WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/ADP/M/42 
19 July 2012 
 (12-3918) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 23 APRIL 2012 
 
Chair:  Mr Subhas Gujadhur (Mauritius) 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
23 April 2012, convened in WTO/AIR/3924.  2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
 
A. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIO NS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) ............................................................................................................. 2  
1.  Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.4) and (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.5) .......................... 2  
2.  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/3) a nd (G/ADP/N/1/IND/4) ............................................................... 2  
3.  United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.9–G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9) ............................ 2  
B.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  ................................................................... 2  
1.  Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3–G/SCM/N /1/ECU/3 – G/SG/N/1/ECU/5) .............................. 2  
C.  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) ........................................ 3  
D.  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  .................................................................. 10  
E.  CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -
CIRCUMVENTION  ....................................................................................................................... 11  
F.  CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  ............. 11  
G.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 11  
H.  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  .................................................................................... 11  
I.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................. 11  
 G/ADP/M/42 
Page 2  
 
   
A. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL 
NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) 
1. Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.4 ) and (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.5)  
3. The written questions concerning the notifications of Australia  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/AUS/7–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/7 – Submitted by the United States 
 
4. The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/8–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/8 – Replies to the United States  
 
2. India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/3) and (G/ADP/N/1/IND/4) 
5. The written questions concerning the notification of India  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/IND/14–G/SCM/Q1/IND/14 – Submitted by China 
G/ADP/Q1/IND/15–G/SCM/Q1/IND/15 – Submitted by the United States G/ADP/Q1/IND/16–G/SCM/Q1/IND/16 – Submitted by Turkey G/ADP/Q1/IND/20–G/SCM/Q1/IND/20 – Submitted by the United States 
 
6. The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/IND/17–G/SCM/Q1/IND/17 – Replies to China 
G/ADP/Q1/IND/18–G/SCM/Q1/IND/18 – Replies to the United States 
 G/ADP/Q1/IND/19–G/SCM/Q1/IND/19 – Replies to Turkey 
TO DATE, NO WRITTEN REPLIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE UNITED STATES IN G/ADP/Q1/IND/20–
G/SCM/Q1/IND/20 
 3. United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1 /Suppl.9–G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9) 
7. No written questions concerning the notification of the United States  were posed by any 
Member. 
B. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LY REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS OF 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  
1. Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3–G/SCM/N/1/ECU/3 – G/SG/N/1/ECU/5) 
8. The written question concerning the notification of Ecuador  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/14–G/SCM/Q1/ECU/14–G/SG/Q1/E CU/7 – Submitted by the United States 
 9. The written answer to this questions can  be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ECU/15–G/SCM/Q1/ECU/15–G/SG/Q1/ECU/8 – Replies to the United States  G/ADP/M/42 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
10. The Chair noted that seven new legislative notifications, from Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, 
Pakistan, Togo, and the United States, along with any others received and circulated by the applicable 
deadlines, would be on the agenda for review at the autumn Regular meeting of the Committee.  Following the present meeting, the Secretariat would circulate the usual document concerning 
documentation and deadlines for the autumn mee ting and for follow-up to the present meeting.
1 
11. The Chair expressed concern over the fact that some Members had yet to submit a notification 
on legislation, particularly where all that was requi red was a nil notification.  The Chair encouraged 
all Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible. 
12. Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.33, the Chair invited Members that  had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5, and encouraged Memb ers to review and update previously submitted 
information where necessary.  The Chair also re quested Members to review and update as necessary 
their contact information in the lis t maintained by the Secretariat. 
13. The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements. 
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
- Review of Semi-Annual Reports (G/ADP/N/223) 
 
14. The Chair recalled that a request and reminder for submission of semi-annual reports for the 
second half of 2011, with a due da te of 27 February 2012, had b een circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/223 and G/ADP/N/223/Suppl.1.  It appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping (AD) 
actions during the period in question had subm itted a semi-annual report.  He reminded those 
Members taking no AD actions to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year.  He clarified that this would not apply to those Members that had already submitted a one-time notification under 
Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement. 
15. The Chair noted that Members that had notified taking actions were id entified in paragraph 1 
of document G/ADP/N/223/Add.1, and that those semi-annual reports had been translated to the 
extent possible.  Late submission obviously meant that  not all such reports were yet available in all 
three languages.  In this connection, as indicat ed in footnote 1 of document G/ADP/N/223/Add.1, 
although Argentina and Honduras had submitted thei r semi-annual reports, these reports were not 
circulated for review at the meeting, pending certa in technical corrections to be provided by both 
Members.
2  The Chair proposed that the Committee exceptionally postpone consideration of those 
semi-annual reports until the regular meeting of the Committee in autumn of 2012.  Paragraph 2 of the 
same document identified the Members th at had submitted nil notifications.   
16. Paragraph 5 of the same document reflected the list of Members that had submitted a one-
time notification pursuant to the agreed format (G/ADP/19).  As mandated by the Committee, the 
Secretariat had contacted all Members eligible to u se the format to explain its background and how to 
use it.  As of the date of the meeting, 36 Member s had made such notifications, which were contained 
in the G/ADP/N/193 document series.  The Secretar iat would remain in contact with the remaining 
Members eligible to use the format to provide an y assistance to facilitate the submission of such 
notifications. 
                                                      
1 All deadlines are contained in document G/ADP/W/486–G/SCM/W/558–G/SG/W/223 dated 
2 May 2012. 
2 Subsequent to the meeting, both Members submitte d the necessary technical modifications, and their 
semi-annual reports were circulated, in documents G/ADP/N/223/ARG and G/ADP/N/223/HND, respectively. G/ADP/M/42 
Page 4  
 
  17. Finally, a significant number of Members, as id entified in paragraphs  3 and 4 of document 
G/ADP/N/223/Add.1, had not yet responded to the re quest for semi-annual reports.  This notification 
requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had taken AD actions during the period in 
question, except for those Members that had alr eady submitted a one-time notification.  Members 
were urged to comply with this important notification requirement. 
18. The Committee conducted the review of the se mi-annual reports for the second half of 2011 
that had been circulated.  No Member raised qu estions or made comments concerning the semi-annual 
reports of the following Members:  Canada;  Chile;  Colombia;  Costa Rica;  Ecuador;  Egypt;  Israel;  
Japan;  Korea;  Malaysia;  Morocco;  New Zealand;  Pakistan;  Peru;  Philippines;  South Africa;  
Chinese Taipei;  Thailand;  Tr inidad and Tobago and Turkey. 
19. On the semi-annual report of Australia , Japan referred to Australia's AD measures on 
"Polyvinyl Chloride Homopolymer Resin, PVC" from Japan and the United States ("US"), which had 
survived three sunset reviews a nd been in place since 1992.  The Australian authorities had initiated 
the fourth sunset review in February 2012 fo llowing an application by the Australian Vinyl 
Corporation Pty Ltd ("AVC"), the sole producer of  PVC in Australia, for the continuation of the 
AD measure.  AVC had the majority market share in Australia.  The export volume of PVC from 
Japan amounted only to 17 tonnes in 2011, less than 0.5% of the estimated 180,000 tonne Australian market.    
20. In the previous sunset review, the Trade Measures Report No. 123, which recommended the 
continuation of the measures, had stated that this domestic monopoly had been running its plant at full 
capacity and selling all the PVC it could produce.  The Australian Authorities had also noted AVC's 
solid performance between 2002 – 2007  in terms of profit and profitab ility, but still considered that 
the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a recurrence of dumping and material injury.  In December 2009, the Australian Productivity Commi ssion reported that the longer the measures 
remained in force, the more they would become  protective devices that would undesirably shield 
recipient industries from the need to adjust to underlying structural pressures.  The Commission had 
proposed that extension of the measures following th e sunset review should be limited to one three-
year term; i.e. that the measure should be automatica lly terminated in 8 years.   Japan confirmed that 
the measures against the US' PVC exports were also  recently continued for another five years until 
January 2017 and strongly requested the prompt revocation of these unjustifiably long measures.  
21. Australia indicated that it would meet bilate rally with Japan once information from capital 
was available, and would share that information with Members, as appropriate.  
22. On the semi-annual report of Brazil , Turkey indicated that on 12 September 2011, Brazil's 
Department of Trade Defence of the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade had 
initiated an AD investigation against imports of "V iscose Yarns" originating in Vietnam and Turkey.  
On 2 January 2012, Turkey had submitted to the Mi nistry a document containing its views on this 
investigation.  Turkey's concerns included th at a number of cooperating exporters had recently 
claimed that the standing requirements were not met in the petition.  Turkey would follow this 
investigation closely and reserved all its rights under the WTO Agreements.  
23. Brazil took note of the statement and expressed its willingness to examine the situation and 
consult bilaterally with Turkey.   
24. On the semi-annual report of China , the US reiterated that it had serious systemic concerns 
about China's trade remedy investigations, which it had raised in two dispute settlement proceedings 
challenging China's anti-dumping measures on "Grain Or iented Electrical Steel" and "Chicken Broiler 
Products", but on which there had be en little improvement.  China ha d repeated many of the same 
practices in other recent AD investigations involv ing US products.  These investigations suffered  G/ADP/M/42 
 Page 5 
 
 
  from a lack of procedural consistency, and from frequently opaque decision-making by the 
investigating authority, which left interested parti es unable to fully defend their interests or even to 
understand the bases for the decisions made.   
25. A recent example was China's AD measure on US  automobiles, imposed in December 2011.  
After a year during which China appeared to take  no action, questionnaires were issued without any 
advance notice and with very short response tim es, followed by the publication of preliminary 
determinations, final disclosures and final determinations.  All of that activity had occurred just in the 
last month of the maximum 18-month time period allowed by the AD Agreement for the completion 
of investigations.  Further, the US government's re quests for oral hearings among all parties had been 
summarily denied without any explanation, depriving interested parties of an important opportunity to 
respond to China's findings and conclusions.  At the time of the final determination, China announced 
that it would suspend the imposition of AD measures,  but in December 2011, without any explanation 
or forewarning, China had announced that it w as reversing that decision and began collecting 
antidumping and countervailing duties on over $3 billion worth of imports of automobiles from the US. 
26. The lack of transparency and the procedural i rregularities in China's investigations not only 
could lead to a lack of confidence in the inv estigating authority's ability to preside over an 
investigation, but also could contribute to uncertain ty in the market with serious ramifications for 
exporters, could compromise the integrity of its investigations, and coul d impair the ability of 
interested parties to defend their interests.  Th e US called on China to improve transparency and 
procedural fairness in its AD proceedings and to en sure that its determinations were supported by 
actual evidence.  
27. Japan echoed the US concerns on transparency and due process in China's AD investigations 
and urged China to improve its practices. Regard ing China's AD measures on "Photographic Paper 
and Paper Board" exported from the European Uni on ("EU"), the US and Japan, Japan would submit 
written questions to China.  Regarding China's investigation on "High Performance Stainless Steel 
Seamless Tubes" from the EU and Japan, Japan's expor ts were mostly high valu e-added special steel, 
used for Ultra-Supercritical boilers of coal fire d thermal power plants, which could hardly compete 
with Chinese domestic products or cause injury to  Chinese domestic industries.  Japan would keep a 
close eye on this investigation to ensure that the right s of interested parties were preserved.        
28. The EU stated that China's Ministry of  Commerce ("MOFCOM") had introduced no 
significant improvements to rectify the lack of tr ansparency in Chinese AD proceedings, especially 
with respect to the analysis of the elements leadi ng to the margin of dumping determination, existence 
of injury, and causal link.  The classification of  information designated as confidential should be 
improved and the summaries of such information shoul d be correctly classified and made meaningful 
so as to ensure that the rights of interested pa rties were preserved.  On the AD proceedings on 
"Photographic Paper", the dumping and injury determin ations lacked transparency, with a consequent 
violation of the rights of defence for interested parties.  Provisional measures had been applied for 
seven months which exceeded the six-month maximu m allowed under the WTO rules.  There also 
were a number of legal flaws in the dumping margin calculation, which inflated the margin.  The arguments purportedly supporting the existence of in jury or threat thereof were unsubstantiated or 
mistakenly addressed by MOFCOM.  In the case of the recently initiated AD proceeding on "Stainless 
Seamless Tubes", the extremely large scope of the pr oceeding, its inconsistenc y with the content of 
the notice of initiation, and the lack of MOFCOM's reaction to these issues caused legal uncertainty 
and negative financial consequences for EU exporters.  Furthermore, the exports statistics contained 
in the complaint seemed inconsistent with the Chinese Customs' statistics, but MOFCOM had not taken that into account.   G/ADP/M/42 
Page 6  
 
  29. On the general transparency and due process concerns expressed by Members, China 
indicated that it had improved its practices to ensure the procedural rights of all interested parties to 
duly defend their interests pursuant to the WTO rul es.  During the investigations, China had been 
disclosing the detailed essential facts and evidence to interested parties following the preliminary 
determinations and verifications a nd prior to the final determinations.  China also had improved its 
public information access room for trade remedi es, located in the office of MOFCOM, where 
interested parties could access and copy non-confiden tial trade remedy-related information for free.  
Furthermore;  it had set up a website recently fo r public information on trade remedies cases.   
30. On the automobiles investigation raised by th e US, according to Chinese law and regulation, 
the investigation period had been one year, extende d to 18 months, which wa s consistent with the 
AD Agreement.  The investigation, which had b een initiated by MOFCOM upon the request of the 
Chinese domestic industry, had been conducted on an objective and fair basis and the rights of all 
interested parties were preserved.  The final dete rmination was based on facts and made in accordance 
with the rule of law.  Following the final dete rmination, the volume of automobile imports from 
the US increased 1.3 times in the period May – Oc tober 2011 compared to the same period in 2010, 
while the unit price of the automobiles in October had dropped by 12.4% compared to the unit price 
in May.  MOFCOM thus believed that it was nece ssary to implement the trade remedy measures and 
eventually issued a public notice, which was se nt to the exporting country, to impose the AD and 
countervailing duties on that product upon the ap proval of the Tariff Commission of the State 
Council.  The reasons were explained on MOFCOM 's website.  The dumping margins and amount of 
subsidization were carefully calculated in accordance  with the WTO rules, and the two-year period of 
the measures reflected China's position that th e use of such measures should be prudent and 
reasonable.   
31. The "Photo Paper" investigation raised by Japan and the EU was also initiated upon the 
request of the Chinese domestic industries.  China had disclosed the essential facts to interested 
parties, respected their rights, and based its final determination on facts.  The same was true with 
respect to the "Seamless Stainless Steel Tube" investig ation raised by Japan and the EU.  As this case 
was still under investigation and the preliminary and final determinations had not yet been made, any 
interested parties in the investigation should submit the necessary inform ation to the Chinese 
investigating authorities.  
32. On Japan's concerns over the scope of the products under consideration, the Chinese 
investigating authorities had met with the Japanese officials and would examine their comments and 
those made by all interested parties including those made by the domestic industry, prior to the final 
determination.    
33. On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic , Turkey referred to the definitive 
measure imposed on its products of "Steel Rods  and Bars from Concre te Reinforcement" on 
13 June 2011.  A few procedural errors had occu rred during the course of the AD investigation; and 
allegations had been deficient and lacked relevant  evidence for initiation pursuant to Articles 5.2, 5.3 
and 6.5 of the AD Agreement.  The investigati ng authorities had violated Article 7.1 of the 
AD Agreement in the determination of provisional AD duties;  had acted inconsistently with the non-
attribution principles under Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement;  and with the imposition of a country-
wide definitive measure in spite of the fact that one cooperating exporter had a de minimis  dumping 
margin of 0.49%, had violated Articles 6.10, 9.2 an d 9.3 of the AD Agreement.  Turkey requested that 
the measure be revoked and that its written qu estions contained in document G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1 
dated 19 October 2011 be answered.    
34. The Dominican Republic was not present to reply to the questions.  G/ADP/M/42 
 Page 7 
 
 
  35. On the semi-annual report of the EU, China raised concerns over EU measures on bicycles, 
which in China's view overprotected the EU i ndustry.  Measures had been in force since 1993, 
following several expiry reviews, the most recent of which had resulted in a decision in 2011 to 
continue the measures for five additional years.  The volume and market share of Chinese bicycles 
exported to the EU had significantly decreased, wh ile the price had increased.  The EU had initiated 
an interim review of the AD measure on 9 March 20 12 and was considering initiating an anti-subsidy 
investigation of Chinese bicycles, although the EU's  bicycle industry should have recovered from the 
injury.  China was deeply concerned over the EU's recent tendency to initiate different types of trade 
remedy investigations against the same product simultaneously, which would inevitably result in 
double remedy problems contrary to the DSB decisi on and WTO rules.  China was also concerned 
over the EU's continued practice of initiating AD inv estigations against one individual company, in 
violation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Artic le 2 of the AD Agreement.  This practice would 
also violate the AD Agreement's Articles 3.5 on cau sal link and 3.3 on the cumulative assessment.  
The EU continued this practice by initiating an AD investigation on "Ironing Boards" in order to 
implement a court decision by the European Court of Justice.          
36. The EU explained, in respect of the "Ironing Boards" case, that it had initiated an 
AD investigation against exporters that were not dum ping in the original investigation and that this 
practice was consistent with the A ppellate Body rulings in the dispute Mexico – Definitive AD 
Measures on Beef and Rice from the US  (DS295).  It indicated that it would only discontinue this 
practice if the WTO DSB or the European Court of Justice (the "Court") decided that this was not a 
legal practice.  This issue was before the Cour t, a hearing was scheduled for 2 May 2012, and a 
decision by the Court was expected within one year.  On the measure on "Bicycles", an expiry review 
extending the measures had been completed, and an interim review was on-going.  As regards the 
anti-subsidy investigation, no information was avai lable, and China was requested to provide its 
questions in writing.        
37. On the semi-annual report of India , the US posed a number of questions which were 
circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/IND/10.   
38. India indicated that it would convey those ques tions to capital. It pr ovided answers to the 
questions posed by the US in paragraphs 69 and 70 of the minutes of the previous Committee 
meeting3, concerning India's investigation on certain stai nless steel flat products, and India's sunset 
review on certain rubber chemicals.  On the former , India indicated that the final determination had 
been issued on 8 June 2011, that  the Central Government had notified the changes to the scope of the 
product vide Notification No. 86/2011 – Customs date d 6 September 2011, and that this was reflected 
in the semi-annual report for July – December 2011 (G/ADP/N/223/IND).  On the latter, India 
indicated that, as reflected in the same semi-a nnual report, the measure had been terminated on 
28 July 2011 with respect to the US.  
39. India also responded to the questions posed by Norway in document G/ADP/Q2/IND/8.  
These oral answers were circulated in writing in document G/ADP/Q2/IND/9.   
40. Turkey referred to India's initiation of an inv estigation on "Soda Ash" from China, the EU, 
Iran, Kenya, Pakistan, Ukraine and the US on 20 August 2010, and its initiati on on 10 February 2012 
of an investigation concerning the same product from the Russian Federation and Turkey.  Subsequent 
to the initiation of this latter investigation, th e Competition Commission of India issued notices to 
five domestic soda ash manufacturers for alleged carte lization and price manipulation;  three of which 
were also petitioners of the recent AD investigation.   Turkey expressed serious concerns regarding the 
current proceedings and shared the views of Members indicating that AD proceedings should not be used as means for disguised protectionism.   
                                                      
3 G/ADP/M/41. G/ADP/M/42 
Page 8  
 
  41. Norway indicated that India's semi-annual re port confirmed that AD measures on "Caustic 
Soda", which were illegally harming Norwegian inte rests, were imposed on 23 August 2011.  This 
was the first time for India to impose measure s against Norwegian exports.  Two Norwegian 
companies had responded to the questionnaires receiv ed during the investigation and explained that 
they had not exported that product to India during the period of the investigation.  Nevertheless, 
measurers were imposed on them and the information th ey had provided did not seem to be part of the 
basis for the decision.  Norway asked India to  explain the basis for imposing measures against 
cooperating Norwegian producers with no exports of caustic soda to India.       
42. On the questions posed by Turkey, India requested  Turkey to provide its questions in writing.  
On Norway's questions, India indicated that it was not possible at that point to provide information 
other than what had already been provided or than the bilateral responses submitted to Norway.  India 
would check with capital and revert to this issue.   India considered that its AD proceedings were 
consistent with the AD Agreement and India's domestic laws.   
43. On the semi-annual report of Indonesia , Turkey indicated that the AD investigation initiated 
on 17 November 2008 by Indonesia on "Wheat Flour" originating in or exported from, inter alia, 
Turkey was still in progress.  It reminded Indonesia that the question posed by  Turkey and circulated 
in document G/ADP/Q2/IDN/2 dated 19 October 2011, remained unanswered.  It drew Indonesia's 
attention to the possible chilling effects of unfinis hed long standing AD investigations on trade flows 
and requested the prompt termination of the investig ation without the imposition of any measures.      
44. Indonesia explained that given the complexity of  the case, the issue had not been resolved.  
Recently, however, there had been a strong indica tion that the Government of Indonesia would soon 
terminate the case.  Further progress would be monitored and information relayed to Members in due 
course.   
45. On the semi-annual report of Mexico , China referred to two AD investigations.  The first 
concerned "Graphite Electrode" wh ich included two different models , a high standard model UHP and 
a low standard model RP and HP.  Due to the diffe rence in industrial processes and raw material, the 
price of UHP was much higher than RP and HP, but the normal value identified by Mexico was to the 
contrary.  China requested an explanation regarding Mexico's normal value determination in this case.  
The second had to do with "Coaxial Cable", where the Mexican investigating authority had refused 
the arguments and evidence submitted by China an d made a determination to impose an AD duty as 
high as 300%.  China considered this to be an ove r-protectionist tendency and requested Mexico to 
terminate this practice.     
46. As a preliminary response, Mexico stated th at in both investigations the investigating 
authority had acted consistently with the WTO ru les and regulations and with the national trade 
legislations.  The decision reached in both cases was based on the impartially assessed information 
submitted by the interested parties.  In both cases, th e investigating authority had resorted to best 
information available.  It requested to receive the questions posed in writing.  
47. The US indicated that on 19 January 2012, Mexi co had published a preliminary determination 
in its AD investigation on "Chicken Legs and Thig hs" from the US.  The US interested parties had 
raised serious concerns about aspects of Mexico's  margin calculation, incl uding whether the cost 
calculation methodology was consistent with its oblig ations under the AD Agreement, particularly 
under Article 2.2.1.1.  The US urged Mexico to take into account all of the comments submitted by 
the interested parties in the coming months and issu e a final determination th at would be consistent 
with its WTO obligations.  
48. Mexico stated that on 19 January 2012, it pub lished in its Federal Bulletin the preliminary 
determination in the AD investigation on imports of "Chicken Legs and Thighs" from the US.  The  G/ADP/M/42 
 Page 9 
 
 
  initiation notice had been published in the Federal Bu lletin in February 2011 and the US had been 
notified pursuant to Articles 6.1 and 6.3 of the AD Agreement, Article 53 of the Foreign Trade law 
and 142 of the Foreign Trade Regulation.  Mexico was ready to hold the necessary dialogue with the 
interested parties and had always acted impartially.  All interested parties were granted the opportunity to submit their evidence and two extensions  had been granted to this end.  A conciliatory 
hearing had been held on 29 August 2011 at the request of the "Exporting Council for Eggs and 
Poultry of the US".  On the basis of this hearing, Mexico had decided to postpone the preliminary determination without the impositi on of provisional measures, as an agreement was reached between 
interested parties.  The January 2012 preliminary de termination indicated that in the subsequent stage 
and before the final determination,  the information submitted by some of the interested parties would 
be considered, especially with respect to th e methodology for calculating AD margins, and its 
compatibility with Article 12 of the AD Agreement.   To date, no preliminary measures had been 
imposed.  All the elements submitted would be considered.   
49. With respect to the semi-annual report of Ukraine , Turkey indicated that on 27 April 2011 
the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine had initiated an AD investigation 
against imports of "Float Glass" from the Russian Fe deration, Bulgaria, Poland, Belarus and Turkey.  
Turkey had submitted to the Ministry written view s on the investigation on 27 June 2011, and had 
attended the hearing held on 30 November 2011.  Th e investigating authorities had declined certain 
allowances submitted by a cooperating Turkish export er without carrying out a verification at the 
premises of the exporter. In light of Articles 3.1;  3.2;  3.5;  5.2 and 5.3 of the AD Agreement, the 
criteria to impose a definitive measure were not me t and thus this on-going investigation should be 
terminated without the imposition of a measure.    
50. Ukraine took note of Turkey's statement. 
51. With respect to the semi-annual report of the US, Japan indicated that the US had 
thirteen measures in force against Japanese products, and welcomed the revocation in January 2012 of 
the measures on "Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate", as well as the fact that the number of 
existing measures decreased every time the se mi-annual reports were reviewed.  However, 
four measures were more than 20 years old, with the oldest 33 years old, as it had started in 1978.  The US International Trade Commission ("USITC") ha d recently made affirmative determinations to 
continue the 23-year-old measure on "Brass Sheet and Strip" exported from Japan as well as from 
France, Germany and Italy, and this measure could very likely see its 28
th birthday.  Japan urged 
the US to swiftly revoke these unjustifiably long measures.   
52. The US indicated that on the older investiga tions referred to by Japan, and in the case of 
sunset reviews reviewing the orders, there was us ually little or no participation on the part of the 
Japanese industry, which indicated that there might be a very limited interest.     
53. Japan stated that it had discussed  this issue with the Japanese industries, but as they have 
learned from previous experiences that those long-l asting measures would not be revoked on the basis 
of absence of dumping, but only if the domestic indus try showed interest or the USITC determined 
that no injury existed, the Japanese domestic indus try had been reluctant to participate.    
54. The Chair opened the floor for comments or qu estions with respect to any other semi-annual 
reports which had not previously been reviewed by the Committee because they arrived after the 
meeting at which the reports for a given period were reviewed.  No  Member took the floor in this 
regard. 
55. The Chair recalled his statement under Other Business at the Committee's October 2011 
meeting with respect to semi-annual reports, in part icular the "three interconnected chronic problems" 
requiring Members' attention.  These problems were: the late submission of semi-annual reports;  the G/ADP/M/42 
Page 10  
 
  large number of inaccuracies in some of these repo rts as submitted;  and the sometimes significant 
delays in responding to the Secretariat's requests for corrections.  The Chair reported that this situation 
had not improved since that meeting and that the cumulative effect of these problems was a major reduction in transparency due to delays in availa bility of accurate information, not to mention the 
undue burden on the Secretariat.   
56. A non-exhaustive list of recurrent problems incl uded:  first, discrepancies detected by the 
Secretariat in comparing information across reporting periods (omissions, deletions or changes introduced to valid information or figures);  second,  inconsistencies betwee n tables and annexes;  
third, the omission of precise information such as the HS codes or ID numbers, and lack of updates 
pertaining to pending investigations ;  fourth, changed ID numbers assigned to different investigations, 
although such numbers – which should be based on a country/product combination – had to remain 
the same throughout the life time of the original in vestigation, subsequent proceedings, any measures 
resulting from the original investigation and these pro ceedings until the termination of such measures;  
fifth, reporting of information in the wrong columns or altering a product's name from one report to another;  and sixth, submission of reports in PDF format, which could not be processed by the 
Secretariat.   
57. These types of problems coupled with significantly late submission of most reports and 
Members' very slow reactions to the Secretariat's requests for corrections had yielded an unsustainable 
situation.  Members should  work diligently on these i ssues to ensure that their reports were properly 
reflected in the circulated lists of reports and were thoroughly reviewed by the Committee.   
58. The Committee took note of the semi-annual repor ts, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided. 
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
59. The Chair referred to the lists of the notifi cations of preliminary and final AD actions, 
submitted by Members since the Committee's last meeting, contained in documents G/ADP/N/221 & 
G/ADP/N/222 and G/ADP/N/224–227.  During this peri od, Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  Canada;  
Chile;  Ecuador;  Egypt;  the European Union;  India;   Korea;  Mexico;  Morocco;  Pakistan;  Peru;  
South Africa;  Chinese Taipei;  Turkey and the Un ited States had notified preliminary and/or final 
AD actions.  Since document G/ADP/N/227 had been ci rculated, Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  
China;  Ecuador;  India;  Korea;  Mexico;  Sout h Africa;  Turkey and the United States had submitted 
additional notifications, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
60. The Chair drew Members' attention to the con tinued apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  These reports ha d always been a key element of the required 
transparency concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its 
monitoring and discussion functions if Members did not  fulfil their obligations in this regard.  All 
Members taking AD actions were strongly urged to  notify their preliminary and final actions, 
consistently and in a timely fashi on.  The minimum information format4 contained important guidance 
as to the kinds of actions that should be notifie d and the information which should be provided. 
61. New Zealand noted that in Brazil's investiga tion on "Dry Whole Milk Powder and Milk 
Nonfat Dry" from the EU and New Zealand (G/ADP/N /226), it was aware that a sunset review has 
been initiated, and asked whether any prel iminary or final action had been taken. 
62. Brazil indicated that it would check this  issue and revert to New Zealand.  
                                                      
4 G/ADP/2/Rev.2.    G/ADP/M/42 
 Page 11 
 
 
  63. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
64. The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 23 April 2012 and that no new papers were 
submitted for discussion at the meeting.  Members agreed that work in the Group should continue 
along the same lines as had been the case to date.  Th e date of the next meeting of the Group had been 
set for the week of 22 October 2012 with the exact da te to be confirmed in due course.  The deadline 
for submissions for that meeting would be 10 September 2012. 
65. The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
66. The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 23 April 2012 and had discussed three papers 
from Members.  The first, from Colombia, was on "A rticle 3.5 – other known causes of injury", the 
second, from New Zealand, was on "Article 5.3 – accu racy and adequacy test", and the third, from 
Colombia, was on "Article 11.3 – sunset reviews" .  Both Members had made detailed introductory 
remarks, followed by question and answer sessions that addressed a wide range of issues pertaining to each of the three papers.  Some Members also e xplained their practices on similar issues.  In 
concluding the meeting, the Chair had encouraged other Members to submit papers on the nine topics 
currently under discussion in the Group.  The Group ag reed to schedule its next meeting for the week 
of 22 October 2012, with the exact date to be confirmed later.  
67. The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
68. No Member raised any issue under this item of the agenda. 
69. The Chair reminded Members wishing raise i ssues under other business to provide sufficient 
advance notice to the Member concerned to ensure th at an answer could be provided at the meeting. 
70. The Chair also noted that frequently, docume nts were submitted following the issuance of the 
airgram for a meeting, placing an undue burden, not  only on the Secretariat to get such documents 
formatted, translated and circulated in all three working languages for discussion at the meeting, but 
also on Members that received such new documents, so metimes as late as the morning of the meeting.  
This limited their ability to examine the documents ca refully and to react at the meeting.  Unless there 
was an exceptional need to do otherwise which was authorized by the Chair, only documents 
appearing in the airgram would be discussed at future meetings.   
H. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
71. The Committee's autumn 2012 regular meeting was scheduled for the week of 
22 October 2012, with the exact date to be  communicated to Members in due course. 
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
72. The Chair recalled that the Chairperson of  the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) had 
completed informal consultations on the nomination of Chairpersons for the different bodies operating 
under the auspices of the CTG.  The CTG had acc ordingly agreed on 17 April 2012 on a slate of 
Chairpersons of its subsidiary bodies.  Mr Shai  Moses of Israel had been proposed as the Chairman 
for this Committee.  The Committee elected Mr Moses as Chairperson by acclamation. G/ADP/M/42 
Page 12  
 
  73. On the position of the Vice-Chair, the Chair informed the Committee that as the CTG had 
agreed on the Chairpersons for its subsidiary bo dies only on 17 April 2012, he had not had a sufficient 
time to hold consultations with Members in this r espect.  He proposed that his successor, Mr Moses, 
take up that issue.  
74. The meeting was closed.   
 
 
__________