RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/54  
 
3 August 2018  
(18-4885) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 25 APRIL 2018 
CHAIR: MR FAISAL SAUD SULAIMAN  AL-NABHANI  (OMAN)  
1.  The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee ") held a regular meeting on  
25 April 2018.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/1 9: 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................ ................................ .............................  2 
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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 2 
1.1.1    Australia ( G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.17 -G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.15 ) ..............................  2 
1.1.2    Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.9 -G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.12 -
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 
1.1.3    European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 -G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2)  ............................  2 
1.1.4    Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
1.2   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding written qu estions  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
1.2.1    Cameroon (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
1.2.2    El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
1.2.3    India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.8 -G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.8) ................................ ........  4 
1.2.4    New Zealand (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.6/Rev.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.6/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF AN TI-DUMPING ACTION S (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/308) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  6 
3   PRELIMINARY AND FINA L ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOT IFICATIONS  ....................  11 
4   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF TH E INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 12 
5   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF TH E WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  12 
6   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
7   DATE O F THE NEXT REGULAR M EETING  ................................ ................................ ..... 13 
8   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ............................  13 
 G/ADP /M/54  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
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 
1.1.1   Australia  (G/ADP/N/1/ AUS/2/Suppl.1 7-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.15 ) 
3.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document : 
 G/ADP/Q1/ AUS/21 -G/SCM/Q 1/AUS/21  – Submitted by Mexico  
4.  Written answers to Mexico’s written questions can be found in t he following document:  
  G/ADP/Q1/ AUS/22  – Replies to Mexico  
5.  Viet Nam  asked Australia if it had any criteria to determine the low volume of exports pursuant 
to this notification.  
6.  In response to Viet Nam, Australia  explained that it was looking at where ther e was no export 
or a low volume of exports. This procedure was specifically applicable to the review of existing 
measures. The pattern of trade since the imposition of the measure would indicate that there was 
no low volume of exports. However, given the d ifficulty to determine the export price in the 
situation in which there was no export during the review period, it provi ded a range of 
methodologies to be considered. There were no threshold criteria, and it would be examined on a 
case-by-case basis.    
1.1.2   Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/ BRA/3/Suppl. 9-G/SCM/N/1/ BRA/2/Suppl. 12-
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.3 ) 
7.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in the following 
documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/ BRA/35-G/SCM/Q 1/BRA/35-G/SG/Q1/BRA/4  – Submitted by the United States 
("US")   
 G/ADP/Q1/ BRA/36-G/SCM/Q 1/BRA/36-G/SG/Q1/BRA/5  – Submitted by Mexico  
 
8.  Written answers to the US' and Mexico's  written questions can be found in the following 
documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/ BRA/37-G/SCM/Q 1/BRA/37-G/SG/Q1/BRA/ 5 – Replies to  the US  
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/ 8-G/SCM/Q1/BRA/ 38-G/SG/Q1/BRA/ 6 – Replies  to Mexico  
 
9.  Brazil  provided oral explanations in response to the questions posed and confirmed that written 
answers were provided to the US and Mexico already . 
1.1.3   European Union  (G/ADP/N/1/ EU/3/Suppl. 2-G/SCM/N/1/ EU/2/Suppl. 2) 
10.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in the following 
documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/ EU/5-G/SCM/Q1/EU/5 – Submitted by Mexico  
 G/ADP/Q1/ EU/6-G/SCM/Q1/EU/6 – Submitted by Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  ("Saudi Arabia ") 
                                                
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the April 2018 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 1-
G/SCM/W/57 6-G/SG/W/24 3. G/ADP/M/54  
 
- 3 - 
 
   G/ADP/Q1/ EU/7-G/SCM/Q1/EU/7 – Submitted by  the Russian Federation  
11.  The European Union  ("EU") provided oral explanations in response to the questions posed and 
confirmed that written answers would be available shortly.  
12.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  was conce rned with  the EU 's new normal value determination 
methodology  and asked the EU to further clarify how it was consistent with the Appellate Body  
("AB")  Report in European Union – Antidumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina  (DS473) . 
There remained a lack of clarity in a number of concepts which could affect the ir operationalization 
in an objective manner  by the investigating authority  ("IA") . The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia looked 
forward to receiving written responses to its questions from the EU.  
13.  Mexico  thanked the EU for its clarification on a number of issues and looked forward to 
receiving written response from the EU.  
14.  The Russian Federation  reiterated that the amendments to the EU's basic Anti -Dumping 
Regulation were inconsistent with the WTO rules, particularly the WTO jurisprudence that 
disallowed a methodology to evaluate the costs against benchmarks unrelated to the cost of 
production in the country of origin. Moreover, it sought clarifications from the EU in respect of the 
report on significant d istortions  and looked forward to receiving written responses from the EU.  
15.  In response to the Russian Federation, the EU explained that the report did not have any legal 
value but was rather a compilation of facts derived from primary sources in the exporti ng country. 
It did not prejudge any investigation that may come afterwards. In addition, this report would be 
prepared for  a country that was subject to the  EU's antidumping investigation.  This was the sole 
reason why the Russian Federation had been select ed to be subject to this report.  
16.  In response to the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation's comments  with 
respect  to the AB Report in European Union – Antidumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina  
(DS473) , the EU stressed that  the Committee meeting was not an appropriate forum to debate on 
this legal issue and reminded the Members to be careful in extrapolating what were laid down in 
the jurisprudence.  
17.  China  was concerned with the EU 's new rules for establishing the normal valu e in case of 
significant market distortion s in the exporting country. There was n o concept under the WTO on 
the significant market distortions. Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping ( "AD") Agreement and Article VI of 
the GATT 1994 did not provide a legal basis for  determining the normal value using the 
methodologies that were not based on a strict comparison with the domestic price or cost in the 
country of origin . China urged the EU to abide by the WTO rules and to annul all discriminatory 
approaches.  
18.  The Kingdom of Bahrain  sought clarifications from the EU on the compliance of its proposed 
disciplines with Articles 2 .2 and 2.2.1.1  of the AD Agreement, the thresholds for the significant 
distortions, the expected sources of the proposed benchmarks, and the considera tion of 
inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy , corporate or property laws as conditions that could affect 
the cost price.  
19.  Argentina  expressed its concerns with the EU 's new rules for establishing the normal value in 
case of significant market distortions. S pecifically, it pointed out that there  would be no difference 
in the application of methodologies  concerned between market economies and  non-market 
economies. Citing Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, and 9.3 of the AD Agreement, the relevant 
provisions of  the GATT 1994 , and the disputes European Union – Antidumping Measures on 
Biodiesel from Argentina  (DS473 ) and European Union – Antidumping Measures on Biodiesel from 
Indonesia  (DS480) , Argentina was of the view that the EU 's new  rules could not find textual 
support in the WTO covered agreements and would violate the objectives of the AD Agreement.  
20.  Kazakhstan  posed a series of questions concerning the EU 's new methodology of normal value 
calculation in antidumping investigations.2 
                                                
2 Kazakhstan's written questions  can be found in the document G/ADP/Q1/EU/8 -G/SCM/Q1/EU/8 . G/ADP /M/54  
 
- 4 - 
 
  21.  Oman  shared the same concerns with other Members over the amendments to the EU 's 
antidumping regulation, in particular Article 2.6(a) of the new Regulation stipulating the new 
normal value methodology and the concept of significant market distortions. It looked forward to 
receiving written responses from the EU.  
22.  The US stated that this discussion highlighted the appropriate tools available under the WTO 
rules to address certain distortions that impacted international trade.  
23.  In response, t he EU reiterated t hat this was not the forum to have a sophisticated legal 
debate  to justify its amended legislation with any legal sources . Its amended legislation was  just a 
framework, the application of which would depend upon a case -specific analysis .  
1.1.4   Liberia (G/ADP/N/ 1/LBR/1)  
24.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document : 
 G/ADP/Q1/ LBR/1  – Submitted by the US  
25.  Liberia was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting nor 
had written answers been received to date.  
26.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstan ding written questions  
1.2.1   Cameroon ( G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ) 
27.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3 -G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3 -G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 – Submitted by the US 
28.  Cameroon was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, 
nor had written answers been received to date.  
1.2.2   El Salvador ( G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 ) 
29.  Written questions were posed regardi ng this notification and can be found in the following 
documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/SLV/8 -G/SCM/Q1/SLV/8 -G/SG/Q1/SLV/7 – Submitted by the US  
 G/ADP/Q1/SLV/9 -G/SCM/Q1/SLV/9 -G/SG/Q1/SLV/8 – Submitted by Mexico  
30.  El Salvador  stated that its capital was still working on responses to the questions by the US 
and Mexico.  
31.  The US and Mexico  looked forward to receiving written responses  to their questions  from 
El Salvador.  
1.2.3   India  (G/ADP/N/1/ IND/2/Suppl.8 -G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.8 ) 
32.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in the following 
documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/ IND/26-G/SCM/Q1/ IND/26 – Submitted by Ukraine  
 G/ADP/Q1/ IND/27-G/SCM/Q1/ IND/27 – Submitted by Mexico  G/ADP/M/54  
 
- 5 - 
 
  33.  Written answers were provided and can be found in documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/ IND/28-G/SCM/Q1/ IND/28 – Replies to Ukraine  
 G/ADP/Q1/ IND/29-G/SCM/Q1/ IND/29 – Replies to Mexico  
34.  Ukraine  posed a follow -up question with regard to the internal procedures for granting a 
market economy status to a particular country . 
35.  In response to Ukraine, India referred to paragraph 8 of the Annexure I  according to which 
the authority would examine each of the parameters therein for granting the market economy 
status to a particular country. In practice, a supplementary questionnaire  concerning  non-market 
economy  parameters  would be sent to  the country concerned in addition to the main questionnaire 
in the antidumping investigation.  
1.2.4   New Zealand (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.6/Rev.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.6/Rev.1)  
36.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be fou nd in the following 
documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/NZL/3 -G/SCM/Q1/NZL/3 – Submitted by the US  
 G/ADP/Q1/NZL/4 -G/SCM/Q1/NZL/4 – Submitted by Australia  
37.  Written answers were provided and can be found in documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/NZL/5 -G/SCM/Q1/NZL/5 – Replies to the US  
 G/ADP/Q1/ NZL/6-G/SCM/Q1/ NZL/6 – Replies to Australia  
38.  The Chair indicated that with respect to the agenda item pertaining to continuing review of 
legislative notifications previously reviewed by the Committee, no Member submitted – by 
12 March  2018 deadline  - any written questions relating to such notifications. Thus the item 
entitled "National Legislation – Continuing Review of Legislative Notifications Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee " was not on the agenda of the Committee 's April meeting.  
39.  The Chair informed Members that pursuant to the Committee 's agreed procedures in order for 
a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the October  meeting of the Committee, 
the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 1 0 September  2018. Shortly after 
this date, the Secretariat will circulate a document informing Members of all legislative 
notifications to be reviewed at the next Committee meeting in October  2018.  
40.  The Chair reminded Members that pursuant to paragraph 8 of document G/ADP/W/284/Rev.1, 
all unanswered written questions pertaining to new legislative notifications reviewed at the 
meeting, as well as the subject notifications, shall automatically be retained on the agenda of the 
next Committee meeting and on the agendas of  subsequent Committee meetings until written 
answers are submitted.  
41.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that would be required is a nil notification. He encouraged 
Members th at had not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.  
42.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add. 45, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the information 
required  by Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement, and encouraged Members to review and update 
previously submitted information where necessary.  
43.  The US appreciated the fact that most Members had submitted a notification with their 
domestic AD legislation or a one -time nil notification. However, some countries which had not G/ADP /M/54  
 
- 6 - 
 
  provided a notification of their legislative status had indicated in the context of their trade policy 
review reports that they had AD laws in effect. In other words, the respective WTO  Members had 
already gone to the effort of informing the WTO of their AD legislation status, albeit in another 
forum. The US, therefore, encouraged Members to review their respective situations and to make 
the appropriate notification promptly. It added that i n addressi ng the issue of missing notifications 
across a number of WTO Committees, the US' proposal in the Council for Trade in Goods was 
circulated in document JOB/CTG/10/Rev.1 on which it had continued to hear additional ideas from 
Members.  
44.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
2  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF AN TI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ART ICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/30 8) 
45.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi -annual reports for the second  half 
of 2017 had been circulated in do cument G/ADP/N/30 8. Members taking no AD actions should 
submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This would not apply to those Members that 
had already submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD  Agreement.  
46.  He not ed that a significant number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except for the 48 Members th at had already 
submitted a one -time notification.3 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement.  
47.  The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the second  half of 2017. No Member 
raised questions or made comments conce rning the reports of  Argentina; Armenia; Australia; 
Brazil; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa  Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; El  Salvador; 
European  Union; India; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea , Republic of ; the Member States of the 
Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrai n, Kingdom of; Kuwait, the State of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of; Qatar and United Arab Emirates);  Kyrgyz Republic; Malaysia; Mexico; Moroc co; 
New Zealand; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Russia n Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; 
Thailand; Trinidad  and Tobago; Turkey; and Viet Nam . 
48.  On the semi -annual report of China , Japan  expressed its concern with the AD investigation on 
Acrylonitrile -butadiene rubber . It pointed out that with some fluctu ations, the volume of export of 
the product under investigation destined to China from Japan did not show significant increase. 
The products from Japan did not affect the p rices of the like products in China given that the 
export price from Japan had constantly been higher than that of other countries and  the domestic 
prices of Chinese products.  Moreover, Chinese producers of the products concerned were wider 
than the applicants of this investigation  which consisted of only two producers.  The determination 
of injury on Chinese domestic industry , in Japan' s view,  would be distorted if the domestic industry 
was defined only from the aforementioned applicants.  It opined that even if there was a decline of 
Chinese domestic industry, there were no facts and evidence demonstrating the causation between 
such decli ne and the imports from Japan. Japan urged the Chinese IA to proceed with the 
investigation in a manner consistent with the AD  Agreement  and requested that this investigation 
be terminated promptly.  
49.  Brazil  raised concerns over China 's AD investigation on b roiler products. It underlined that  no 
measure should be applied against  the imports from a particular country  unless it was clearly 
demonstrated that such imports were the sole effect of dumping  causing injury to the domestic 
industry.  Moreover, none of the material requirements for applying the  anti-dumping duty  ("ADD") 
in this case were met.  There  were no dumping and  injury to Chinese domestic industry, nor causal 
link between them . It recalled that the normal value calculation referr ed to the sales of 250 grams 
of boneless and skinless chicken breasts , which were not exported by Brazil to China. Thus, 
contrary to Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, a fair comparison between the export price and 
normal value had not been made. In addition , no proper adjustment was  rendered in order to 
guarantee a  comparison at the same level of trade. It also noted that virtually all indicators 
showed improvements in economic situations  of the domestic industry during the period of injury 
analysis.  Citing Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, Brazil was of the view that if there was no 
                                                
3 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/54  
 
- 7 - 
 
  evidence of actual or potential decline in relevant indicators in the assessment of the impact of the 
dumped imports on the domestic industry , there would be no basis for a findin g of material injury. 
Brazil understood  that the Chinese domestic injury was not suffering from material inj ury at all. 
However,  if the Chinese IA reached a positive conclusion of injury, other factors should be 
analysed as the cause of this alleged injury . In this regard, Brazil requested China to distinguish 
the effect of the following factors from the ones attributable to the alleged dumping: other Chinese 
producers not included in the domestic industry definition, avian influ enza, yellow -feathered  
chicken market, and change s in patterns  of consumption  in favour of other protein s. Brazil urged 
China to abide by the WTO rules which would ensure the objective examination of all relevant 
elements.  
50.  In response to Japan 's concerns, China  explained that the inv estigation on Acrylonitrile -
butadiene rubber  was still ongoing and confirmed that its IA would conduct this investigation in a 
reasonable and objective manner consistent with the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994. China 
invited Japan to have further discussions on this matter.  
51.  In response to Brazil 's concerns, China  understood the significance of broiler products to 
Brazil 's domestic industry and underlined the trade and economic relationship between both 
Members . It confirmed that its IA would make a ll effort to consider reaso nable arguments and 
relevant requests raised by Brazil such as extensions, hearings, and categorization of products. 
China, h owever, corroborated that the re was a significant increase in exports of broiler products 
from Brazil to  China  together with a  significant decline in prices of the like domestic products in 
China . Its domestic industry was suffering very severe injury, and there was a preliminary causal 
link among  the relevant factors.  China expressed its willingness to keep  in full touch with Brazil to 
mutually seek a win -win solution to the disagreements pertaining to this investigation.  
52.  On the semi -annual report of Indonesia , Kazakhstan  was concerned with the ADD imposed 
on hot -rolled coil ( "HRC"). It recalled  that the Indonesia n IA initiated a sunset review of the 
ADD on HRC in 2012 and decided to extend the imposition of ADD against HRC from Russia, 
Kazakhstan, and Belarus on the grounds of a customs union established among them . Kazakhstan 
doubted that the establishment of the customs union could justify the imposition of ADD without 
conducting any investigation. Recently , the Indonesia n IA initiat ed the sunset review of the 
ADD on HRC from, among others, Kazakhstan in December 2017 . Citing Article VI of the 
GATT  1994 and  Articles 1, 2, and 3  of the AD Agreement, Kazakhstan questioned the WTO 
consistency of such extension given that the Indonesia n IA had never analysed imports of HRC 
from Kazakhstan, nor had conducted an appropriate investigation.  In addition,  it noted tha t the 
Indonesian IA included the EAEU countries in the sunset review investigation in order to prevent 
circumvention, albeit without demonstrating the existence of circumvention of the product 
concerned. Thus, Kazakhstan asked Indonesia to clarify how it could be circumvention practice 
given that both the AD Agreement and the Government Regulation 34  of 2011 did not provide any 
explicit guidance on the anti-circumvention issue.  Furthermore, Kazakhstan asked Indonesia to 
clarify how the participation of inte rested parties in the second sunset review of the measure 
would help if the reason for such extension was not the existence of dumped imports causing 
injury; how Indonesia defined and proved the country of origin of goods under the AD measure; 
and the prec edents, if any, for imposing a measure predicated on the Indonesian IA's assumption 
of a circumvention of the measure.  
53.  Ukraine  expressed its concern about Indonesia's sunset review of the ADD on hot rolled plate.  
It was of the view that the AD measures imp osed on hot rolled plate from Ukraine should no 
longer be maintained following the review procedures. Given that the sunset/expiry reviews  
required an assessment whether the expiry of the duty would likely lead to continuation or 
recurrence of injury to th e domestic industry, Ukraine elaborated that circumstances in the 
metallurgical industry of Ukraine had changed, not least a decrease in export capacity of Ukraine 
due to certain long -term situations in the east of Ukraine. The OECD's data indicated that  the 
nominal crude steelmaking capacity of Ukraine decreased by 10.5 % from 47.5 million tons in 2010 
to 42.5 million tons in 2016. In 2018, the crude steelmaking capacity of Ukraine was estimated at 
30 million tons. The t otal production of crude steel in Ukr aine also plummeted 34 % from 
32.7 million tons in 2013 to 21.3 million tons in 2017. Likewise, the p roduction of flat products 
curtailed  by 26 % from 8.5 million tons in 2013 to 6.3 million tons in 2017.  Moreover, it underlined 
the fact that many metallurgi cal companies as well as enterprises of related industries had shut 
down their production  since the beginning of 2014. In light of these situations , which were 
indicative of the absence of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury to Indonesia n G/ADP /M/54  
 
- 8 - 
 
  domestic industry caused by Ukrainian products , Ukraine opined that there was no reason for 
maintaining the AD measure on Ukrainian products in accordance with Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of 
the AD Agreement.  
54.  In response to Kazakhstan, Indonesia  recalled that Kazakhstan raised this concern after the 
issuance of the Minister of Finance 's regulation of 2013 as a result of the sunset review undertaken 
by the Indonesian IA . It underlined that both the AD  Agreement  and its national law did not 
provide any explicit guidance on the imposition of ADD against the customs union or the anti -
circumvention issues. Thus, the approaches to these issue s would  differ among Members. The 
Eurasian Economic Union ( "EAEU ") itself had different practices with respect to the treatment of 
the customs union s when initiating an AD investigation.  For instance , the EAEU investigated the EU 
as a whole concerning the imports of herbicides, whereas in the investigation on imports of light 
commercial vehicles, it imposed the ADDs o n the imports of light commercial vehicles from 
Germany and  Italy, as well as Turkey. Moreover, according to Article 49 of the Treaty on the 
Eurasian Economic Union, the definition of domestic i ndustry in  the AD investigation was 
understood to mean  the dom estic producers of the Member States of the Eurasian customs union 
as a whole of the like products or those of them whose collective output of the products 
constituted a major proportion of the total domestic production of the Member States. Indonesia 
explained further that the inclusion of Kazakhstan and Belarus was to  ensure the effectiveness of 
the ADD implementation and to  prevent the circumvention of the ADD g iven that the EA EU 
customs union was established and thus allowed for free movement of  goods a mong its Members .  
55.  On the semi -annual report of  Israel , Turkey  reiterated its concerns regarding  Israel's 
investigation on Portland cement.  Most data in the petition and the preliminary determination 
report were not provided by the complainant or the domestic industry  supporting the complaint. 
These shortcomings called the allegations made in the complaint into question and prevented 
Turkey from defend ing its interests.  The IA itself stated that the domestic industry did not provide 
the relevant data requested by the Ministry.  Furthermore, Portland cement imports from Turkey to 
Israel underwent significant drops during the investigation period  both in absolute and relative 
terms. Therefore, Turkish cement imports were not a threat for Israeli producers. It also pointed 
out that the analysis of economic and financial parameters covered only the investigation period in 
lieu of the injury period d etermined by the IA, and that the source of alleged injury was doubtful 
due mainly to the fact that a non -petitioner producer with 90 % of the total production of the 
domestic industry had not submitted its whole data. Turkey requested that Israel terminate  this 
investigation without taking any definitive measures.  
56.  In response to Turkey's concerns, Israel  explained that there was no provisional measure 
imposed in this case and looked forward to receiving Turkey's comments in writing.  
57.  On the semi -annual repor t of Pakistan , Brazil  expressed its concern with the ADD imposed  
on certain uncoated writing and printing paper . Referring to Article 5.10 of the AD  Agreement, 
Brazil contended that Pakistan's IA had not complied with the deadline for concluding  the 
investigation  given that the investigation lasted 26 months . A similar stipulation  was also 
embedded in  Section 29 of  Pakistan's Anti -Dumping Duties  Act. Therefore, Brazil  was of the view 
that Pakistan's IA had erred  in applying the ADD against Brazil's exports of uncoated writing and 
printing paper to Pakistan  and requested that Pakistan terminate  the existing ADD  on the product 
concerned immediately . 
58.  In response to Brazil, Pakistan  explained that  it was fully aware of its obligations under 
Article  5.10 of the AD Agreement. However, its domestic court  exercised constitutional power  to 
grant a stay  order restraining the IA from carrying on with this  investigation. Thus, this 
investigation had been suspend ed for  almost  10 months . This in vestigation was finalized on 
30 March 2018, and the final determination had been notified to the W TO Secretariat  and the 
Members concerned. Notwithstanding the stay order to suspend this investigation, Pakistan 
underlined the fact that  if the time period of the stay order granted by the court had been 
adjusted, the investigation would have been completed within 18 months.   
59.  On the semi -annual report of Ukraine , the Russia n Federation  referred to  the interim review 
of the AD measure on ammonium nitrate . The product scope was extended to cover those that had 
not been subject to the original investigation. Specifically, there were two product scope 
extensions in this review. The first extension encompassed m ixtures of ammonium nitrate in  the 
scope of the interim review from its very beginning without conducting the necessary analysis  for G/ADP/M/54  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the purposes of injury and causality determinatio n in the original investigation. The product scope 
was extended again following the interim review whereby  the Ukrainian IA decided to broaden the 
product scope to incl ude fertilizers identified at level of 4-digit HS code , despite being originally 
provided at the level of 6 -digit HS code . However, these new types of  fertilizers were considered 
neither  in the original investigation  nor in the interim review.  The Russian Federation was of the 
view that the product scope of the measure should remain consistent throughout the entire 
duration of the measure.  In order to apply the ADD to products out of the scope, a  new 
investigation would be required, with dumping, injury, and causality duly established. Therefore, 
enlarging the product scope of the measure in the interim review was contrary to Article 11.2 of 
the AD Agreement.  Given that the AD measure on ammonium nitrate was currently challenged in 
the WTO dispute settlement system due to the use of cost -adjustment methodology, it urged 
Ukraine to refrain from adding new WTO -incompatibilities to this measure and to abide by the 
WTO rules.  
60.  The Russian Federation additionally raised concern over Ukraine's investigation on carbamide -
formaldehyde products. Referring to Article 5.2 of the AD Agreement, it contended that this 
investigation was initiated on the basis of the Ukrainian industry's application which lacked 
sufficient evidence of dumping and causal link between the alleged dumped imports and injury. 
The Russian Federation requested Ukraine to terminate this in vestigation without imposing 
AD measures.  
61.  Turkey  voiced its concerns with Ukraine 's investigation on syr inges.  It pointed out that 
contrary to Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the AD Agreement, the petition submitted by the complainants 
did not have sufficient injury -related evidence and adequate standards for the justification of the 
initiation of this investigation . In this vein, Turkey requested the Ukrainian IA to share a detailed 
assessment report on whether standing requirements were met in order to initiate this 
investigation. Furthermore, the increase in unit price of the imports from Turkey in 2015 
substantiated that the alleged injury claimed by the domestic industry during the injury period was 
not attributed to the Turkish imports  in accordance with Article 3.5 of the AD Ag reement. Taking 
into account the upward trend in the market shares of the complainants together with a decrease 
in the stocks in 2015, Turkey was of the opinion that the indicators figured in the complaint clearly 
demonstrated that there was no injury suff ered by the complainants.  
62.  On the concerns  raised  by the Russian Federation , Ukraine  stated that the interim review of 
the AD measure on ammonium nitrate was conducted in full compliance with the AD  Agreement  
and its national law . Interested parties were gi ven the opportunity to provide relevant information 
to defend their interests . However,  some of the Russian producers did not cooperate with its IA. 
The main finding and conclusions of its IA were sent to all interested parties, including the IA  of 
the Rus sian Federation . It elaborated further that the dumping in this interim review was 
determined by comparing the export price with the constructed normal value calculated on the 
basis of reasonable cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonabl e amount for 
administrative, selling and general costs and for profits. The dumping margins w ere 29.25 % and 
42.96 % for Russian exporters and other exporters , respectively.  As for the ongoing investigation 
on carbamide -formaldehyde, Ukraine explained that t his inv estigation was initiated on 
15 April 2017 and had been conducted in compliance with the AD Agreement and its relevant 
national law. All interested parties, including Russian exporters and producers, were given the 
opportunity to express their views in order to defend their interests. There was a possibility for 
interested parties to participate in the public hearings. Currently, the Ukrainian IA was analyzing 
the data received in order to find the ground s for proving the objective determination  of dumping, 
injury, and causal link  between the two.  The main findings and conclusions will be sent to all 
interested parties, including the IA of the Russian Federation.  
63.  In response to Turkey, Ukraine stated that this investigation on syringes was still ongoin g. 
Turkish producers were registered as interested parties and had the opportunity to present the 
evidence and to express their views pertaining to this investigation. It confirmed that the public 
hearings would be held during this investigation, and that the main findings and conclusions would 
be sent to all interested parties, including the Turkish IA .  
64.  On the semi -annual report of  the US, Japan  expressed its concern with regard to the  
prolonged duration  of the US' AD measures against Japanese products. I t highlighted that the US 
currently had 18 measures in force against Japanese products, with the longest measures having 
continued for more than 39 years and 13 of them enforced for more than five years.  Japan had G/ADP /M/54  
 
- 10 - 
 
  continued to closely monitor the operation  of the sunset review by the US, and requested the US 
to swiftly revoke these long -standing measures from the point of view of whether these measures 
were justified in accordance with the WTO rules.    
65.  Indonesia  raised concern in relation to the US' investi gation on biodiesel products. It pointed 
out that the United States Department of Commerce (" USDOC ") found a particular market 
situation with respect to  the domestic biodiesel market  in Indonesia a nd, as a result, disregarded 
the costs and prices submitted  by Indonesian exporters  and substituted them with  those of a 
surrogate  country . This practice had been found to be inconsistent with the AD Agreement in the 
AB Report in European Union – Antidumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina  (DS473 ) and 
the Pan el Report in European Union – Antidumping Measures on Biodiesel from Indonesia  (DS480 ). 
Furthermore, it sought clarifications f rom the US in respect of the basis used by the USDOC to 
invoke a particular market situation, since the Oil Palm Plantation Fund,  a program alleged to be a 
countervailable subsidy  by the USDOC, was designed solely for the biodiesel products sold in the 
Indonesian market, and not for the exported products. In addition, Indonesia cast ed doubt over 
the methodology used by the USDOC to construct  the normal value , as well as the legal reasons 
used by the USDOC to disregard the exporters' actual cost  records. It also questioned the double 
counting methodology used by the USDOC in determining the dumping and subsidy margins,  
together with  the USDOC's imposition of double remedy, which ultimately led to high er combined 
AD and countervailing duties .  
66.  The Republic of Korea  expressed its concern over the US' application  of adverse facts available 
("AFA") in AD  investigations. According t o the amendment to the Tariff Act based on the Trade 
Preferences Extension Act of 2015 , the corroboration requirement gave the USDOC discretion to 
apply the highest rate without demonstrating that a particular dumping margin reflected  an 
alleged commercial reali ty of the interested party . It was of the view that under this new law, 
despite exporters ' best efforts in responding to the AD investigation, submitted information was 
neglected and AFA continued to be applied.  Recently,  the USDOC applied total AFA and ma de its 
final determination to impose approximately 30% higher  duties  on oil country tubular goods from 
Korea than those in the preliminary determination.  The reason for the AFA application was the 
mistranslation of a certain line item in the document submi tted by the respondent.  It emphasized 
serious concern about the US' unduly use of AFA and urged the US to make its related laws and 
practices consistent with the WTO rules. To this end, Korea indicated that it was planning to take 
actions based on the rele vant rules and procedures.    
67.  With regard to the repeated concerns by Japan on the length of its measures, the US 
reiterated that Japan seemed to imply that an older measure was no longer valid solely on the 
grounds that the measure was old. The US disagre ed and emphasized that the purpose of an 
expiry proceeding was to allow administering authorities to examine whether dumping and injury 
would be likely to continue or recur if the measures were removed. The US explained that the 
expiry process was evidence -based and that the participation by Japanese companies in expiry 
proceedings would be helpful both in terms of the relevant information to be provided and the 
arguments to be made by interested parties. Furthermore, many measures involving Japanese 
export s had, in fact, been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry reviews, there had 
been 64 measures reviewed involving Japan. Of those, 51 (or 80 %) resulted in termination of the 
measure.  
68.  For 7 of the oldest 10 measures that remained in effect, the Japan ese industry had failed to 
meaningfully participate in any sunset review proceeding. In fact, multiple times just in 2017 the 
Japanese industry was again given an opportunity to explain whether the revocation of the orders 
would be likely to lead to contin uation or recurrence of material injury and again the industry had 
refused to participate. Lack of respondent participation and the consequent lack of evidence 
provided by respondents limited the information provided to the IA. In other words, Japanese 
producers may themselves be partly responsible for the result. In many of the expiry processes 
that involved imports from both Japan and other Members, respondents from other Members 
meaningfully participated in the review and made relevant arguments as to wh y the measure 
should be terminated as to their specific country, and the measure was terminated. The US 
suggested that Japan inquire with its own industries as to why there was a lack of interest in 
participating in the process, particularly given that participation had been a vital element in the 
termination of measures applied with respect to goods from other Members that also covered 
goods from Japan.  G/ADP/M/54  
 
- 11 - 
 
  69.  On the concerns raised by Indonesia, the US  explained that  Section 504 of the Trade 
Preferences Extension Act of 2015  added the concept of a particular market situation to the 
examples used to illustrate the statutory term "ordinary course o f trade". Section 504 provided 
that if a pa rticular market situation exists  such that the cost of materials and fabrication or other 
processing of any kind does not accurately reflect the cost of production in the ordinary course of 
trade, the IA may use a nother calculation methodology. The US elaborated further that the USDOC 
made its first affirmative determination of particular market situation in April 2017 , and had 
subsequently analysed particular market situation allegations in various proceedings. In 
February  2018, The USDOC  announced the final affirmative determination in the AD investigation 
on biodiesel imports from Indonesia, where the USDOC found that a particular market situation 
existed with respect to the respondent's home market sales in Indo nesia and reported costs of 
crude palm oil used in the production of biodiesel. The US asked  Indonesia to  refer to the Notice of 
Final D etermination and accompanying Issues and Decision M emoranda in order to address the 
relevant issues raised by Indonesia,  including clarifications on alleged double counting and double 
remedy.  
70.  In response to Korea, the US  stated that the issue of AFA had been discussed in previous 
meetings, with the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 reviewed at this Committee. It was 
engaging  on this issue with Korea bilaterally . Nevertheless , given that the proceedings in question 
were currently  in litigation, the US reiterated that it would be inappropriate to comment  at this 
time.  
71.  No comments were made with respect to semi -annual re ports that the Committee had not 
previously reviewed due to late circulation.  
72.  The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided.  
3  PRELIMINARY AND FINA L ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOT IFICATIONS  
73.  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/ 306, 307, 309, 310, 
311 and 312. During this period Argentina;  Armenia;  Australia; Brazil; Canada;  China;  Egypt;  
El Salvador;  EU; India; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Kyrgyz  Republic; Mexico; 
Morocco; Pakistan;  Paraguay; Peru ; Russian Federation; South Africa;  Chinese Taipei;  Turkey; 
Ukraine;  and US notified preliminary and/or final AD actions, which were listed in these 
documents. Since document G/ADP/N/ 312 was circulated, Argentina,  Armenia, Canada, 
El Salvador, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Pakistan,  Mexico, Russian Federation,  Turkey, 
Ukraine, and th e US had submitted such a notification, which would appear in the next list 
circulated by the Secretariat.  
74.  The Chair drew attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement. These reports were a key element of th e required transparency 
concerning Members ' AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard. He strongly urged 
all Members taking AD actions to  provide these notifications of preliminary and final actions, 
consistently and in a timely fashion. The minimum information format for these notifications 
adopted by the Committee in October 2006 and revised in October 2009 (document 
G/ADP/2/Rev.2), conta ined important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified 
and the information that should be provided.  
75.  Ukraine  expressed its concern regarding the AD measure imposed by the US on imports of 
carbon and alloy steel wire rod . Ukraine sought clarifications from the US on the methodolog ies 
used in this investigation. With respect to the dumping margin calculation,  the USDOC established 
the dumping margin for Ukrainian companies on the basis of facts available. More specifically, the 
dumping mar gin for two Ukrainian exporters was established  at the highest level alleged in the 
petition of 44 %, whereas the dumping margin of 34.98 % was established for all other exporters  
predicated on simple average of the six dumping margins calculated for subject  merchandise from 
Ukraine alleged in the petition. Hence, the rate of dumping margin for the two cooperati ng 
companies that did their best to give all necessary information within the framework of the 
investigation was higher than the rate for all other exporters.  As for the injury determination, G/ADP /M/54  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Ukraine  cited Article 3 of the AD  Agreement  and casted doubt on the WTO consistency of the 
United States International Trade Commission 's methodology to divide countries under the  
investigation into groups and to issue two final determination s for different countries .    
76.  In response to Ukraine, the US stated that  its wri tten responses to the questions posed by 
Ukraine were submitted on 23 April 2018 and asked the Members to refer to the document  
G/ADP/Q2/USA/8 which was circulated to the Members on 24 April 2018 .   
77.  The Chair noted that some Members were still submitting t he same Ad hoc  notifications 
pertaining to certain antidumping actions via different means; i.e. electronically, by fax and post. 
In certain instances, certain Members, while submitting new Ad hoc notifications, also tended to 
resubmit previously notified actions and in some cases provided electronic links that did not 
correspond to the notification the Member submits. In addition, some of these notifications were 
not submitted to CRN directly, but to the Rules Division Secretariat which had to resend it to  CRN 
for registration. He reminded all Members that a  given Ad hoc notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to CRN with a copy to the Secretary of 
the Committee and that any previously submitted notif ications should not be resubmitted. He also 
requested Members, instead of providing electronic links to general website s, to attach directly the 
relevant document containing the action they wish to notify in WORD or PDF formats. He stressed 
the need to avo id any confusion , repetition or duplication as these notifications were the source of 
necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee 's annual report.  
78.  The Committee took note  of the statements made, questions posed and answers provided.  
4  CHAIRP ERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEET ING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
79.  The Chair recalled that the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention met on 25 April 2018. India 
provided a detailed explanation of its provisions and practice of anti -circumvention investigation . 
India shared with the Group in particular the two cases conducted in February and August 2017 . A 
very interesting and lively discussion followed, with Members posing questions and offering 
comments. Canada  offered to make a presentation on i ts new anti-circumvention pr oceeding  at 
the next regular meeting of the Committee in October  2018.  
80.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  
5  CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEET ING OF THE WORKING G ROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
81.  The Chair reminded that the Working  Group on Implementation would hold a meeting on 
26 April 2018, continuing, as required, on 27 April 2018, at which it would discuss two dumping -
related issues:  the determination of costs and profits in dumping margin calculations and the 
methodologies for ca lculating the export price . Ms Carina Janse van Vuuren  of South Africa , 
serving as discussant for the meeting, had circulated an outline  of issues in advance of the 
meeting in document RD/ADP/WGI/ 11 to assist delegations in their work. The Chair encouraged all 
Members to attend and to participate actively in the discussions.  
82.  The Chair recalled that many delegations wished that Members agree to the topic of the 
October meeting well in advance. On 24 April 2018, the Chair circulated by fax the proposed two 
topics for the next Working Group meeting in October 2018: the methodologies to determine the 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in sunset reviews and the 
institutional structures of the investigating authorities.  In the absence of objections, it would be 
assumed that the topics were acceptable for the next meeting of the Working Group. As for a 
discussant for the October Working Group meeting, no delegation had suggested candidates to  
take up this role. Therefore, the Chair suggested that this matter would be taken up by the 
incoming Chair.   
83.  The Committee took note  of the report and the statement made.  G/ADP/M/54  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6  OTHER BUSINESS  
84.  Peru expressed its concerns over Brazil's  investigation on imports of  biaxially -oriented 
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from Peru and Bahrain. Despite the fact that this investigation 
was not included in the semi -annual report of Brazil's AD measures , it was necessary to raise its 
concerns  at this multilateral forum  given  that this investigation could entail commercial injury to 
its domestic exporting sectors. First, it opined that the initiation of this investigation violated 
specific provisions of the AD  Agreement . Contrary  to Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the AD  Agreement , the 
Brazilian IA did not take the price of the product under investigation in Peru as the normal value, 
but rather used the export price to Colombia in spite of  the fact that the products were traded in 
Peru and that there was no particular market situation.  With great value added,  the export price to 
Colombia was not re presentative and distorted the dumping margin calculation. Citing Article 3 of 
the AD  Agreement , Peru also contended that positive evidence in this investigation ha d not been 
presented, nor had the objective examination been undertaken with respect to the  existence of 
injury to Brazil's domestic industry . The p rincipal indicators  for the domestic industry in the 
determination demonstrated a positive trend during the p eriod of investigation . The Brazilian IA 
failed to analyse  other factors , which  may contribute to growth or competitiveness of the imports 
under investigation , contrary to Article 3.5 of the AD  Agreement . Second, Peru underlined the fact 
that since 2008, the Brazilian IA had initiated four AD proceedings against the same Peruvian 
exporting company without having determined the application of ADDs . Third, this situation was 
even more serious due to the fact that it was the second investigation on PET imports , conducted 
only one year  after the conclusion of the previous investigation.  Peru requested that Brazil 
conclude this investigation as soon as possible.   
85.  In response to Peru's concerns, Brazil  asked Peru to submit its comments directly to the 
Brazilian IA  and reiterated that it was open for any bilateral discussions on this matter, if 
requested.  
86.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
7  DATE OF THE NEXT REG ULAR MEETING  
87.  The next Regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 22 October 2018.  
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS   
88.  The Committee elected  by acclamation M s Karine Mahjoubi Erikstein (Norway) as Chair and 
Mrs Shani Griffith -Jack (Barbados ) as Vice -Chair to hold office until the end of the Committee's 
spring meeting of 201 9. 
 
__________