RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/51  
 
22 December 2016  
(16-0202) Page: 1/22 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 27 OCTOBER 2 016 
CHAIR: MR PEIRA SHAN NON (AUSTRALIA)  
1.  The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
27 October 2016.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in  document WTO/AIR/ADP/11:  
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    Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.1)  ................................ ... 2 
1.1.2    Kazakhstan (G/ADP/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 -G/SCM/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 -
G/SG/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 and G/ADP/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1/Corr.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1/Corr.1)  ................................ .............  2 
1.1.3    Kuwait, State of (G/ADP/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1 and G/ADP/N/1/KW T/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1)  ................................ ....... 2 
1.1.4    Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/3/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/QAT/3/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/QAT/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
1.1.5    Russian Federati on (G/ADP/N/1/RUS/2 -G/SCM/N/1/RUS/2 -G/SG/N/1/RUS/2 ) ..................  3 
1.1.6    United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23 -G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23, 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 and G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.25/Corr.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24/Corr.1 ) ................................ ................................ ......................  3 
1.1.7    Vanuatu ( G/ADP/N/1/VUT/1 -G/SCM/N/1/VUT/1 -G/SG/N/1/VUT/1 ) ................................ ... 3 
1.2   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ ...............................  3 
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) ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
2   NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW OF  LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIO USLY REVIEWED BY THE  COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  4 
2.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1) & Oman (G/ADP/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1) and Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 
(G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1)  ....................  4 
2.2   Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/4)  ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
2.3   Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/DOM/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 
2.4   Pakistan (G/ADP/N/1/PAK/3 –G/SCM/N/1/PAK/3)  ................................ .............................  4 G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3   SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF AN TI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ART ICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/286) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  5 
4   PRELIMINARY AND FINA L ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  ................................ ................  15 
5   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF TH E INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 
6   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF TH E WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  18 
7   ANTI -DUMPING LEGISLATION OF EL -SALVADOR – ITEM REQUESTED BY TH E 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  18 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18 
9   DATE OF THE NEXT REG ULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..... 22 
10   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCI L FOR TRADE IN GOODS  (ARTICLE 18.6)  ............  22 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION   
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notificat ions of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)1 
1.1.1   Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.1)  
1.1.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/CAN/16 –G/SCM/Q1/CAN/16 - Submitted by the United States ("US")  
 
1.2.  In addition to the oral introduction and summary of answers provided by Canada  at the 
meeting, written answers to the US' written questions can be found in the following document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/CAN/17 -G/SCM/Q1/CAN/17 – Replies to U S 
1.1.2   Kazakhstan (G/ADP/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 -G/SCM/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 -
G/SG/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 and G/ADP/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1/Corr.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1/Corr.1)  
1.3.  Written questions regarding this notification were posed and can be found in the follo wing 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/KAZ/1 –G/SCM/Q1/KAZ/1 -G/SG/Q1/KAZ/1 - Submitted by US  
 
1.4.  Kazakhstan  made a brief introduction and provided an oral summary of its written replies, 
which can be found in the following document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/KAZ/2 – Replies to US  
1.1.3   Kuwait, Sta te of (G/ADP/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1 and G/ADP/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1)  
1.5.  No written or oral questions concerning the notification of Kuwait were posed by any 
Member.  
                                                
1 Relevant  deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers in November and 
December  2016 respectively can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/49 5-G/SCM/W/570 -
G/SG/W/23 8. G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.4   Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/3/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/QAT/3/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/QAT/3/Suppl .1) 
1.6.  No written questions concerning the notification of Qatar were posed by any Member.  
1.7.  Qatar reminded Members that any answers provided by Bahrain, the Kingdom of Saudi  
Arabia and Oman in the context of the continuing review of their respective notifications would be 
presented on behalf of all the Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC") countries.  
1.1.5   Russian Federation ( G/ADP/N/1/RUS/2 -G/SCM/N/1/RUS/2 -G/SG/N/1/RUS/2 )  
1.8.  Written ques tions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/RUS/7 -G/SCM/Q1/RUS/7 -G/SG/Q1/RUS/7 – Submitted by US  
1.9.  The Russian Federation  provided oral replies to US' questions during the meeting.  
1.1.6   United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl. 23-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.23, 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24 and G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.25/Corr.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.24/Corr.1 ) 
1.10.   No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding Supplements 23 or 25 to 
the US' notification.  
1.11.   Written questions were  posed regarding Supplement 24 to the US' notification and can be 
found in the following documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/USA/29 -G/SCM/Q1/USA/29 – Submitted by Mexico  
 G/ADP/Q1/USA/30 -G/SCM/Q1/USA/30 – Submitted by Chinese Taipei  
1.12.   Written answers to the written questions  can be found in the following documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/USA/31 -G/SCM/Q1/USA/31 – Replies to Chinese Taipei  
 G/ADP/Q1/USA/32 -G/SCM/Q1/USA/32 – Replies to Mexico  
1.1.7   Vanuatu ( G/ADP/N/1/VUT/1 -G/SCM/N/1/VUT/1 -G/SG/N/1/VUT/1 ) 
1.13.    No written questions concerning the notifica tion of Vanuatu were posed by any Member.  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with 
outstanding 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) 
1.14.   The US reminded Cameroon  of the pending written questions posed on 15 September 2014 
concerning the notification and 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. These written questions can be found in 
the following document:  
 G/ADP/Q1 /CMR/3 –G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3 –G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 - Submitted by US on 
15 September  2014.  
 
1.15.   Cameroon was not present at the time.  Oral answers were not provided at the meeting 
nor have written answers been received to date.  
1.16.   The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW OF  LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICA TIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/BHR/2/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1)  & Oman (G/ADP/N/1/OM N/3/Suppl.1 -
G/SCM/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1) and Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 
(G/ADP/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 -G/SCM/N/1/SAU/2 /Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 ) 
2.1.  Additional questions concerning these notifications were posed and can be found in the 
followi ng document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/11 -G/SCM/Q1/BHR/11 -G/SG/Q1/BHR/13, G/ADP/Q1/OMN/3 -
G/SCM/Q1/OMN/3 -G/SG/Q1/OMN/3 and G/ADP/Q1/SAU/5 -G/SCM/Q1/SAU/5 -
G/SG/Q1/SAU/7 – Submitted by US  
2.2.  Written answers to the written questions from the US can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/12 -G/SCM/Q1/BHR/12 -G/SG/Q1/BHR/14, G/ADP/Q1/OMN/4 -
G/SCM/Q1/OMN/4 -G/SG/Q1/OMN/4 and G/ADP/Q1/SAU/6 -G/SCM/Q1/SAU/6 -
G/SG/Q1/SAU/8 – Replies to US  
2.2  Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/4)  
2.3.  Additional questions concerning the notification of Colombia  were posed and can be found in 
the following document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/8 -G/SCM/Q1/COL/8 – Submitted by US  
2.4.  Written answers to the written questions from the US can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/9 -G/SCM/Q1/COL/9 – Replies to US  
2.3  Dominican Republic  (G/ADP/N/1/DOM/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2)  
2.5.  Additional questions concerning this notification were posed and can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/DOM/9 -G/SCM/Q1/DOM/9 -G/SG/Q1/DOM/9 – Submitted by US  
2.6.  Written ans wers to the written questions from the US can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/DOM/10 -G/SCM/Q1/DOM/10 -G/SG/Q1/DOM/10 – Replies to US  
2.4  Pakistan (G/ADP/N/1/PAK/3 –G/SCM/N/1/PAK/3)  
2.7.  Additional questions concerning this notification were posed and can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/PAK/11 -G/SCM/Q1/PAK/11 – Submitted by US  
2.8.  Written answers to the written questions from the US can be found in the following 
document:  
 G/ADP/Q1/PAK/12 -G/SCM/Q1/PAK/12 – Replies to US  
2.9.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.10.   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.  
2.11.   The Chair noted that new legislative notifications from El Salvador , the European Union 
("EU") , Japan  and the Kyrgyz Republic  as well as any others received and circulated by the 
applicable deadlines2, would be on the agenda for review at the regular meeting of the Committee  
in April  2017.  
2.12.   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 that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.  
2.13.   Concerning the revi sed list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.42, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and encouraged Members to review and 
update previous ly submitted information where necessary.  
2.14.   The US appreciated the fact that most Members have submitted a notification with their 
domestic anti -dumping ("AD") legislation or a one -time nil notification. However, some countries 
which have not provided a not ification of their legislative status, have submitted trade policy 
review reports indicating that they do have AD laws in effect. In other words, the respective 
WTO Members have already gone to the effort of informing the WTO of its AD legislation status, 
albeit in another forum. It, therefore, encouraged Members to review their respective situations 
and to make the appropriate notification promptly.  
2.15.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF AN TI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ART ICLE 16.4)  
(G/ADP/N/286)  
3.1.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi -annual reports for the first half of 
2016 had been circulated in document G/ADP/N/286. Members taking no AD actions should submit 
a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This wo uld not apply to those Members that had 
already submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement.  
3.2.  He noted that a significant number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notificati on requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except for the 46 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification.3 Members were urged to comply with this important notification 
requirement.  
3.3.  The Committee reviewed the semi -annual reports for the first half of 2016. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
Costa  Rica; Egypt; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; New  Zealand; Peru; Phili ppines; South Africa; 
Chinese Taipei; Trinidad and Tobago; Ukraine and Viet Nam.  
3.4.  On the semi -annual report of Armenia , the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/ARM/1 containing the written questions posed by Ukraine and the written replies 
submitted by Armenia contained in document G/ADP/Q2/ARM/2. The Chair explained that Ukraine 
reserved the option to address its questions to Armenia upon the review of the 
Russian  Federation's semi -annual report, as they pertained to investigations conducted by the 
Eurasian Economic Commission ("EEC") for all Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union 
("EAEU")  
                                                
2 Relevant deadlines can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/49 5-G/SCM /W/570-G/SG/W/23 8. 
3 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193 series of documents.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.5.  Japan  expressed serious concern over the recent increasing trend of AD measures. Japan 
demonstrated frequent use of AD measures in recent years: the n umber of initiations of 
AD investigations in the steel sector was 23 in both 2012 and 2013, and rose sharply to 41 in 
2015. Japan acknowledged that there was oversupply in steel and some other major industries, 
mainly among emerging economies, due to the e xpansion of production capacities that might not 
necessarily follow an economic rationale. It noted that the deteriorating market balance had 
triggered trade remedy measures globally and requested the Committee and its Members to 
adequately monitor the new ly initiated investigations, and examine whether those investigations 
meet the strict requirements under the WTO agreements.  
3.6.  On the semi -annual report of  Australia, the Russian Federation  expressed deep concern with 
the Australian dumping margin determinat ion practice. It referred to the expiry review of an 
Australian AD measure on ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation. In this review, 
when constructing the normal value, the investigating authority ("IA") replaced the natural gas 
cost actua lly incurred by the Russian producers with the prices of exported natural gas at the 
German border. The rationale for doing so had been based on the conclusion that the Russian 
internal prices for natural gas were artificially lower than international ones  due to regulation by 
the State. The Russian Federation referred to the findings of the Appellate Body ("AB") in DS473 – 
EU – Biodiesel where it had been determined that under Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement cost 
of production should be calculated on t he basis of the records kept by the producers. This, 
according to the Russian Federation, was not the case in the review conducted by Australia. It 
urged Australia to strictly comply with its WTO obligations and bring its measure and practices into 
conform ity with WTO rules.  
3.7.  Australia  highlighted the excellent cooperation it had with the Russian Government 
throughout the course of the sunset review. The matters that the Russian Federation had raised 
had also been included in the submissions made by the Russ ian Government and had been 
considered by the Australian AD Commission in the preparation of the final report. Following the 
issuance of the decision, interested parties had 30 days in which to seek a review of that decision, 
and Australia's understanding was that parties had not sought merits review in this case.  
3.8.  On the joint semi -annual report of the GCC Member States ( Bahrain, Kingdom of ; Oman ; 
Qatar ; Kuwait, the State of ; Saudi  Arabia, Kingdom of and United Arab Emirates ), Korea  
expressed its concern w ith the investigation on automotive batteries. It drew particular attention 
to this first AD investigation initiated by the GCC Secretariat and indicated that extreme caution 
was required in exercising any measures that might  lead to trade restriction in t he midst of an 
unprecedented global economic crisis. It noted that measures to shut domestic markets to foreign 
producers would eventually be paid back by inviting countermeasures abroad. Korea expressed 
hope that the investigation would be conducted in a fair and objective manner, in compliance with 
the relevant WTO rules and by taking full consideration of the views of interested parties. In 
particular, Korea stressed that Articles 6.9 and 6.2 of the AD Agreement should  be fully observed 
to ensure that it s exporters could carefully review the methodology used by the GCC to calculate 
dumping margins, and defend their interests.  
3.9.  The Kingdom of Bahrain  asked Korea to provide its concerns in writing so that they could be 
forwarded to the respective capitals.  
3.10.   On the semi -annual report of China , the EU expressed regret that China had imposed 
measures on imports of unbleached paper sacks from the EU in April 2016, despite the absence of 
casual link. While it seemed that the domestic industry in China was experienc ing certain 
difficulties, the EU did not agree that these difficulties were caused by imports from the EU. 
According to the EU, the main issue in this case was product comparability due to differences in 
performance and quality between the imported and the  domestic product. It explained that 
imported sacks were of a higher quality than domestic ones, and as such did not require any 
additional processing or cost. This explained, in the EU's view, why the demand for the imported 
product continued to  increase despite the consistently higher price level of more than 10%. Based 
on these considerations, the EU believed that the Chinese IA had not properly establish ed causal 
link, as it had wrongly attributed injury to EU imports.  
3.11.   China  noted that its final determi nation was based on WTO rules and relevant domestic 
regulations. It said that during the investigation, the Chinese IA had provided enough 
opportunities for interested parties to submit information and comments. China confirmed that the G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 7 - 
 
  IA had examined all  evidence and had taken  into consideration all comments from interested 
parties, including governments. Although the case had been concluded, China welcomed 
comments from any interested parties in writing.  
3.12.   On the semi -annual report of Colombia , Mexico  expressed its concern regarding the 
investigation on gypsum board. In particular, Mexico's concern related to the way the information 
was being used in this investigation and the questionable focus of the Colombian IA.  
3.13.   First, it was difficult to know specific ally what product was being investigated, because the 
text of the resolution and the official statement at initiation caused confusion. The IA had initially 
included different types of gypsum board in the scope of the product under investigation, which 
had not been included in the initial request. No information was provided to this end, and Mexico 
believed the source of this information was unclear. Mexico stated that when there is no clear 
definition of the product under investigation, other elements unde r investigation would be 
questionable. Second, no explanation was given regarding the reason why imported products and 
the domestic products were like. Third, Mexico did not understand why the Colombian IA had not 
calculated a normal value when investigati ng the price of sales in Mexico. There was no 
explanation provided, and not all steps were taken with regar d to the requirements of the 
AD Agreement. According to Mexico, the Colombian IA had simply looked at export prices of a 
third country to compare the m with Mexico's without any analysis. Fourth, Mexico pointed out that 
no explanation was given in either the initial resolution or the initiation report as to the kind of 
gypsum boards used to compare prices. Fifth, neither the initial resolution nor the i nitiation report 
contained information as to how Colombia ensured that only the product under investigation was 
included in the analysis of imports. Sixth, in Mexico's view, it was not explained how the 
petitioners' economic indicators had been analysed an d whether they related only to the product 
under investigation and not to all products manufactured.  
3.14.   Colombia  took note of the concerns raised by Mexico. It also expressed its readiness to 
discuss the issue bilaterally and review the applicable methodolog ies.  
3.15.   On the semi -annual report of the Dominican Republic,  Turkey  referred to the sunset 
review initiated on 31  December  2015 with respect to the antidumping duty ("ADD") imposed on 
Turkish exports of steel reinforcing bars since 13 June 2011, with a duty rate of 14% for all 
Turkish exporters. Turkey referred to its statements at previous Committee meetings, citing the 
extension of the ADD to all Turkish exporters even though the dumping margin for one of the 
Turkish exporters had been negative. It viewed t he AD measure as unjust and inconsistent with 
the obligations of the Dominican Republic under the AD Agreement.  
3.16.   Turkey believed there was no  basis for the continuation of the measure, owing to the fact 
that there were no exports of rebar from Turkey into t he Dominican Republic, and supposedly no 
injury to the domestic producers. Turkey requested the Dominican Republic to terminate the 
ongoing sunset review without extending the AD measure. Finally, Turkey stated that it seriously 
considered the option of ta king the case to the Dispute Settlement Body.  
3.17.   The Dominican Republic  indicated that the investigation was still ongoing and that 
comments on the issues raised by Turkey would be provided in due course.  
3.18.   On the semi -annual report of the EU, the Russian Feder ation had concerns regarding the 
EU's AD practices. Specifically, it claimed that there emerged a practice of bringing AD 
investigations to results favourable to the EU industry in ways that violated WTO rules.  
3.19.   The Russian Federation cited the investigatio n on cold -rolled flat steel products. According 
to the Russian Federation, despite cooperation by the Russian exporters to the best of their ability 
during the investigation and verification, the EU's verifying investigators had insisted on 
confirmation an d clarification of the data that had never been requested before, dismissed the 
information from electronic databases, refused to consider clarified data, disregarded in whole or 
in part the information provided by the exporters and rejected all suggestion s for additional 
verification of the data deemed missing, although additional verification had been  carried out for 
the EU domestic producers.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.20.   The Russian Federation claimed that there was a vio lation of Article 6.8 of the 
AD Agreement in respect of the fa ct that the EU's determination in this case was based on facts 
available.  
3.21.   Moreover, the Russian Federation stated that by treating as costs and adding to the normal 
value the revaluations of loans in foreign currency, the EU calculated the normal value 
inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement.  
3.22.   In addition, the Russian Federation claimed that in constructing the export price, the EU 
deducted the whole amount of sales, general and administrative costs of affiliated Swiss 
companies, even when those companies acted as foreign exporting branches of the Russian 
producers. In the Russian Federation's view, this led to an unfair comparison between the normal 
value and the export price, contrary to Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement . 
3.23.   The Russian Federation believed that the EU's IA had arrived at exaggerated dumping 
margins that led to excessive amounts of duties. Furthermore, Russia believed that in applying this 
ADD retroactively, the EU had not met the requirements of Article 10.6  of the AD Agreement and 
that these were examples of WTO inconsistencies motivated by factors other than the true mission 
of the AD instrument. It expressed a concern that similar conduct could be expected during the 
ongoing procedure on hot -rolled steel p roducts and possible future investigations against Russian 
products. It added that the AD measures should not be used as means of keeping the exporters 
that act in good faith out of the market of a WTO Member and urged the EU to reconsider its 
approach and  to conduct AD investigations in strict compliance with its WTO obligations.  
3.24.   China  expressed its concern regarding the EU's investigation on certain hot -rolled flat 
products of iron. China stated that neither the current record nor the provisional determin ation 
contained sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the investigation or to support a positive 
determination based on the finding of a threat of material injury. China requested the EU to 
cautiously review the threat of injury factors and reco nsider its findings in the final determination.  
3.25.   The EU disagreed with the Russian and Chinese comments and emphasized that it was 
conducting its investigations fully in line with its obligations stemming from the AD Agreement.  
3.26.   On the cold -rolled flat steel  products investigation referred to by the Russian Federation, the 
EU clarified that the rights of the Russian exporting producers were respected and protected, and 
that the finding of non -cooperation had been based on the facts of the case which warranted  such 
a conclusion. As regards the methodologies, the EU was of the view that its export price and 
normal value calculations were not in breach of the AD Agreement because, firstly, the Swiss 
companies related to the Russian exporters also performed functi ons of an importer, and, 
secondly, the EU's treatment of loans in foreign currencies was in line with the requirements of the 
AD Agreement. It added that the requirements of Article 10.6 of the AD Agreement were met in 
retroactively applying the ADD in thi s case. The EU agreed with the Russian Federation that the AD 
instrument should not be used to keep exporters out of the domestic market, but to restore fair 
trade and a level playing field and that the EU's investigation had achieved this purpose.  
3.27.   In rela tion to comments by China, the EU explained that the investigation was pending and 
emphasized that the complainant provided sufficient prima facie  evidence that there was sufficient 
freely disposable capacity in China, the likelihood of substantially incre ased imports, and that the 
flow of dumped imports was likely to substantially increase due to decrease in domestic 
consumption in China and recent trade measures imposed by other countries. These findings were 
confirmed during the provisional stage of the investigation where it was confirmed that the 
Chinese companies were heavily dumping in the EU market with dumping margins of 96% and 
above. This created an imminent threat to the EU's producers whose profitability sharply 
decreased by the end of 2015. In order to remove this threat, the EU Commission decided to apply 
provisional AD measures ranging, due to the application of the lesser duty rule, between 13.2% 
and 22.6%. On 7 October 2016, the EU Commission disclosed its provisional findings to the parties  
and gave them 25 days to comment. The EU stressed that the Chinese government and interested 
parties were welcome to provide comments and confirmed that such comments would be duly 
taken into consideration in the context of the final decision.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.28.   On the semi -annual report of India , Australia  requested India to provide an update on the 
investigation on low -ash metallurgical coke.  
3.29.   Qatar  referred to the Indian investigation on linear alkyl benzene originating in or exported 
from Qatar, China and Iran, initiated by the Indian IA on 7 December 2015. Qatar referred to the 
failure by India to observe important procedural obligations during the course of this investigation.  
3.30.   First, despite the active participation of the producer and exporter in Qatar, the  information 
and data that they submitted at the beginning of 2016 had not been verified. Second, the Indian 
authorities had not provide d interested parties, including the authorities of the exporting Members, 
with a copy of the initial application that resulted in the  initiation of the investigation, contrary to 
Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement. Third, the initial application had not been placed on the public 
file, contrary to the requirements of Article 6.6 of the AD Agreement. The AB, in EC – Pipe Fittings, 
made it clear that IAs had an obligation to make available all non -confidential information used by 
them and that were relevant to the interested parties.  
3.31.   Fourth, interested parties had only been provided with a revised version of the application 
37 days after the  initiation of the investigation. As stated by the Panel in the Guatemala – Cement, 
the expression 'as soon as' in Article 6.1.3 is interchangeable with the word 'immediately'. Qatar 
reminded that in this case the panel found that providing the application  24 or even 18 days after 
initiation of the investigation did not fulfil the requirement of Article 6.1.3. The non -confidential 
version of the application that had eventually been made available to the parties did not permit a 
reasonable understanding of t he substance of information submitted in confidence, thus effectively 
preventing interested parties from exercising their rights of defence. For instance, most of the data 
regarding the constructed normal value of Qatar was confidential. Qatar recalled tha t in China – 
HPSST, the panel found that the IA had acted inconsistently with Article 6.5.1 by failing to require 
the applicants to provide sufficiently detailed non -confidential summaries of the substance of 
confidential information contained in the annex es, and by failing to require the applicants to 
provide adequate statements as to why summarization was not possible. These procedural 
violations vitiated the investigation and the evidence of dumping, injury and causal link was 
absent. Qatar encouraged In dia to terminate this investigation without the imposition of a 
measure.  
3.32.   The EU raised its concerns in relation to the case on styrene butadiene rubber initiated by 
India in January 2016 on the basis of material retardation of the establishment of a domest ic 
industry. Based on  available evidence, the EU had serious doubts that the industry was suffering 
from material retardation. In particular, imports from the countries concerned have decreased by 
around 30%, to the benefit of the domestic industry, which already supplied close to 45% of the 
domestic market, after less than 15 months since its establishment. The difficulties that the Indian 
industry was experiencing were clearly linked to the start -up phase, and not to imports. The EU 
urged India to refrain  from imposing any measures in this case, as they would be in breach of 
WTO requirements.  
3.33.   China  expressed concerns regarding India's conduct of its recent AD investigations. In 2016, 
India initiated 18 AD investigations against Chinese products. China crit icized India's "complete 
value chain" practice in these investigations, whereby all companies in an exporting chain, 
producers and trading companies, related and unrelated, were required to provide questionnaire 
responses. If an unrelated company did not p rovide any response or provided an incomplete 
response, the information from the respondent company would be rejected by the Indian IA on the 
basis that the respondent did not provide information on the whole exporting chain. China stated 
that this require ment by the Indian IA was unreasonable and placed extra burden on the 
respondent companies to ensure cooperation in the investigation. China noted that once the 
respondent company had already provided, to the best of its ability, all the information that i t 
could have, it would be unreasonable for the IA to treat such a company as uncooperative and 
reject its export prices. The AD Agreement provided clear restrictions on the application of facts 
available, and the respondent's price information should not b e rejected because of non -
cooperation by one or two unrelated companies. China urged India to change its practice in its AD 
investigations.  
3.34.   Japan  expressed its concern about India's cases on cold -rolled flat steel products and hot -
rolled flat products of alloy or non -alloy steel in coils and not in coils. According to Japan, the 
consideration by the Indian IA of the Japanese exporter's claims in the preliminary determination G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 10 - 
 
  was insufficient, in particular, as regards price comparability of the import ed products and the 
domestic product, as required by Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement. Moreover, due to the method 
used by the Indian IA to calculate the amount of AD Ds, Japan was not able to assess the 
appropriateness of the duties and whether their amount was not in excess of dumping margins. It 
questioned India's compliance with Articles 9.2 and 9.3. In addition, Japan cited the late notice by 
the Indian IA of the upcoming on -the-spot investigation and the insufficient nature of the 
investigation that was carr ied out on the Japanese companies' premises, which, in Japan's view, 
raised questions in the context of Article 6.7 and Annex I of the AD Agreement. Japan requested 
India to improve its investigation method consistent with the re levant provisions of the 
AD Agreement.  
3.35.   Ukraine  expressed its concern regarding the imposition of a provisional ADD on cold -rolled 
flat steel products. Measures had been imposed in the amount of difference between the landed 
value of the subject goods and a specified amount of 594 US D per ton, provided that the landed 
value was less than the mentioned value. At the same time, the preliminary findings contained no 
explanation as to how this value had been established and how it corresponded to the dumping 
margin. It was not clear wheth er the ADD exceeded the dumping margin. Moreover, the products 
imported from Ukraine were imported on such terms and in such quantities that could not cause or 
threaten to cause material injury to the Indian domestic industry. According to relevant statist ics, 
the share of Ukrainian imports in the total imports of the product to India was less than 2% during 
the period of investigation, which should be considered negligible within the meaning of Article 5.8 
of the AD Agreement. Ukraine considered that the p reliminary findings did not contain sufficient 
evidence of the negative impact of the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry and the 
presence of injury. Besides, by using annualized data and marketing forecasts in this investigation, 
the IA viol ated the provisions of Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement. Ukraine requested the revocation 
of the provisional ADD and termination of the investigation without AD measures.  
3.36.   On the question posed by Australia, India confirmed that the investigations had been 
concluded and the final findings had been issued on 20 October 2016. On the questions raised by 
Qatar, EU, China, Japan and Ukraine, India requested that they be submitted in writing in order to 
be conveyed to capital for consideration.  
3.37.   On the semi -annual R eport of Indonesia , Turkey  explained that on 27 August 2014, the 
Komite AD Indonesia ("KADI") had initiated an AD investigation on wheat flour originating in 
Turkey, Sri Lanka and India. The final disclosure report had been published on 18 December 2015, 
calculating dumping margins ranging from 0% to 28.9% for Turkish companies. It underlined that 
the initiation of this investigation and calculation of dumping margins were problematic due to 
reasons which had been previously stated by Turkey in the meetings  of the Committee. As the 18 -
month deadline stipulated in Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement had expired, Turkey requested an 
update on the expected date of termination of the proceedings without any measures.  
3.38.   Indonesia  explained that the results of the inv estigation were in the process of consideration 
at the ministerial level. Indonesia could not provide a specific date for the results of the 
investigation to be made public, but confirmed that it would notify the Committee accordingly.  
3.39.   On the semi -annual r eport of Israel , Turkey  submitted its views regarding the initiation of 
the investigation on imports of float glass. In this connection, Turkey raised three issues. First, the 
non-existence of indices regarding the trends of the complainant's financial fig ures hindered the 
interested parties' right to defend their interests and to evaluate the real situation of the Israeli 
domestic industry. Second, the share of the Turkish float glass imports in the Israeli market had 
witnessed significant drops during the  investigation period which clearly showed that the Turkish 
float glass imports had not posed a threat to the Israeli producers. Third, Turkey pointed out that 
the Israeli IA had calculated a dumping margin of 26.5% for the single known producer and an all  
others rate of 70.7%. Citing Articles 9.3 and 9.4(i) of the AD Agreement, Turkey submitted that 
an all others rate should not exceed the dumping margin calculated for the Turkish respondent 
companies. Turkey requested Israel to terminate the investigation  without the imposition of 
definitive measures.  
3.40.   Israel  recalled that Turkey had provided its comments during a hearing in front of the 
Advisory Board prior to the IA's final findings and recommendations to the Minister, and these 
remarks had been taken in to account. It added that the final decision on this case was pending.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.41.   On the semi -annual report of Kazakhstan , the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/1 containing the written questions posed by Ukraine and the written replies 
submitted  by Kazakhstan contained in document G/ADP/Q2/KAZ/2. The Chair explained that 
Ukraine reserved the option to address its questions to Kazakhstan upon the review of the 
Russian  Federation's semi -annual report, as they pertained to investigations conducted b y the EEC 
for all Member States of the EAEU.  
3.42.   On the semi -annual report of Korea, Japan  expressed its concern with regard to the ADD 
on stainless steel bar. Japan pointed out that this product had been subject to ADDs in Korea for 
more than ten years. Japa n believed that market conditions had changed, that Japanese imports 
into Korea were limited and the share of other exporters was expanding. Japan believed that its 
products might  have no impact on Korea's domestic industry, and further stated that the 
revocation of the ADD would not cause damage. Japan requested Korea to eliminate the measure 
in accordance with Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement.  
3.43.   Korea  referred to the investigation that was being conducted by its IA on stainless steel bar 
from Japan and conf irmed that the IA was aware of the points raised by Japan. Korea further 
confirmed that in this context the IA was reviewing the documents and information submitted by 
Japanese companies. Korea stated that the investigation was still o ngoing fully in line with 
AD Agreement, and any determination would be made in compliance with WTO rules, taking full 
consideration of the views of the interested parties.  
3.44.   On the semi -annual report of the Kyrgyz Republic , the Chair drew Members' attention to 
document G/ADP/Q2/ KGZ/1 containing the written questions posed by Ukraine and the written 
replies submitted by the Kyrgyz Republic contained in document G/ADP/Q2/KGZ/2. The Chair 
explained that Ukraine reserved the option to address its questions to the Kyrgyz Republic upon  
the review of the Russian  Federation's semi -annual report, as they pertained to investigations 
conducted by the EEC for all Member States of the EAEU.  
3.45.   On the semi -annual report of Morocco , Turkey  indicated that Morocco had initiated an AD 
investigation a gainst imports of refrigerators originating in Turkey on 21  March 2016 and raised 
two points in relation to this case. First, in Turkey's view, the Moroccan IA should confirm whether 
the standing requirement had been met in this case, considering the fact that a company 
supporting the investigation was a direct importer of the subject merchandise from Turkey. 
Second, the non -attribution principle should be applied in the investigation, due to the mismatch 
of import trends with injury indicators. Moreover, T urkey submitted that the complaint had not 
provided sufficient evidence within the meaning of Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the AD Agreement 
to justify the initiation of an investigation. Turkey expected Morocco to terminate the investigation 
without taking any measure.  
3.46.   In relation to the AD measure applied by Morocco to imports of hot -rolled steel sheets 
originating in Turkey, Turkey recalled that the investigation had been initiated on 21 January 2013 
and resulted in a decision to apply an AD duty of 11% ad val orem to Turkish exporters, which 
entered into force on 2 October 2014, following publication in the Official Gazette of Morocco. 
Turkey further recalled the concerns that it had raised repeat edly regarding the issue of 
non-cooperation that had been the bas is for the application of the AD measure. While Morocco 
admitted that there was no issue of non -cooperation of Turkish exporters, it had not abolished the 
measure in question. Turkey underlined that on 4 October 2016 it notified the WTO that it 
requested d ispute consultations with Morocco regarding this measure.  
3.47.   Morocco  stated that the investigation on refrigerators was ongoing and that the IA had 
received responses from different parties and was reviewing them and it had no particular 
comments that it coul d provide at this point. Regarding the measure on hot -rolled steel sheet, 
Morocco acknowledged receipt of the request by Turkey and stated that both delegations were 
exploring options for an appropriate date to hold such consultations.  
3.48.   On the semi -annual r eport of Pakistan , the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/PAK/3 containing the written questions posed by Ukraine and the written replies 
submitted by Pakistan contained in document G/ADP/Q2/PAK/4.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.49.   Acknowledging Pakistan's written replies t o its questions in relation to the investigation on 
cold-rolled coils and sheets, Ukraine  emphasized that during the period of investigation imports of 
the product concerned from Ukraine into Pakistan were negligible and almost at the de minimis  
level, bot h in terms of total import volume (approx. 5.2%) and of the market share 
(approx.  2.5%). Citing this volume of imports, Ukraine submitted that it could not have caused 
any material injury to the domestic industry of Pakistan. Ukraine urged Pakistan to cons ider 
imports originating in Ukraine separately from those originating in China in the injury 
determination. Ukraine considered that termination of this investigation without the imposition of 
AD measures on Ukrainian products would be in line with Pakistan 's domestic AD rules and the 
AD Agreement.  
3.50.   Turkey  referred to the AD measure imposed by Pakistan on its products of hydrogen 
peroxide on 27  September 2010. Following a petition lodged by the pertinent domestic industry, 
Pakistan had initiated a sunset revi ew regarding that AD measure on 2 September 2015. Turkey 
had submitted its official views to the IA on 16 October 2015.  
3.51.   Bearing in mind Article 11 of the AD Agreement, its related jurisprudence, the positive 
financial indicators of the applicants and Turke y's decreasing hydrogen peroxide exports to the 
world markets, it viewed the extension of the pertinent ADD on the Turkish subject product as 
unnecessary and its revocation would not likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or 
material injury t o the applicants. It requested Pakistan to repeal the ADDs imposed in this respect.  
3.52.   Pakistan was not present at the time.  
3.53.   On the semi -annual report of the Russian Federation , the Chair drew Members' attention 
to document G/ADP/Q2/RUS/2 containing the writ ten questions posed by Ukraine and the written 
replies submitted by the Russian Federation contained in document G/ADP/Q2/RUS/3. The Chair 
noted that Ukraine wished to address its questions to Armenia, Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz 
Republic under this item.  
3.54.   Ukraine acknowledged the responses by EAEU Member States and brought up further 
concerns in relation to investigations by the EAEU. On the bars and rods investigation, 
Ukraine  referred to the period of conduct of the investigation. It  noted that the date of conclusion 
of the investigation was the date on which the EEC considered the report; i.e. on 28 April 2015. 
However, there were several reports of the IA, and the final report had been issued on 
29 March  2016, i.e. the same date when the EEC decision was t aken. Therefore, according to 
Ukraine, 28  April 2015 could not be considered the date of conclusion of the investigation, as the 
report had been changed and the investigation was still ongoing between April 2015 and 
March  2016. Consequently, Ukraine consid ered that this investigation was conducted during 
28 months, in  violation of Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement. In  addition, Ukraine submitted that 
there were no grounds for calling the report dated 14  May 2015 credible and reliable, as it was not 
the final  report. It believed that there had been no legal grounds to apply AD measures against 
Ukrainian bars and rods due to the violation of numerous provisions and basic principles of 
Articles  2, 3, 5 of the AD Agreement. Ukraine urged EAEU Member States to wit hdraw the 
EEC decision in question. Ukraine confirmed that it would be sending follow -up questions.  
3.55.   The Russian Federation  submitted that the investigations mentioned by Ukraine had been 
conducted in full compliance with WTO rules. It confirmed that it wou ld provide answers to Ukraine 
upon receiving its follow -up questions in writing.  
3.56.   On the semi -annual report of Thailand, Turkey  referred to the investigation on hot -rolled 
non-alloy steel in coils and not in coils from Turkey initiated on 1  January 2016. Tu rkey expected 
the IA to share a detailed assessment as to whether standing requirements had been met upon 
initiation of the investigation, as required by the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement. Turkey 
emphasized the fact that almost all injury indicat ors of the domestic industry analysed in the 
submission revealed that the injury claimed by the domestic industry had already existed before 
the increase in imports from Turkey occurred, and could not be attributed to those imports. Turkey 
also pointed out  that apparent other factors of injury included inherent inefficiencies of the steel 
market in Thailand, poor investment decisions of the domestic producers, natural disasters and 
political turmoil that affected Thailand, and thus injury could not be attri buted to Turkish imports 
pursuant to Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.57.   Thailand  requested Turkey to submit its comments and questions in writing to be conveyed 
to capital for consideration.  
3.58.   On the semi -annual report of Turkey , Ukraine  mention ed that Turkey maintained an 
AD measure on copper wire rod originating in Ukraine, which was under expiry review. The 
measures had been imposed on Ukrainian products 10 years ago, and were not in line with the 
current situation in Ukraine. Ukraine stated that its export potential had been considerably reduced 
due to the long -term anti -terrorist operation in Donets k and Luhansk regions, where much of the 
Ukrainian metallurgical industry was located. According to official statistics of Ukraine, exports of 
copper wire had de creased significantly in the previous several years. Given the change in 
circumstances in the Ukrainian metallurgical industry, which were of a long term nature and the 
absence of injury to Turkish industry or threat thereof caused by Ukrainian products, t here was no 
reason to maintain the AD measure. Ukraine urged Turkey to terminate this measure on copper 
wire rod in accordance with Article 11 of the AD Agreement.  
3.59.   Chinese Taipei  expressed regret that Turkey had eight measures in force against its 
products , seven of which had been in force for more than 10 years. Chinese Taipei recalled an AB 
ruling that an affirmative likelihood determination could only be made if evidence demonstrated 
that dumping would be probable if the duty was terminated, and not simp ly if evidence suggested 
that such a result might be possible or plausible. It asked Turkey to conduct its investigation s very 
carefully, and in a manner consistent with the relevant WTO Agreements. In particular, Chinese 
Taipei expressed concern regarding  Turkey's ADDs on  motorcycle and bicycle tyres against several 
WTO Members, which were in effect since 2009. Chinese Taipei expressed regret that the 
measures had been extended after sunset reviews in July and August 2016, respectively.  
3.60.   Moreover, Chinese T aipei noted that the Turkish government had raised the tariff rates on 
both products covered by the measure on 27 September 2016 by 21.8%. In the view of Chinese 
Taipei, the increases were of such a scale that they had a significant impact on the prevailin g 
competition conditions between the imported and the domestic products, thus radically changing 
the circumstances in which both the original injury investigations and the expiry reviews had been 
conducted. In addition, Chinese Taipei noted that since the imposition of the ADD, imports of these 
products into Turkey had been constantly declining, down to as low as 3% of the market during 
the period 2012 -2014. Based on these considerations and citing the requirements of Articles 9.1 
and 11.2 of the AD Agreeme nt, Chinese Taipei urged Turkey to urgently review the adequacy and 
necessity of its ADDs on motorcycle and bicycle tyres to remedy the injury suffered by the 
respective domestic industries.  
3.61.   In response to questions by Chinese Taipei, Turkey  drew attention  to the fact that, in its 
view, the AD Agreement was silent on how long the measure could or should stay in force, as long 
as the conditions in Article 11.3 were met. Turkey submitted that there were no legal constraints 
to limit the duration of an existin g measure. Turkey highlighted that conclusions in expiry reviews 
had been reached upon careful and detailed examination and were in full compliance with 
Article  11 of the AD Agreement. As regards the level of the measure, Turkey underscored that the 
dumpin g margins of the original investigation were diligently evaluated as upper limits of the 
measure in the review on bicycle tyres. Finally, Chinese Taipei had submitted in the past that the 
threshold of Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement should be observed in a  sunset review. These 
comments had been duly noted in the relevant process, and Turkey had indicated in its 
communiques that even though the volume of imports during the period of review from 
Chinese  Taipei fell below the 3% threshold, it had been  conclude d that in the event of revocation 
of the measure the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury were evident, 
based on the facts of the case.  
3.62.   Concerning the questions by Ukraine, Turkey reiterated its comments on the time -frame for 
a me asure to stay in force and further stated that the downward slope of the Ukrainian imports 
would be considered in the context of the sunset review in question. Should the IA conclude in this 
case that upon revocation of the measure injury and dumping would  be likely to continue or recur 
there would be no legal limit or constraint to continue applying the measure.  
3.63.   On the semi -annual report of the US, the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/USA/5 containing the written questions posed by the Ru ssian Federation regarding an 
investigation on ammonium nitrate and to document G/ADP/Q2/USA/6 containing the US' written 
answers to the questions.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.64.   The Russian Federation  indicated that it would review the answers provided by US and 
might come back with fo llow-up questions.  
3.65.   Japan  reiterated its concerns relating to the lengthy US' AD measures against Japanese 
products. The US had 17 measures in force against Japanese products, six of which were in force 
for more than 20 years, and the longest measure was in  force for more than 37 years. It referred 
to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and noted that the AB had ruled that an affirmative likelihood 
determination might be made only if evidence demonstrated that dumping would be probable if 
the duty were terminat ed, and not simply if the evidence suggested that such a result might be 
possible or plausible. However, in about 100 sunset reviews against Japanese exports, there was 
no case of denying continuation or recurrence of dumping. As a result, exporters might have less 
incentive to participate in some sunset review proceedings. In addition, Japan understood that the 
IA would not provide the questionnaire of dumping investigation again in sunset review 
proceedings. Japan doubted that the IA would be able to obta in the evidence demonstrating that 
dumping would be probable and appropriately recognize the requirement of continuation or 
recurrence of dumping as stipulated in Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement. Japan requested the US 
to swiftly revoke these unjustifiabl y long -standing measures.  
3.66.   Brazil  raised its concern with the increasing trend in the use of trade remedy instruments, 
specifically in the steel sector. Brazil was concerned that Members might be using this instrument 
to tackle problems that did not relate only to unfair trade practices. Specifically, Brazil referred to 
the US' investigation on hot -rolled and cold -rolled steel, which affected exports from Brazil. In this 
context, Brazil referred to the exchanges that it had with the US' IA and expected that this 
opportunity for technical exchange would be maintained in the future.  
3.67.   With regard to the concerns raised by Japan, US reiterated that it found no basis for Japan's 
chronic complaints. The expiry proceedings conducted by the US were consistent with the  US' 
obligations under the AD Agreement. Japan seemed to imply that an older measure was no longer 
valid solely on the grounds that the measure was old. The US disagreed and emphasized that the 
purpose of an expiry proceeding was to allow administering aut horities 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 he lpful both in terms of the relevant information to be 
provided and the arguments to be made by interested parties. Furthermore, many measures 
involving Japanese exports had, in fact, been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry 
reviews, there had been  64 measures reviewed involving Japan. Of those, 51 or 80% had resulted 
in termination of the measure.  
3.68.   For the eight of the oldest ten measures that remain in effect , Japanese industry had failed 
to meaningfully participate in any sunset review proceeding.  In fact, as recently as October 2016 
the Japanese industry had been again given an opportunity to explain whether the revocation of 
the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury and again the 
industry had refused to p articipate. Lack of respondent participation and the consequent lack of 
evidence provided by respondents limit 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 have meaningfully participated in the review and have made relevant arguments as to 
why the measure should be terminated as to their specific country, and th e measure had been 
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.  
3.69.   With regards to Brazil's comments, the US took them into account, agreed that the technical 
exchange had been productive and stated it was ready to continue that discuss ion. 
3.70.   No comments were made with respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not 
previously review ed due to late circulation.  
3.71.   The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
4.1.  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/285, 287, 288, 289, 
290 and 291. During this period Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; the 
Dominican Republic; Egypt; European Union; GCC Member -States (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait; 
Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; United Arab Emirates); India; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea; 
Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Russian Federation; South Africa; 
Chinese Taipei; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; Ukraine and the United States notified preliminary 
and/or final AD actions, which were listed in these documents. Since d ocument G/ADP/N/291 was 
circulated, Australia, Chile, Egypt, India, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and the United States had 
submitted such a notification, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat.  
4.2.  The Chair drew 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 
and discussion functio ns 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 n otifications 
adopted by the Committee in October 2006 and revised in October 2009 (document 
G/ADP/2/Rev.2), contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should be notified 
and the information that should be provided.  
4.3.  The EU referred to a c ase launched by Canada in September 2016 concerning imports of 
certain fabricated industrial steel components from China, Korea, Spain, United Arab Emirates and 
the United Kingdom. The EU explained that import shares of China and Korea taken together 
repre sented over 60% in 2015 and over 90% in 2016 of the total imports of the product into 
Canada, while the import shares of Spain and the United Kingdom had been de minimis  over the 
18 months preceding the investigation. However, in order to overcome the de m inimis  threshold 
Canada decided to use an extraordinary long period of investigation of 30 months. Yet, even on 
the basis of such a long investigation period, only Spain was above de minimis  level, and, as the 
United Kingdom was below this threshold, it sh ould have been excluded. In the EU's view, if the 
Canadian IA had chosen a normal investigation period of 12 months, as had been recommended 
by the Committee and as was the normal practice, imports from Spain and the United Kingdom 
would have been de minim is and could not have been subject to the AD investigation at hand.  
4.4.  In response to the comments from EU, Canada  explained that despite the unique situation 
that had arisen in this case, Canada was of the view that its investigation was fully consistent wit h 
its obligations under the AD Agreement. Canada explained that the product under investigation in 
that case included steel products such as columns, beams and girders that had been custom -
fabricated into articles suitable for assembly into a variety of st ructures according to specific 
custom plans. The term "industrial" was not used in a technical sense, but referred to the seven 
end uses identified in the product description. At the initiation stage, the Canadian IA estimated 
the volume of imports based o n the information available. At that time, the volume of goods 
imported from the United Kingdom had been estimated at 2.8% and from Spain at 4%.  
4.5.  Canada submitted that a longer than usual period of investigation had been used as the 
result of the custom nat ure of the product. Due to that nature and the industrial end use 
requirements in the product definition, the Canadian IA had been limited in its ability to identify all 
imports during the period of investigation. As such, the Canadian IA had not yet been able to 
conclusively ascertain whether the volume of the dumped goods was indeed negligible. It 
explained that the investigation was still in its preliminary phase and the Canadian IA would 
continue to gather and analyse information on the volume of import s during the period of 
investigation. If the preliminary investigation revealed that the volume of goods from the 
United  Kingdom was less than 3%, it would be considered negligible and Canada would terminate 
the investigation in respect of those goods in a ccordance with Canada's WTO obligations. Canada 
assured the EU that it would continue to conduct its investigation in full compliance with the 
AD Agreement.  
4.6.  Turkey  commented on a measure introduced on 14 July 2016 by China  in respect of acrylic 
fibre. Turk ey highlighted that China had  imposed an ADD in the amount of 8.2% for  the only 
Turkish producer of the subject product and 16.1% for all other producers. Turkey submitted that G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 16 - 
 
  the Chinese IA had not duly taken into account the points raised in Turkey's su bmissions and 
comments provided by the Turkish authorities, and failed to provide reasonable explanations to 
the exporter, particularly on the calculation of normal value. Turkey further submitted that China 
applied facts available and determined a higher duty rate for all other Turkish exporters, while 
there was only one Turkish firm producing and exporting the subject product to China. Citing 
Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement, Turkey stated that in such a situation non -cooperation of other 
producers became meaningless, unjust and unfair. Turkey expected China to repeal the measure 
in question.  
4.7.  In response to Turkey's questions, China  submitted that in the investigation in  question the 
IA had been entitled to apply facts available to unknown or non -cooperativ e exporters to 
determine the rates in accordance with WTO rules. China stated that information in the complaint, 
as examined and verified by the IA, and information from other interested parties received in the 
course of the proceedings, were the available  facts. China explained that in this case, the IA used 
another company's information as the best information available to determine other companies' 
rate. China believed that this was in line with WTO rules. China requested Turkey to provide its 
comments i n writing so that they could be analysed by capital and further explanations could be 
provided.  
4.8.  Turkey  referred to an AD measure on welding electrodes imposed by Egypt  on 
5 October  2016, with duties ranging from 23% to 58%. Turkey explained that the Egypti an IA had 
not given a chance for the Turkish Government or firms to make their comments orally in a 
bilateral meeting, as  the measures were imposed 5 days before the meeting was scheduled to take 
place. Turkey believed that this was going against the spiri t and letter of Article 6.2 of the 
AD Agreement. Turkey expected to receive Egypt's explanations on the matter.  
4.9.  In response to Turkey's comments, Egypt  explained that the investigation in question had 
been initiated in October 2015 on the basis of an appli cation submitted by the domestic industry, 
and after that the Egyptian IA sent questionnaire s to all known exporters and to the Government 
of Turkey for unknown exporters. Egypt explained that only two responses by Turkish companies 
had been received and v erified. Based on this information, the Egyptian IA issued its essential 
facts and conclusions report and gave all interested parties a  full opportunity to provide 
comments. It had also granted an extension of the time -frame to provide comments to a Turkis h 
exporter. Egypt submitted that it had been responsive to all interested parties, including the 
Turkish Government, during the course of the investigation, and stated that all interested parties 
had been given equal opportunities to defend their rights ac cording to the Article 6.2 of the  
AD Agreement, and that it had observed Article 6.9 of the Agreement by providing the essential 
facts report. It explained that the Turkish side itself had postponed the date of the meeting beyond 
the 12 -month deadline to c omplete the investigation. Egypt further highlighted that it had received 
a request for the review of the measure from a Turkish company, and stated that it had agreed to 
conduct such a review.  
4.10.   Ukraine  expressed its concern regarding the initiation of an i nvestigation by the EAEU  on 
hot-rolled steel angles from Ukraine. Ukraine explained that the investigation had been initiated 
based on a complaint that did not contain sufficient evidence of dumping or injury to the domestic 
industry of EAEU Member States.  Statistical information contained in the petition could not, in 
Ukraine's view, be considered reliable and used to analyse the market situation, as it had been 
drawn from different sources and reflected information on different levels of HS codes. Accordi ng 
to Ukrainian statistics, export of the subject product had decreased by 30% in 2013 -2015, and a 
further 40% reduction had been recorded in the first half of 2015 compared to the same period of 
2015. Ukraine urged EAEU Member States to terminate the inve stigation without imposition of 
measures pursuant to Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement.  
4.11.   In response to the question from Ukraine, the Russian Federation  explained that the 
investigation in question had been initiated in August 2016 and was ongoing. The Russi an 
Federation confirmed that interested parties, including Ukrainian exporters and producers, had full 
access to information, could fully realize their right of defence and provide comments. According to 
the Russian Federation, Ukrainian exporters were act ively cooperating with the IA in that 
investigation. The investigation had been initiated upon a thorough analysis of both the complaint 
of the domestic industry and other information which was a vailable to the IA. The 
Russian  Federation expressed confiden ce that the investigation had been initiated in full 
compliance with WTO rules, based on the data demonstrating a significant increase of imports of G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 17 - 
 
  the subject goods, increase of their share in the EAEU market and a significant decrease of the 
price of sh ipments of the product from Ukraine to the EAEU. This data was received from both the 
complaint and official statistics of the EAEU Member States.  
4.12.   China  referred to the initiation by Argentina  of several AD investigations on Chinese 
products in 2016, such as aluminium wheels. China expressed systemic concern in relation to 
those investigations. First, China highlighted the requirements for authorization and 
authentication, which implied that documents had to be translated into Spanish by Argentina -
registere d translators and authenticated by an Argentine diplomatic representation. According to 
China, this procedure was out of control of the respondents and took a lot of time. However, if not 
provided by the responding companies on time, this information would  be rejected by the 
Argentine IA. China urged Argentina to consider the difficulties faced by respondents and provide 
for reasonable extensions. Second, China raised the issue of summaries of confidential 
information. The respondents were required to provi de a public version of export form, which 
contained total export volume, value and expenses. China stated that this information was very 
sensitive for the respondent companies because it would provide an easy way to calculate the unit 
price of goods. China  was of the view that this information should be treated as confidential and 
should not be required to be disclosed.  
4.13.   In a preliminary response to China's comments, Argentina  stated that its investigations 
were conducted in compliance with the AD Agreement,  and all exporters from all Members were 
given an opportunity to participate. Argentina explained that no concerns in relation to the 
legalization requirement had been raised in any of its investigations. The  requirement was in line 
with Argentina's domest ic rules which had been notified to the Committee. It explained that 
non-confidential summaries of confidential information on volume of sales and prices could be 
provided in accordance with Article 6.5, and all parties in its investigations were complying  with 
this requirement without any difficulty. Argentina took note of China's comments and asked China 
to provide them in writing.  
4.14.   The Chair noted that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc notifications 
pertaining to certain AD actions via di fferent 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 t o 
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 notificati on, 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 notifications should not be resubmitted. He also requested 
Members, instead of pro viding electronic links to general website, to attach directly the relevant 
document containing the action they wish to notify in WORD or PDF formats. He stressed the need 
to avoid any confusion; repetition or duplication as these notifications were the so urce of 
necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report.  
4.15.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and the statement made.  
5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF TH E INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
5.1.  The Chair recalled th at the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention met on 27 October 2016. 
The US provided a detailed explanation on the workings of the newly enacted system regarding 
investigation of evasion of trade remedy laws. A very lively discussion followed, with Members 
posing questions and offering comments.  
5.2.  In addition, under Other Business, Brazil expressed its idea that the Secretariat could 
produce a compilation of notified laws/regulations that include provisions on anti -circumvention. 
There were many Members that s upported this idea, but some Members needed more time to 
reflect and consider.  
5.3.   The Committee took note  of the statement made.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 18 - 
 
  6  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ON THE MEETING OF TH E WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
6.1.  The Chair recalled that on 26 October 2016 the Working  Group on Implementation had held a 
meeting, at which it discussed the issue of treatment of confidential information. Mr Quentin Baird 
of the US served as discussant for the meeting. Mr Baird had circulated a roadmap of issues in 
advance of the meeting to  assist delegations in their work. In addition, one delegation submitted a 
paper describing its practices. The Members had a lively and interesting discussion at which 
representatives of many different IAs shared their practices and asked questions of othe rs.  
6.2.  Brazil  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had been subject to a great deal of 
discussions in Geneva, both in terms of the format and substance. Since 2014, when Brazil first 
proposed that Members reflect on ways to reinvigorate the acti vities of the Working Group on 
Implementation, it had seen a considerable increase in discussions within the Group benefiting all 
of the Members present at Rules Week. It believed that the activity of the Group could serve as 
model for other fora within th e Organization. Brazil stated that it remained open to explore 
alternatives that could revitalize the substantive work of the Committee and encouraged all 
Members to engage in such discussions.  
6.3.   The Russian Federation  echoed Brazil's statement and stated t hat there was strong demand 
for the Working Group on implementation to be active. It stressed that during the meeting there 
had been open dialogue, and delegations willingly shared their knowledge and experience on the 
subject matter. It added that the top ic for discussion attracted attention of the participants and 
was reviewed with interest and that the activity of the Group was going in the right direction, and 
the exercise should continue.  
6.4.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  ANTI -DUMPING LEG ISLATION OF EL -SALVADOR – ITEM REQUESTED BY TH E UNITED 
STATES  
7.1.  US explained that it initially placed this item on the agenda to encourage El Salvador  
to notify its AD, countervailing duty and safeguard legislation, in particular since El Salvador had 
alread y started imposing AD measures under that law. The US took note of the Chair's statement 
that El Salvador had already submitted such a notification that would be reviewed during the 
Committee's meeting in April.  
7.2.  El Salvador  confirmed that it had already p rovided the relevant notification on 
20 October  2016 and that this notification would be reviewed at the next meeting of the 
Committee.  
7.3.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1.  The Chair encouraged Members that had issues to raise wit h other Members under other 
business to provide sufficient notice to the Member concerned prior to the meeting in order to 
ascertain whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting.  
8.2.  China  recalled the provision regarding the use of the surrogate country methodology in AD 
investigations on Chinese products in China's Accession Protocol to the WTO. In accordance with 
Article 15 of the Accession Protocol, IAs may use a third country price instead of the Chinese price 
in calculating dumping margins un der certain circumstances. Since the surrogate country 
methodology practice was a serious deviation from the fundamental principle of the 
AD Agreement, Article 15 was a transitional provision that would expire on 11 December 2016. 
After that date, WTO Memb ers would not be allowed to use the surrogate country methodology in 
their AD investigations against Chinese products. IAs would be required to conduct investigations 
in compliance with the general rule of the AD Agreement and use the Chinese price or cost  as the 
basis for calculating dumping margins. China appreciated the commitment of many WTO Members 
to abandon this practice in advance. It requested WTO Members who were still using the G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 19 - 
 
  methodology to honour their WTO obligations and to terminate the surr ogate country methodology 
on time.  
8.3.  On China's statement, the US recognised that China had repeatedly raised the issue of its 
market economy status in various fora within the WTO. Initially, China had told Members that it 
deserved to be recognized as a mark et economy because of changes that had supposedly 
happened within China. However, China had stopped making this argument a few years before, 
perhaps out of recognition that the fact s on the ground did not support it. China's pervasive 
intervention in its s teel and aluminium sectors had led to a significant overcapacity of global supply 
that was threatening the viability of competitive, market -driven firms around the world. Thus, 
instead of trying to convince Members that it should be granted market economy status based on 
the facts, China had pivoted to legal arguments to achieve the same goal. In particular, China had 
begun arguing that its Protocol of Accession automatically required Members to recognize it as 
market economy in December 2016 as a legal mat ter, notwithstanding the factual situation in 
China. But China's legal argument was equally flawed. If one looked at the actual language of the 
Protocol, nothing required Members to grant China market economy status on 11 December 2016 
or any other date.  
8.4.  The US added that China appeared  to have conceded this argument  too. When the issue had 
been raised at the July 2016 Council on Trade in Goods meeting, China stated that expiration of 
Article 15 (a)(ii) did not require the granting of market economy status to China. China was now 
alleging that the Protocol requires that Members stop using the analogue country methodology in 
AD investigation s. The actual language of the Protocol, in the US' view, did not support this 
argument either. China's interpretation wo uld deprive the provisions of the Protocol that did not 
expire of any meaning at all, making it unclear how China could reconcile its latest legal position 
with the language of the Protocol, not to mention again the facts on the ground. In order to 
resolve  this issue, the US suggested to work together with China to help accelerate progress 
towards an economy that would be more market -determined so that Members could avoid the 
ongoing debate in the WTO.  
8.5.  On the point raised by China, Mexico  highlighted the c urrent nature of the topic and the fact 
that China was not the only country interested in this issue. Mexico highlighted that this matter 
was not of a bilateral nature as it concerned all Members. Mexico believed that due to the 
universal impact of this ma tter, Members should become involved in this discussion. Mexico 
inquired whether China considered that the only alternative was that Members should stop using 
the surrogate country methodology or if China believed that there was room for dialogue, given 
the very different approaches to the topic, and on what basis this dialogue could be established.  
8.6.  In response to Mexico, China  explained that, in its view, there would be only one correct way 
to solve this problem. China referred to certain documents it had  prepared that supported its 
interpretation of the provision. China was not of the view that the Committee meeting was an 
appropriate venue to conduct this discussion, or that the time was appropriate to return to 
dialogue on the matter. China believed tha t opportunities for broader dialogue were exhausted as 
part of its negotiations on the Accession Protocol and at the current stage it was time for individual 
Members to fulfil their obligations pursuant to WTO rules. However, China was prepared to hold 
bilateral dialogue with Members on how they could fulfil their commitment before the expiry date. 
China invited Mexico to share its position, which could facilitate bilateral consultation.  
8.7.  On the points raised by the US, China explained that the use of surro gate country 
methodology was not the same as market economy status, and those two questions should not be 
confused. China hoped that Members would reconsider their positions on this issue and it could be 
solved before 11 December 2016.  
8.8.  Mexico  raised its c oncern in relation to the organization of the meetings of the various Groups 
and Committees related to trade remedies and the participation of the IAs in those meetings. 
Mexico believed that there was general agreement that the presence of capital -based IA  experts 
was extremely important in order to enrich the discussions and more efficiently respond to 
questions raised during the sessions. However, Mexico observed that during the meeting of the 
Working Group on Implementation the number of IA experts prese nt was very low. Mexico 
suggested that Members reflect on incentives that could change this situation.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 20 - 
 
  8.9.  Mexico's own experience and consultations with other Members suggested that the 
Technical  Group of the Negotiating Group on Rules attracted a lot of IA a ttention due to the 
opportunity it offered to discuss and exchange experiences in an open, frank and sincere way. 
Mexico believed it was unfortunate that the Technical Group, which previously had met for two full 
days, only had the opportunity to meet for one day, namely Friday, when many of the delegates 
were required to leave Geneva for their capitals. Mexico believed that this format did not help to 
encourage and trigger interest among capital -based experts to seek to attend meetings and the 
discussions were becoming less beneficial. Mexico suggested that the session of the Technical 
Group might change day in order to increase the possibility of IAs to participate in all meetings 
and sessions.  
8.10.   The Philippines  raised its concern in relation to Australia 's decision to extend for another 
5 years its 10 -year-old AD measures on Philippine canned pineapples, which were supposed to 
expire in October and November 2016. While the Philippines noted that these AD measures were 
due for notification next year as part o f Australia's semi -annual report for the last semester of 
2016, it was concerned that Australia's decision could not await the next Committee meeting 
because the extended measures would prolong their negative effects on its canned pineapple 
producers and e xporters. The Philippines was disappointed that Australia was not only extending 
the AD measure, but that the margin of dumping had been  increased – as had been the case in 
the previous extension – instead of a gradual elimination of the measures over the years so that 
Australia's sole canned pineapple producer could gradually compete with international markets.  
8.11.   The Philippines submitted that Australia had also failed to fully comply with the principle of 
fair comparison in calculating and establishing the  margin of dumping; the practice, thus, was not 
consistent with its obligations under Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement. While fair comparison had 
been considered by Australia in the previous two investigations in 2006 and 2011, in this review 
Australia had not adjusted its collected normal value data downwards on account of selling, 
marketing and trade promotion expenses for domestic sales being higher than export sales. The 
relevant domestic expenses had been  in fact much greater than the export expenses bu t Australia 
refused – without due explanation - to make any downward adjustment, despite acknowledging 
that all cost information was accurate and reliable, and regardless that the differential expenses 
effect on price comparability was demonstrated. Accord ing to the Philippines, had the downwards 
adjustment been made, there would not have been any dumping case in the first place.  
8.12.   The Philippines also observed that Australia was highly protective of its fresh pineapple 
producers and pineapple processors vis -à-vis international market competition and had 
consistently chosen that path of imposing a combination of trade restricting AD and SPS measures 
to keep Philippine fresh pineapple and canned pineapple exports in check for more than a decade. 
It urged Austr alia to reconsider its unwarranted decision to extend the AD measures, and instead 
to fully appreciate the merits of its case and information so that the 10 -year-old measure could be 
terminated once and for all.  
8.13.   In response to the Philippines, Australia  noted the submission of the Philippines Government 
and exporters in relation to the sunset review in question. Australia recalled that the decisions by 
the Minister regarding the continuation of AD measures on these products had been made on 
12 September 20 16, and copies of the relevant decisions were available on the website of the 
Australian IA. Those decisions to continue to apply the AD measures had been taken because their 
expiration would lead to recurrence or continuation of dumping and material injur y that the 
measures had been intended to prevent. Australia confirmed that interested parties had the 
opportunity to seek review of the decisions within 30 days of publication of the notices. Australia 
welcomed further bilateral discussions with the Philip pines on the matter and requested that the 
questions by the Philippines be provided in writing.  
8.14.   The Philippines  expressed readiness to engage in bilateral discussions with Australia.  
8.15.   The Philippines raised a further concern in relation to Indonesia 's exten sion of an 
AD measure on Philippine Cavendish banana. The Philippines explained that  Indonesia's KADI had 
recommended extending its 10 -year-old AD measure on Philippine Cavendish banana for another 
5-year period despite the Philippines' repeated requests t o terminate the measure once and for all. 
It referred to the bilateral constructive engagement it had with Indonesia earlier. It further 
explained that it had not been exporting Cavendish bananas to Indonesia since 2015. The 
simultaneous and protracted app lication of the AD measure and other trade restricting measures G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 21 - 
 
  by Indonesia had made Philippine bananas uncompetitive in Indonesia. The Philippines was also 
concerned that Indonesia totally closed its borders for Philippine bananas at the beginning of thi s 
year. The unacceptable consequence of the effects of these trade restricting measures had been 
the decision of Philippine exporters in 2015 to invest in Indonesia to farm bananas, an outcome 
that was not mutually beneficial to all. The Philippines referr ed to its statements in the 
SPS Committee in this regard. It was of the view that the proposed extension of the AD measure 
was not supported by robust information and due diligence in the conduct of KADI's investigation 
10 years ago and the subsequent revi ews.  
8.16.   In their bilateral meeting, the Philippines learnt that Indonesia might not have had a basis 
at all for initiating, let alone imposing, the AD measure in the first place because of its failure to 
account for the totality of the domestic banana produc ers in Indonesia that was supposed to 
represent the domestic industry in the first investigation case 10 years -ago. Indonesia's initial 
investigation had only accounted for the producers of Cavendish bananas, and totally excluded 
other producers of bananas  in Indonesia. Unfortunately, the excluded producers accounted for the 
greatest volume of banana production in Indonesia. Had Indonesia also considere d these 
non-Cavendish banana producers, there could not have been a prima facie  AD case in accordance 
with the legal standards set under Articles 4.1 and 5.4 of the AD Agreement.  
8.17.   On the argument that Cavendish bananas were different from other bananas produced in 
Indonesia and therefore its producers should not be consulted and represented in the 
investigatio n, the WTO jurisprudence under the EC - Bananas case had already settled this issue 
and ruled that all bananas were like products , which clearly substantiated its argument that 
Indonesia had not met those fundamental requirements. The Philippines noted tha t it had other 
procedural and substantive issues such as fair comparison and normal value data that it would like 
to clarify with Indonesia. The Philippines urged Indonesia to terminate its AD measure once and 
for all.   
8.18.   In response to the comment by the Ph ilippines, Indonesia  explained that on 
17 February  2016 the Indonesian IA notified the Philippines Government of the acceptance of a 
complaint from the Indonesian domestic industry. On 31 March 2016, the IA initiated the sunset 
review and on 19  September 2 016 issued essential facts, allowing all interested parties to make 
relevant comments. Indonesia highlighted that during the time allocated to comments 
(two weeks), none were received from any interested party, including the Philippines Government. 
On 24 O ctober 2016, the Indonesian IA issued its final determination. On 26 October 2016, the 
Embassy of the Republic of the Philippines requested the report to be provided in English.  
8.19.   Indonesia stated that based on its investigation, there was evidence that the dumping would 
recur and cause injury to the domestic industry if the ADD was lifted. Indonesia underlined that an 
exporter should cooperate in a review in order for the IA to ascertain that it would not engage in 
further dumping. Indonesia explained that i n this case the parties had acted in an uncooperative 
manner throughout the investigation. Furthermore, Indonesia stated that the Philippines 
Government had not approached Indonesia with requests to terminate the measure during the 
review investigation. In donesia believed that it provided adequate time for interested parties to 
comment on both the original investigation and the review. Notification to this end had been 
passed by Indonesia to the Philippines using diplomatic channels. As no response from the  
Philippines followed, Indonesia, based on best information available, continued to impose 
measures on certain Philippine exporters of the product in question. Indonesia stated that it 
remained open for any bilateral communication with the Philippines.  
8.20.   The Philippines  expressed readines s to engage with Indonesia bilaterally to settle this 
matter.  
8.21.   Brazil  supported by Chile; commended the Secretariat for its work in developing i -trADe and 
MADRE, software tools that were presented on 26 October 2016. The two p rogrammes would help 
Members, especially those facing human resource constraints, to better understand and apply the 
complex disciplines of the AD Agreement. Brazil praised the role of the Secretariat as a team of 
professionals giving support to the Member s. Brazil expressed the view that the software would 
improve the work of all Members and should serve as reference in other areas.  G/ADP/M/51  
 
- 22 - 
 
  8.22.   The Russian Federation  raised its concern in relation to the application filed by the Turkish  
producers to initiate an AD in vestigation in respect of imports of flat hot -rolled steel products 
originating in the Russian Federation. It reminded Turkey that an investigation in respect of the 
same product had been terminated by the Turkish IA in April 2016 without the imposition of  a 
measure, as the domestic industry had withdrawn its complaint. Preliminary results of that 
investigation had shown an almost de minimis  dumping margin for one Russian producer and 
negative dumping margins for the rest of the companies that had participa ted in the investigation. 
It requested Turkey to clarify whether the application for a new investigation had been received, 
and if so, to consider the application carefully in accordance with all the requirements of Article 5 
of the AD Agreement in order t o assess correctly whether an investigation was needed.  
8.23.   In response to the Russian Federation's comments, Turkey  explained that in the event of 
receipt of a properly documented application, it would inform the Member concerned in line with 
Article 5.5 of the AD Agreement. Turkey also highlighted that if the investigation was initiated in 
accordance with Article 5 of the AD Agreement, relevant rules of that Agreement and Turkish 
domestic legislation would be applied carefully.  
9  DATE OF THE NEXT REG ULAR MEETI NG 
9.1.  The next Regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the week of 24  April 2017.  
10  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)   
10.1.   The Committee adopted  its 2016 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods.  
 
__________