TN/RL/W/256  
 
1 April 2015  
(15-1824)  Page: 1/2  
Negotiating Group on Rules  Original: English  
 
 RECALIBRATION OF NEGOTIAT IONS ON ANTI-DUMPING 
COMMUNICATION FROM CHILE; COLOMBIA; COSTA RICA; HONG KONG, CHINA; ISRAEL; JAPAN; 
KOREA, REP. OF; NORWAY; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS  
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; AND THAILAND 
The following communication, dated 1 April 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegations of Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong  Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; 
Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Cu stoms Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu; and Thailand.  
_______________ 
 
 1  BACKGROUND 
The Bali package as reconfirmed by the General Council on 28 November 2014 calls for  the 
preparation of a clearly defined work program on the remaining Doha Development Agenda ("DDA") issues as mandated in paragraph 1.11 of the Bali Declaration. When launching the work 
on 21 January 2015, the Director-General urged members to build on the progress that had been 
made during 2014 and to build on the ingredients which are needed to reach a successful outcome, such as:   
 maintaining a sense of urgency;  
 identifying and prioritising the issues that  are of the most substantive importance;  
 targeting outcomes that are doable for all parties;  
 maintaining a high level of engagement;  
 and tackling all issues at the same time rather than trying to sequence them.  
 
The anti-dumping (AD) negotiations are one of the essential areas under the Doha Development 
Agenda (DDA), as they are clearly mandated by th e Ministerial Declaration of the Doha Ministerial 
Conference. In order to draft the work program by the end of July this year and conclude the DDA, 
there is a genuine need to immediately restart substantive works in tandem with developments in 
other areas of negotiation. We believe that now is the time for all interested members including 
ourselves to show and share th eir views on future works.  
 
We recall six broad objectives that we have repeatedly presented as our basis for the AD 
negotiations (initially in TN/RL/W/171):  
1. Mitigating the Excessive Effects of AD Measures; 
2. Preventing AD Measures from Becoming "Permanent"; 3. Strengthening Due Process and Enhanc ing the Transparency of Proceedings; 
4. Reducing Costs for Authorities and Respondents; 
5. Terminating Unwarranted and Unnecessary Investigations at an Early Stage; 
6. Providing Disciplines to Improve and Clarify Substantive Rules for Dumping and Injury. 
 
While these objectives remain significant, after two decades of experience with the application of 
the current Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), it ha s also become increasingly more evident that 
many of the rules are unclear and need improvem ent. AD actions are no longer monopolized by 
small numbers of traditional users, and there is clear evidence that the ADA in many cases is 
misused for protectionist purposes to prevent legitimate competition in the marketplace. These TN/RL/W/256 
 
- 2 - 
 
  developments coupled with the absence of clea r rules increases the burden on authorities, 
particularly those with fewer resources and experience. It has also often given rise to disparate application of the rules leading to diminishing predictability and an increase in trade disputes related to the ADA. It is unfortunate that the challenges in the WTO dispute settlement system 
have become almost a routine. It is therefore becoming increasingly important to clarify and 
strengthen the rules as many of them need impr ovement. Clarified disciplines will ensure that 
procedural and substantive obligations are met, and w ill be a restraint on the abuse of AD actions.  
 
The Friends of Anti-Dumping Negotiations (FANs)  Group and individual members have over the 
years presented a large number of specific proposals. In line with what is taking place in other areas of the negotiations, members now need to refocus and recalibrate their positions on AD in 
the development of a work program that contains the necessary deliverables for the completion of 
the DDA. In the words of the Director-General, the task  is to identify and prioritise the issues that 
are of the most substantive importance and target outcomes that are doable. As major 
demandeurs in the AD negotiations, we are aware th at we have a responsibility to engage in such 
discussions on recalibration.  
 
2  OUR POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR "RECALIBRATION" 
We are prepared to look closely at and re-examine our positions and proposals to respond to the 
Director-General's advice to select the issues of most substantive importance and doability. In this context, we recall that the latest assessment of  the progress made by the Negotiating Group on 
Rules is provided in the communication fr om the Chair of 21 April 2011 (TN/RL/W/254).  
 Although Members have different views on the utility of using text that were not agreed to in 
2008, nor in 2011, our starting point when "recalibrating" is that the 2011 text has a number of 
proposed amendments that may be considered to be "doable". Regarding the un-bracketed issues, we had witnessed growing convergence among Members. These are mainly technical, but 
nevertheless important issues where changes to the ADA are warranted.  
 At the same time, the Chair's text contained a number of bracketed issues where Members had 
divergent views. These issues were: zeroing, causat ion of injury, material retardation, exclusion of 
producers who are related to exporters or Import ers or who are themselves importers, product 
under consideration, information requests to affiliated parties, public interest, lesser duty, anti-circumvention, sunset reviews, third country dump ing, special and differential treatment/technical 
assistance. We have significant interest in many of these issues, as well as issues such as de 
minimis  dumping margins, negligible imports, cumulation and standing requirement for initiation. 
These issues were not addressed in the Chair's text, despite the specific proposals presented by 
Members during the negotiations. 
 We continue to attach importance to the objectives we have identified above, but realise that not all of the proposals to achieve them may meet th e doability criterion, given the present state of 
play in the negotiations. Our point of departure when "recalibrating" and focusing on what is 
"doable", would be to kick off the discussions wi th a number of elements of the un-bracketed text-
amendments from 2011, with a focus on due proc ess and transparency. We consider that these 
items would form core deliverables in the AD pa rt of the work program together with other AD 
issues as appropriate (including the bracketed issues, unaddressed issues or other issues emerging from Members' deliberations) in view of th e state of overall ambition and balance. 
 
We are ready to engage constructively in discussions with the Chairman for the Rules Negotiating Group and all interested Members, and will, in the near future, present our more concrete views on substance including the bracketed issues and the unaddressed issues considering both "doability" 
and importance.  
 
__________