of Article 6.9 of the AD 
Agreement of the possibility to defend their interests. The Russian Federation requested Ukraine to provide the Russian exporters with all the data co ncerning the essential facts under consideration, 
which formed the basis for the results of the inte rim review, especially the request to disclose the 
normal value and dumping margin calculation and information about the injury determinations. 
The Russian Federation referred to its written questions concerning the interim review in document G/ADP/Q2/UKR/1 and requested written answers.  
60.  Ukraine explained that the AD measures concerning imports of ammonium nitrate from the 
Russian Federation were imposed by the Decision of the Inter-Departmental Commission on 
International Trade of Ukraine of 25 May 2008, wi th subsequent changes and additions made on 
30 October 2010. On 24 May 2013, the Commission initiated an expiry review of these measures 
following a request lodged by the domestic industry. On 2 July 2013, the Commission initiated an interim review of these measures following a request of the same petitioners acting on behalf of the domestic industry. On 1 July 2014, the Commission extended the AD measures on imports of 
ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation for another 5 years. The Commission also revised 
the applicable ADD rates following the interim review, including for two Russian exporters as well as the residual duty for all other producers in the Russian Federation. In conducting these reviews, 
the IA reached its conclusions on the basis of and in  strict compliance with the "Law of Ukraine on 
the Protection of the National Producer ag ainst Dumped Imports", which had never been 
questioned in the WTO framework, and in accordan ce with the AD Agreement. Both the expiry and 
interim reviews were evidence-based and included participation of all major producers and/or 
exporters of ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation. Hence, ample opportunities were given to all interested parties to present their views and arguments with regard to the reviews concerned. Ukraine was ready to take any further questions from the Russian Federation regarding 
any outstanding concerns as well as to discuss this matter further, if necessary.
3  
61.  On the semi-annual report of the  US, the Russian Federation referred to the AD investigation 
on imports of grain-oriented electrical steel ("GO ES") from the Russian Federation. It appreciated 
the determination of the US International Tr ade Commission of 23 October 2014 that the US 
                                               
3 Written answers submitted by Ukraine could be found in document G/ADP/Q2/UKR/2. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 11 - 
 
  industry had not been materially injured by imports of GOES from the Russian Federation. The 
Russian Federation referred to its written ques tions to the US in document G/ADP/Q2/USA/3. 
62.  Japan raised two issues relating to US investigations. First, Japan expressed concern 
regarding the length of US AD measures. The US had fourteen measures in force against Japanese 
products, four of which were more than 20 years old, with one imposed in 1978; i.e. around 
35 years ago. Japan asked the US to swiftly revoke these unjustifiably long measures. Second, Japan expressed concern about the US investigation on Non-Oriented Electrical Steel (NOES). 
Japan requested the US to determine the injury and causal relationship appropriately, as it did in 
GOES, in which the US found neither material injury nor threat of material injury to the domestic industry.  
63.  On the questions posed by the Russian Fe deration, the US provided written answers in 
document G/ADP/Q2/US/4. 
6 4 .   W i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  t h e  l e n g t h  o f  U S  m e a s u r e s  a s  r a i s e d  b y  J a p a n ,  t h e  U S  s a w  n o  b a s i s  f o r  
Japan's continued complaints. The expiry proceedin gs conducted by the US were consistent with 
its obligations under the AD Agreement. The US disagreed that older measures were no longer 
valid solely on the ground that the measure were old. The purpose of expiry proceedings was to examine whether dumping and injury would be like l y  t o  c o n t i n u e  o r  r e c u r  i f  m e a s u r e s  w e r e  
removed. The US expiry process is evidence-based and the participation by Japanese companies 
would be helpful both in terms of the relevant information to be provided and the arguments made by interested parties. Furthermore, many measures involving Japanese exports had in fact been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry re views, 64 measures reviewed involving Japan 
had been reviewed, of which 51 or 80% had resulted  in termination of the measure. For the oldest 
measures that remain in effect, i.e. prestressed concrete steel wire strand and carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, the Japanese industry has failed to meaningfully participate in any sunset review 
proceedings. Lack of respondent participation an d consequent lack of evidence from respondents 
limited the information provided to the IA. In other words, Japanese producers might themselves be partly responsible for the result. In many of the expiry processes that included both Japan and 
other Members, respondents from other Members ha d meaningfully participated in the reviews and 
had made relevant arguments as to why the measure should be terminated as to their specific country and the measure had been terminated. It suggested that Japan inquire with its own industries as to why there was a lack of interest in participating in the process, particularly given 
that participation had been the vital element in the termination of other Members' measures that 
also included Japan.  
65.  On the investigation on NOES, the US noted that AD cases were quasi-judicial proceedings 
governed by US law and subject to judicial re view. The US Department of Commerce ("USDOC") 
administers one of the most open and transparent trade remedy systems in the world, which complies with the US law and international obligations and allows ample opportunities for 
interested parties to provide comments and evidence. Under US law, any decision made by USDOC 
is based on the record of the case in accordance with procedures set forth in the US AD laws and regulations and international obligations. 
66.  On the semi-annual report of  Viet Nam, Malaysia referred to the preliminary and final 
determinations made by Viet Nam on exports of cold rolled stainless steel from Malaysia. It 
requested Viet Nam to review the volume of its imports from Malaysia. While Viet Nam's Customs Authority claimed that imports from Malaysia into Viet Nam during the period of investigation were 
8,633 metric tonnes, Malaysia's export data to Viet Nam during the period of investigation was 
only 2,919 metric tonnes, or 2.74% of the total imports into Viet Nam, which thus fell into the negligible imports category, i.e. less than 3%. Malaysia was thus eligible for exclusion from the 
investigation based on Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement. Malaysia requested Viet Nam to further 
explain how the figure was obtained, an issue of which Malaysia remained seriously concerned and 
had highlighted to Viet Nam twice in writing. The volume of imports from Malaysia during the period of investigation was inconsistent in the petition, the preliminary report and also in the final 
report. Due to such discrepancies, a meaningful trend of injury factors analysis was doubtful. 
Furthermore, the imposition of provisional and final measures against imports from Malaysia violated Article 7.1 (ii) of the AD Agreement as Viet Nam had failed to verify the import data with 
the relevant authority. Malaysia reserved the right to raise this and any other issue concerning this 
investigation at a later date and requested a written response to the issues raised.   G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 12 - 
 
  67.  Viet Nam acknowledged receipt of  Malaysia's comments and confirmed that every 
investigation Viet Nam has conducted was in conformity with the provisions of the WTO. It invited 
Malaysia to discuss this issue bilaterally in Viet Nam.  
68.  The Committee took note of the semi-annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided. 
3  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS 69.  The Chair referred to the no tifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/257, 258, 260, 261, 
262 and 263. During this period, the following Memb ers have notified preliminary and/or final anti-
dumping actions: Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; the Dominican Republic; Egypt; India; Japan; Korea; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; 
Russian Federation; South Africa; Turkey; Ukrain e; the United States and Viet Nam. Since 
document G/ADP/N/263 was circulated, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, the European Union, India, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukrain e, United States and Viet Nam had submitted 
such a notification, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
70.  The Russian Federation reiterated its concerns  regarding the expiry review of the AD measure 
imposed by the EU on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation. Since 
the last Committee meeting the review had been completed and the measure was extended in 
September 2014 for another 5-year period at the same level of duty, which would bring this measure to its 20
th anniversary in 2015. During the sunset review, Russian exporting producers 
demonstrated sufficiently and persuasively that there was no likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping or material injury. The EU industry was in an excellent economic condition. 
During the investigation period imports to the EU from the Russian Federation were negligible, economic indicators of the EU's industry were at the highest level and the EU industry exported 
significant volumes of the product to third countries. Nevertheless, the IA concluded that injury 
was likely to recur. These conclusions were justified by speculative reasoning without reference to any verifiable facts and data provided by the ex porters, which violated Article 11.3 of the AD 
Agreement. Such finding of likelihood of injury recurrence was not the only failure by the EU. By 
extending the measure, the EU de facto relied upon its dumping margin determinations from the previous reviews where the cost adjustment methodology had been applied on the basis of Article 2(3) and 2(5) of the EU Basic Regulation. That methodology was being challenged at the 
moment by the Russian Federation and other Members in the WTO DS system. It expressed 
doubts regarding the conformity of the expiry  review findings with the AD Agreement.  
71.  The EU indicated that its investigation was in full conformity with its domestic law and WTO 
obligations. The results of the investigation were published in the Official Journal of the EU on 
24 September 2014. It referred the Russian Federati on to the rebuttal of the arguments presented 
by all interested parties, including the Russian Federation, in that regulation. It noted in particular 
that the likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping was based on solid data regarding spare 
capacity in the Russian Federation and pricing behaviour, including in third countries. This conclusion was based as well on domestic prices found to be prevailing in the Russian domestic market irrespective of any so-called cost adjustment.  
72.  The Chair drew Members' attention to the cont inued apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency 
concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations. All Members taking AD actions were strongly 
urged to notify their preliminary and final actions, consistently and in a timely fashion. The minimum information format
4 contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information which should be provided. 
73.  Finally, the Chair reminded all Members that a given Ad hoc notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and on ly once to WTO CRN with a copy to the Secretary 
of the Committee and that any previously submitte d notifications should not be resubmitted. He 
also requested Members to verify the electronic lin ks provided to the Secretariat to make sure it 
would correspond to the notification submitted. He  emphasized the need to avoid any confusion, 
                                               
4 G/ADP/2/Rev.2. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 13 - 
 
  repetition or duplication as these notifications, which are circulated in monthly documents 
developed by the Secretariat, are the source of necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report. 
74.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
4  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
75.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 29 October 2014 and that no new papers were 
submitted for consideration. Brazil reiterated its suggestion that the Informal Group not be 
convened unless a new paper was submitted or a Member asked that the meeting take place. Brazil further suggested that the standing item in the regular meeting of the Committee regarding 
the work of the Group be maintained regardless of  whether or not the Group actually meets, such 
that issues regarding the work of the Group co u l d  b e  r a i s e d  a t  a n y  t i m e .  A s  s e v e r a l  M e m b e r s  
wished to further reflect on this idea, the Chair invited Brazil to discuss this issue bilaterally with other interested delegations and report back to the Committee at its next meeting.
5  
76.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION 
77.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 29 October 2014 where it discussed one paper 
submitted by Brazil, entitled "Articles 6.10 and 9. 4 – Sampling and All Others Rate". Brazil made 
detailed introductory remarks pertaining to both pa pers at these meetings, followed by a questions 
and answers session that addressed issues rela ting to the paper. Many Members took the 
opportunity to explain their practices on similar issues. The Chairs encouraged Members to submit 
papers on the nine topics currently under discussion in the Group.  
78.  The Chair also referred to the proposal made by Brazil requesting Members to reflect on how 
the work of the Group could be reinvigorated and suggested further that Members could consider 
the inclusion of new topics in the list of topics which are currently before the Group for discussion. 
As Members also expressed their willingness to refl ect on these suggestions, the Chair proposed to 
hold informal consultations to explore Members' ideas in this regard and report back to the 
Committee.6  
79.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
6  PRODUCT SCOPE DETERMINATION IN ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS AND 
MEASURES BY CERTAIN MEMBERS – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
80.  The Russian Federation reiterated its concerns regarding certain practices of product scope 
determinations in AD investigations. It explained that according to the AD Agreement, an AD 
measure should be applied to imports of the product under consideration during the investigation. 
In addition, throughout the whole investigation the product under consideration should remain 
consistent; i.e. the same. Moreover, for different steps of AD determinations, especially normal value calculation or injury assessment, Article 2.6 of the AD Agreement provided a strict 
identically-worded definition of the like product.  However, certain WTO Members deviated from 
that either during the investigation or subsequent  application of the measure. The first situation 
could result in final findings which did not relate to the product under consideration. In the second scenario the measure would be applied to products which had never been properly considered 
during the investigation. This would distort the core  nature of AD measures as they would cease to 
target unfair dumping practices and begin to serve for purely protectionist purposes. 
81.  On the confusion between the notions of "pro duct under consideration" and "like product", the 
Russian Federation reiterated its concerns regarding the interim review of the measure on ready-
                                               
5 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the spring 2015 meeting can be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/491-G/SCM/W/563-G/SG/W/232. 
6 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the spring 2015 meeting can be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/491-G/SCM/W/563-G/SG/W/232. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 14 - 
 
  made seamless pipes from the Russian Federation conducted by the EU. During the partial interim 
review, the EU considered unworked pipes, kn own also as "blanks", as the product under 
consideration. Sales of cheaper blanks had naturally reduced the export price. It would have been expected to find the same approach in the normal value calculation which would lead to similar 
reduction of the normal value due to blanks transactions. However, the EU considered blanks only 
once, when calculating the export price and did no t consider production of blanks in its injury 
determinations. Thus the EU failed to exercise a fair comparison between the export price and the 
normal value. This approach increased the final duty applicable otherwise by over 14%. It quoted 
the written answer provided by the EU to one of the Russian Federation's previous queries in which 
the EU indicated that the IA considered that such  export sales were indeed covered by the product 
scope. It further requested the EU to demonstrate, in writing, the consistency of this step with 
Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the AD Agreement.  
82.  The Russian Federation then turned to the AD measure applied by the US on Russian 
ammonium nitrate and products thereof which are basically fertilizers commercially used by 
agricultural producers. Recently, the US authority determined that ammonium sulphate nitrate was 
also subject to the measure because the Russian product was an ammonium nitrate product. This finding was made on the basis of doubtful methodology by comparing the two products in different 
physical states; i.e. ammonium nitrate in the solid form and ammonium nitrate sulphate being 
ready after dilution in water. Article 1 of the AD  Agreement explicitly stated that the AD measure 
shall be applied only pursuant to investigations conducted in accordance with the AD Agreement. Nevertheless, it appeared that the US had never made an appropriate investigation of imports of 
ammonium sulphate nitrate. Thus, it imposed an ADD of 254% on a product that had never been 
investigated. The Russian Federation requested the US to provide clarifications on this matter. As in the case of the EU, the questions would cover the issues under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the AD 
Agreement. 
83.  Finally, the Russian Federation referred to th e views of certain Members that this issue could 
be discussed under the agenda item devoted to semi-annual reports. In this connection, it 
reiterated that its concern was not only commercial, but of a systemic nature as well.  
84.  The  EU confirmed that the measure in question wa s already subject to two discussions. First, 
in the April 2013 meeting, where the EU replied in writing to questions posed in writing by the 
Russian Federation. It was then discussed in the context of the semi-annual report covering the 
second semester of 2013, discussed at the April 20 14 meeting. On that occasion, the EU invited 
the Russian Federation to submit its questions in writing, but none were received to date. It looked forward to receiving such questions in writing which would be duly answered in writing.  
85.  The US also indicated that this issue was discussed in the April 2014 meeting. The USDOC 
announced its final scope ruling on 6 August 2013 finding Euro-Chem fertilizers known as NS 30:7 
to be within the scope of the AD order on ammo nium nitrate from Russia. The USDOC thoroughly 
analysed all record evidence and considered the arguments made by all the interested parties, 
including Euro-Chem, in making this finding. The USDOC's determination was made within the context of US AD law and regulations and was consistent with the international obligations of the US. As this scope ruling was currently before the domestic courts, it would be inappropriate for the 
US to comment further. However, if the Russian Federation would like to submit written questions, 
the US would provide written answers.  
7  COMMITTEE'S REVIEW OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS REGARDING BRAZIL'S RESPONSE TO THE 
QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES  
86.  The  US regretted that it had to raise an item, which it viewed as routine Committee business, 
under this separate agenda item. The US assured Members that this was not an attempt to further 
elevate a seemingly routine request to submit fo llow-up questions to the answers submitted by 
another Member. It explained that it submitted qu estions to Brazil's legislative notification on 
7 April 2014 to which Brazil provided responses on 1 October 2014, after the Committee's 
15 September 2014 deadline for the submission of follow-up questions on previously reviewed 
legislations. After review of these responses, the US had some routine follow-up questions to 
Brazil's responses. However, the US was advised by  the Secretariat that putting this on the agenda 
as a standalone item rather than just adding Brazil's responses to the agenda under previously 
reviewed legislation was the only viable option since Brazil's legislative notification and any G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 15 - 
 
  subsequent questions and responses were dropped off the agenda for this meeting. The US was of 
the view that, for the sake of transparency and completeness, any prior written questions that had been posed, but not yet answered, should remain along with the relevant legislation on the agenda of the Committee until responses were provided. Once responses were provided, the agenda for 
the following meeting could simply be updated, so  that the responses were formally and properly 
reviewed at that meeting. It requested Members' views on this procedural issue and how best to 
more efficiently structure the work of this Committee.  
87.  Brazil agreed that there was a need to rethink the procedures of the Committee. It supported 
the US suggestion as it would be easier for all Members to have one line of questions and answers 
under the same agenda item instead of having, in  this instance, an extra agenda item requested 
by a Member only because the current procedure would not provide for it.  
88.  Australia, Canada, Chile, China, the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Norway and Chinese Taipei 
supported the suggestion of the United States.  
89.  The Chair proposed that the following language be added to the current procedures in 
paragraph 8 of document G/ADP/W/284–G/SCM/W/293 and that the revised document be 
circulated to all Members: "In the event that written answers are not provided by the relevant deadline, the subject legislation shall remain on the Committee's agenda".  
90.  The Committee adopted the language. The revi sed version of procedures was circulated in 
document G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1–G/SCM/W/293/Rev.1. 
8  OTHER BUSINESS 91.  The Chair encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to provide sufficient notice to the Member concerned prior to the meeting in order to 
ensure that an answer could be provided at the meeting. 
92.  Mexico referred to the AD investigation of Colombia  concerning DOP plasticizers from Mexico 
and its concerns pertaining to this investigation. The investigation initiated by Colombia raise 
doubts about its compatibility with the provisions of the AD Agreement. Mexico specified several elements of higher concern. First, the definition of the investigated product was ambiguous, at 
least during the stage prior to the preliminary de termination, which led to doubts about what the 
like product was, the producers involved, the do mestic industry and who had legal standing to 
appear on its behalf. The IA initiated the investigation without explaining if the two variants of the product produced by the requesting party were part of the product investigated. Subsequently, the 
IA, on the basis of the statement from one import er, broadened the coverage of the investigation 
and included a new variety of product without any justification and without giving the parties concerned sufficient opportunity to submit information in this respect. 
93.  Second, the tariff sub-heading for the product under investigation also included many 
products different from the one being investigated. However, without any explanations the IA did not segregate the data concerning imports throug h the sub-heading. For this reason, the data 
concerning volumes and prices, very probably, were seriously distorted. In the absence of 
accurate, adequate and sufficient evidence, the investigation should not have been initiated and, given these probable distortions, should not have resulted in the imposition of ADDs. However, the 
investigation had been initiated and concluded by th e imposition of definitive duties without having 
at any time carried out an analysis of likeness between the product under investigation and that 
produced locally, but rather simply accepted the information of the applicant and two memoranda issued by the Registry Group of National Goods Producers indicating that such likeness existed 
without providing further explanations. 
94.  Third, despite the fact that a Mexican exporter replied to the official questionnaire and 
submitted data for the calculation of an individual margin, the IA, in its preliminary findings, 
decided to apply facts available arguing shortcomings  in the exporter's information. Hence, all the 
information from the exporter was rejected without a notification concerning the supposed faults in 
the information, providing information regarding possible consequences and granting an opportunity to complete such information or submit it again. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 16 - 
 
  95.  Fourth, the investigation was initiated considering a period of less than three years for the 
injury analysis, without any justification. Imports from Mexico were cumulated with those from other origins without meeting the requirements of  Article 3.3 of the AD Agreement. The only 
explanation that the IA gave for this was that both countries were exporting products like the 
national products. Despite the fact that the requesting party produced a large number of products, 
which were different from that being investigated, in its analysis of injury the IA never distinguished the indicators of the applicant concerning only the product under investigation. 
Although these faults were not corrected, large number of injury indicators showed positive results 
or very small influence, despite which and without any reasoning, the IA determined that there was material injury. As such, there was also neither an analysis of causal link nor non-attribution and thus it should have been difficult to maintain that Mexican imports could have caused injury to 
the domestic industry. Given the use of cumulation  and although the IA decided that the imports 
from two origins were causing injury to Colombia's national industry and dumping margins were calculated for both as it was determined that both have caused injury, only the Mexican exporters 
had definitive duties applied to them without any justification. 
96.  Colombia  regretted not being informed of this issue prior to the meeting and thus was not in a 
position to provide any reaction from its IA at the meeting. It indicated that it would inform its 
capital, keep in contact with Mexico and inform the Committee of the results of these 
consultations. It also requested Mexico for a written version of its comments.  
97.  Peru expressed concern regarding the sunset  change of circumstances reviews of the AD 
measure imposed on fasteners from China and Peru, recently initiated by Argentina . At the end of 
October 2014, the AD measures applied by Argentina since 2009 on fasteners from Peru had 
expired. Nevertheless, Argentina, contrary to what is provided for in Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement had maintained these measures. On 27 October 2014, following the expiry of the 
measures, Argentina initiated a sunset review. It referred to the Appellate Body report in US – 
Steel dispute, paragraph 104, which noted that Article 11.3 imposed time limits for maintaining 
ADDs and established imperative standard with one exception, whereby Members were obliged to 
lift ADDs after the deadline of five years from the date of implementation unless certain conditions 
were fulfilled. The review should be undertaken before the expiry of the 5-year deadline counted 
from the date of the implementation of the duty. Having considered the need to initiate a sunset review and change of circumstances procedures, th e IA should have started the procedure before 
the 8th of October, the date on which these measur es expired. It requested Argentina to terminate 
this procedure and communicate to its customs au thorities that the ADD imposed on imports of 
fasteners from Peru had expired.   
98.  Argentina took note of Peru's concerns and would communicate them to the IA. As this was 
not notified to Argentina prior to the meeting, no  additional information could be provided at the 
meeting.  
99.  The Chair made a statement about a workshop on AD notifications. He referred to the 
workshop on safeguards notifications held back-to-back with the Committee on Safeguards 
meeting held on Monday, 27 October 2014. He had attended the workshop, which provided helpful 
information for delegations responsible for preparing such notifications. As interest has been 
expressed in holding a comparable workshop on AD notifications, he was of the view that such a 
workshop might be useful. Accordingly, he would ask the Secretariat to organize a technical workshop, back-to-back with the spring 2015 Committee meeting, to discuss how to complete 
semi-annual and ad hoc  anti-dumping notifications. He added that he would discuss with the Chair 
of the SCM Committee whether he would find it useful to cover comparable countervail notifications at the same workshop. 
100.  Brazil supported holding a seminar on notifi cations. Due to the similarity of the AD and 
countervailing notifications, a horizontal approach between both committees, especially concerning 
semi-annual reports and ad hoc actions, would be useful.  
101.  Colombia supported holding a seminar on AD notifications. Accordingly, Members could be 
able to resolve notifications-related problems and better exchange experiences in a manner that 
might improve the work of the Committee and the application of the AD Agreement.  
102.  Chile also supported holding a seminar on notifications. G/ADP/M/47 
 
- 17 - 
 
  103.  Norway echoed the views expressed by other delegations, and supported the idea of having 
a workshop on AD notifications. Despite not being a user of safeguards measures, it attended the 
seminar on safeguard actions and found it to be ve ry useful and well executed by the Secretariat. 
A similar workshop on AD notifications would benefit both developing and developed countries, 
either users or non-users of such instruments. It might also contribute to the timeliness and 
completeness of notifications. It also saw merit in having the workshop cover the countervailing actions given the similarities between these issues.  
104.  Chinese Taipei found the seminar on safeguards notifications very helpful for understanding 
safeguard measures. It fully supported the initiative and saw merit in having the workshop cover 
the countervailing actions as well. 
105.  Japan also supported the Chair's initiative and requested that the material of the seminar be 
uploaded on the website of the WTO to help those who could not attend the meeting.  106.  Bahrain, Kingdom of found the seminar for safeguards notifications to be very useful and 
supported the idea of holding a Workshop on AD and countervailing actions notifications. 
9  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
107.  The next spring Regular meeting of the Commi ttee will be held in the week of 27 April 2015. 
10  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  
108.  The Committee adopted its 2014 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
 
__________