RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/61  
 
14 September 2022  
(22-6799) Page: 1/22 
Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 27 APRIL 2022  
CHAIR: MR. AHMED AL -SULAITI (QATAR)  
1. The Committee on Anti -Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
27 April 2022, in person as well as virtually via Interprefy . 
2. The Committee adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/ 35: 
 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
1.1.1  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.14 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.17 – 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.8; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.15 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.18 – 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.9; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.16 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.19 – 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.10 and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.17 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.20 – 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.11)  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 
1.1.2  Cameroon (G/ADP/ N/1/CMR/2 – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2; 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.1 and 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.2) ...............  5 
1.1.3  India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.11)  ................................ ................................ .........  5 
1.1.4  United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.31 – G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.32)  .................  6 
1.2   Review of notifi cations of new or amended legislation or regulations with  
outstanding written questions  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
1.2.2    Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/ADP/N/1/KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/KNA/1)  ................................ ..... 6 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ....... 7 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  ................................ ................................ .......................  7 
2.1 European Union (G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.2; and 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/Suppl.3)  ................................ ...........................  7 
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  ................................ ................................ .................  7 
2.2 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ...............................  7 
2.3 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/357) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  9 G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATIONS  ...............  17 
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 21 
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  21 
7 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 22 
8 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................  22 
9 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ .......................  22 
 
3. Ukraine  stated that before proceed ing to the items on the agenda, it wished to intervene  
regarding the Russian Federation's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, ongoing since 24 February 2022 , 
and the consequences for Ukraine and the global community.  
4. According to Ukraine, the outright  war was causing a devastating humanitarian and refugee 
crisis, creating severe consequences for the ecosystem, and undermin ing international  food security 
and world trade by severely disrupting global supply chains.  
5. Ukraine stated that the war was impairing its ability to benefit from its rights and fulfil its 
obligations as a WTO Member. For instance, the war seriously affected Ukraine's ability to conduct 
anti-dumping ("AD") investigations and reviews. Recalling its statements in the Committees on 
Safeguards and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Ukraine explained that since the 
beginning of the Russian Federation's full -scale intervention on 24 Febraury 2022, the activities of 
the Ukrainian investigati ng authorities and the decision -making body had been  seriously disrupted.  
The military invasion also was impeding the ability of interested parties , such as Ukrainian producers, 
exporters, importers, and users, to participate in ongoing investigations in a meaningful way . Certain 
deadlines for the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine (the "Ministry") and interested parties in ongoing 
AD proceedings ha d already lapsed without the respective actions being taken . Other  deadlines 
would likely be missed in the future.  
6. The Ministry was considering ways to address this issue , including by  extending or tolling  
deadlines in proceedings that were ongoing on 24  February, at least as long as martial law would be 
in place.  In March 2022 , the Ministry had published a notification informing all interested parties in 
ongoing proce edings  of the postponement of the deadlines for the procedural stages of trade remed y 
investigations and reviews. The Ukrainian investigating authorities would continu e to develop 
appropriate mechanism s and w ould inform interested parties of the adoption of any other special 
procedure s for AD  investigations conducted during the  war. 
7. Ukraine stated that the consequences of the military aggression also impeded its ability to 
exercise its rights as a WTO Member under the AD Agreement when defend ing the interests of its 
national producers  in AD in vestigations abroad. To Ukraine, it was obvious that Ukrainian products 
were not currently posing a threat to any foreign market . Ukraine urged that its producers be exempt 
from AD  measures or subsequent expiry reviews . 
8. Ukraine appreciated the support it h ad been receiving from the global community and was 
deeply grateful to all WTO Members that were standing with Ukraine during these unprecedented 
times. It appealed to all WTO Members to stop any engagement with the blatant aggressor in the 
WTO, as well as  any cooperation on a bilateral level.  
9. Canada  strongly condemned the Russian Federation's unjustifiable and unprovoked invasion 
of Ukraine. It stated that this invasion continued to cause devastating humanitarian consequences 
and the senseless death of inn ocent people. The Russian Federation's hostile act was not just an 
attack on Ukraine and its people, and a reckless decision taken in a fragile moment in the global 
economic recovery from COVID -19, but it was also a blatant violation of international law a nd the 
rules-based international order.  
10. Canada also stated that the Russian Federation was solely responsible for this crisis and its 
false narratives could not change that. The Russian Federation had destroyed Ukraine's ability to 
supply the world with fo od and had cut itself off from the global trading system. Canada was acting G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 3 - 
 
  to protect its essential security interests which were inextricably linked to the rules -based 
international order. Canada would continue to work closely with its allies and partner s to promote 
peace and security for all States and their citizens.  
11. The European Union  expressed solidarity with Ukraine and  strongly condemn ed 
President  Putin's  unjustifiable and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.  The European Union had adopted 
significant ec onomic and trade sanctions against the Russian Federation and stood ready to take 
further measures. The latest sanctions from early April were adopted following the atrocities 
committed by Russian armed forces in Bucha and other places under Russian occupa tion. The 
European Union's sanctions aimed to stop the reckless, inhuman and aggressive behaviour of the 
Russian troops and to make clear to the decision makers in the Kremlin that their illegal aggression 
was coming at a heavy cost. The package also compr ised the prohibition to purchase, import or 
transfer coal and other solid fossil fuels of Russian origin into the European Union. Imports of coal 
into the European Union were currently worth €8  billion per year. Other European Union measures 
included a pro hibition to provide access to European ports to vessels registered under the Russian 
flag; a ban on any Russian road transportation of goods within the European Union; export bans 
targeting jet fuel and other goods, such as quantum computers and advanced s emi-conductors, 
high-end electronics, software, sensitive machinery  and transportation equipment; and a new import 
ban on products such as wood, cement, fertilizers, seafood and liquor. These export and import bans 
accounted for €10 billion and €5.5 billio n, respectively.  
12. The United Kingdom  stated that it would not ignore the egregious violations of international 
law and the United Nations ' ("UN") Charter committed by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. 
The economic repercussions  of the Russia n Federati on's widespread and devastating actions were 
starting to show , including by the fact that Ukraine was no longer able to fully participate in the work 
of the WTO  and in the global trading system.  While Russia continued to violate international law, 
human rights and multiple commitments to peace and security, the United Kingdom would cooperate 
with its allies and partners across the multilateral system to condemn Russia's appalling actions.  
13. The United States  fully supported Ukraine and the statements made by other Members at this 
meeting and throughout the week. The United States had made its position on the 
Russian  Federation's actions clear, including during this week's meetings of the Committees on 
Safeguards and on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The United States recalled that the joint 
statement on the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and Belarus' support 
thereof, condemned the Russian Federation's actions as a viola tion of international law, the 
UN Charter and the fundamental principles of international peace and security. The 
Russian  Federation's actions undermined the rules -based system that Members had built and worked 
to improve. The United States underscored its  support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult 
time. 
14. The Republic of Korea  joined previous speakers regarding the situation in Ukraine. It strongly 
condemn ed the Russian Federation's  armed invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the principle s of the 
UN Charter and the rules of the international community. The Republic of Korea share d the 
international community 's deep concern over the unfolding humanitarian situation in Ukraine and 
the negative impact on global trade. The use of force that had been causing innocent casualties 
could not be justified under any circumstances. The Republic of Korea urged that 
Ukraine's  sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence be respected.  
15. Australia  condemn ed in the strongest possible terms the Russian Federation 's unprovoked, 
unjust, and illegal invasion of Ukraine. This invasion was a gross violation of international law , 
including the UN Charter. Australia strongly support ed Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, 
and called  on the Russian  Federation  to cease its attacks on Ukraine and withdraw its forces from 
Ukrainian territory. The Russian Federation 's war in Ukraine was exacting a catastrophic 
humanitarian toll in addition to trade disruptions and the food crisis. Australia was working  in 
lockstep with its partners to support Ukraine and hold the Russian Federation  accountable for its 
actions. Australia had imposed far -reaching sanctions to inflict heavy costs on the Russian Federation  
and others who were responsible. International unity ha d underpinned the effective response to the 
Russian  Federation 's invasion.  
16. Chinese Taipei  condemned the Russian Federation's military aggression in Ukraine which 
continue d to cause a devastating humanitarian crisis. It was clear that these unprovoked and 
unjustified attacks had to stop  immediately. Chinese Taipei called upon the Russian Federation to G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 4 - 
 
  respect international law and the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine . Chinese Taipei stood firmly by 
Ukraine and its people during these unprecedented times.  
17. The Russian Federation  stated that it had witnessed at this meeting y et another session of 
political statements in the regular Committees of the WTO. It reject ed all unfounded allegations just 
voiced  which were, to  a significant extent , based on fake news. It was a shame, for example, that 
the European Union had introduced its package of measures based on Bucha provocations which 
were directed by well -known western media. All clarifications ha d been provided in the UN and it 
would there fore not delve into this matter.  
18. The Russian Federation considered it interesting that the European Union had listed the scope 
of its trade limitations and had indicated that these caused deep and far -reaching damage to 
international trade. The Russian Fed eration  thanked the European Union for this acknowledgement  
and noted the  discussion from several weeks before, including an exchange at the Council for Trade 
in Goods  ("CTG"), as part of which t he Russian Federation  had listed all the measures that disrupted 
international trade . It hoped that this was informative for the Brussels ' colleagues and for others.  
19. The Russian Federation considered that certain Members with significant involvement  in 
international trade  had started dismantling the system bas ed on their political self -serving 
geopolitical interests  and had attacked all sectors, including the financial sector, transportation, and 
insurance . The consequences of these actions would, unfortunately, be felt across the world  as it 
had stated at the Committees on Safeguards and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, held on 
25 and 26 April, respectively. Political and military conflicts occurred in many parts of the world and 
the WTO would soon abandon its role as a universal regulator of global trade  if it assumed the role 
of the UN or other dedicated agencies by tackling those conflicts. The Russian Federation rejected 
attempts to arbitrarily isolate its delegation from participating in WTO Committees, noting the 
United  States' and the European Union 's refusal to engage , in the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, in a discussion of legitimate trade concerns , creating a dangerous 
precedent for the system beyond the end of the conflict in Ukraine.  
20. The Russian Federation indicated that it  would raise at this meeting issues concerning the 
European  Union's Basic AD Regulation and certain other issues, but expected the European Union to 
refuse to engage.  
21. Ukraine  contested the Russian Federation's assertions concerning Bucha, specifically the  
proposition that this horrible event had been staged and was fake news. The representative of the 
Russian  Federation was invited to Ukraine to see this horrible massacre of peaceful civilians with his 
own eyes.  
22. The delegate of the Russian Federation  respo nded that he would transmit the invitation to his 
senior colleagues, but that this was not the appropriate forum to discuss the events and provocations 
in the mentioned town of Ukraine. The Russian Federation referred to its earlier statements and 
those ma de in the UN bodies, including the Security Council.  
23. Japan  echoed Ukraine's  statement and expressed its  solidarity with the Ukrainian people.  In 
Japan's  view, the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine was an evident infringement of 
the sovereignt y and territorial integrity of Ukraine and constituted a grave breach of the UN Charter 
that prohibits the use of force. It was an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo by force and 
thus challenged the basis of the international order on which the WTO was founded. Japan did not 
tolerate such action and condemned the Russian Federation's aggression in the strongest possible 
terms. It urged the Russian Federation to cease the military operations in Ukraine and withdraw its 
forces immediately. Japan st ood in solidarity with Ukraine and its people and continued cooperating 
with the members of the international community, including the G7.  
24. The Russian Federation  stated that this was another political statement that disrupt ed the 
work of th e Committee, and referred Members to its earlier statement.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental no tifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)1 
1.1.1  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.14 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.17 – 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl .8; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.15 – 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.18 – G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl .9; 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.16 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.19 – 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl .10 and G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.17 – 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.20 – G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl .11) 
25. No written or oral questions regarding these notifications were posed.  
26. Brazil  commented that t he notified new and amended regulations provide for the necessary 
adaptations of trade remed y investigations and public interest analysis to the COVID -19 pandemic, 
specifically regarding on -the-spot verifications . They also regulate the electronic administ rative 
proceeding related to trade remed y investigations.  
1.1.2  Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2  – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2; 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.1 and G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.2 – G/SG/ N/1/CMR/2/Suppl.2 ) 
27. No written or oral questions regarding these notifications were posed.  
1.1.3  India ( G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/S uppl.11) 
28. Written questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/IND/34  – G/SCM/Q1/IND/34  – Subm itted by the United States  
29. India explained that the notification seeks, among other things, to further amend customs 
trade identification assessment and the collection of AD duties on dumped articles, to introduce 
anti-absorption provisions and to make cer tain miscellaneous changes. The amended rules came 
into force on 27 October 2021 and provide for an anti -absorption review, the initiation of an 
investigation to determine absorption and the determination of absorption.  
30. India stated that to counter the abs orption of AD duties, the designated authority may, after 
a merit review, change the quantum of the AD duties. After re -assessing the dumping and injury 
margins, an AD duty may be considered to be absorbed when export prices of an article from the 
exportin g country decrease post -imposition of the AD duties without any commensurate change in 
the cost of production of such article, the export price of such article to countries other than India, 
or the resale price of such article in India imported from the ex porting country.  
31. Further, India explained that a written application by the domestic industry or any other 
interested party  is required for the initiation of anti -absorption investigations. The designated 
authority may also initiate such an investigation ex officio . The amendment allows the 
Central  Government to make a provisional assessment of the imports of the article alleged to be 
absorbing an AD duty in force and it may ask a guarantee from the importer until the time a decision 
is taken by the Central  Government. The designated authority is also required to make a final 
determination and recommend a modification which shall be applicable retrospectively from the date 
of initiation of the anti -absorption investigation.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
reviewed in the April 2022  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 8 - G/SCM/W/58 4 - 
G/SG/W/25 4. G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 6 - 
 
  32. India noted that the United States ' written questions on India's amended legislation were 
received past the deadline. It stated that written response would be provided in due course.  
33. No written answers were provided by the deadline2 of 6 June 2022.  
1.1.4  United States ( G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/S uppl.31 – G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/S uppl.32) 
34. Written questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/USA/33 - G/SCM/Q1/USA/33 – Questions from China  
35. The United States  noted that the notification addressed various changes to 
United  States'  procedures regarding new shipper reviews, anti-circumvention proceedings, scope 
reviews and other matters.  
36. Written answers to China's written questions had been subsequently provided prior to the 
deadline3 of 6 June 2022 and could now be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/USA/34 – G/SCM/Q1/USA/34  – Replies to China  
37. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions and statements.  
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 ) 
38. Written questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3  - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3  - G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 – Submitted by the United States  
39. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of October  2014.  
40. Written answers to the United States' questions had be en provided and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/4 - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/4 - G/SG/Q1/CMR/4 – Reply to the United States  
41. The United States  noted that the notified legislation appeared to have been inactive 
in April 2016 when the United States written questions were still pending. It urged Cameroon to 
ensure timely notification of relevant legislation and timely responses to written questions . 
42. Cameroon  was not present at the time.  
1.2.2   Saint Kitts and Nevis ( G/ADP/N/1/ KNA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/ KNA/1) 
43. Written questions regarding this notification had been posed and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/KNA/1 – G/SCM/Q1/KNA/1 – Submitted by the United States  
44. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of April 2021.  
 
2 Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 9 - G/SCM/W/58 6 - G/SG/W/25 5. 
3 Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/50 9 - G/SCM/W/58 6 - G/SG/W/25 5. G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 7 - 
 
  45. Saint Kitts and Nevis  was not present at the time. Oral answers were not provided at the 
meeting, nor had written answers been received.  
46. The Committee took not e of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE4 
A. WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS:  
2.1 European Union ( G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/S uppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/S uppl.2; and 
G/ADP/N/1/EU/3/S uppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/EU/2/S uppl.3) 
47. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/EU/15 - G/SCM/Q1/EU/15 – Follow -up questions from the Russian Federation  
48. The European Union  stated that it did not wish to take the floor on this agenda item.  
49. The Russian Federation  stated that it was aware of the unwillingness of the European  Union 
and certain other delegations to engage constructively in this Committee. Such conduct impaired 
the effective functioning of the Committee and the multilateral trading system at large. This 
remained on the conscience of those Members.  
50. Notwithstanding th is, the Russian Federation made a statement for the record of the 
Committee. It reiterated its concerns regarding the amendments to the European Union's  Basic 
Regulation on the protection against dumped imports made effective by Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 
and Regulation (EU) 2018/825. The Russian Federation maintained its systemic view that the 
amendments were WTO -inconsistent as they related to the update of the cost -adjustment 
methodology. It referred to its previous statements in this Committee for furthe r details.  
51. The Russian Federation continued to be of the view that the sole purpose of the amendments 
was to manipulate access to the European market. However, the most recent developments 
demonstrated, in the Russian Federation's view, that the European U nion preferred more direct 
manipulative methods. The WTO norms were not just words. Treaties, and the AD Agreement in 
particular, were meant to be observed and the Russian Federation urged the European Union to act 
accordingly.  
52. The Russian Federation looke d forward to receiving written replies to its follow -up questions 
and called on the European Union to refrain from applying the discriminatory methodologies 
envisaged by the amendments.  
53. No written answers were received.  
B. OUTSTANDING WRITTEN FOLLOW -UP QUE STIONS CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS POSED UNDER THIS AGENDA ITEM AT 
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE MEETINGS:  
2.2 Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
54. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 – Submitted by the United States  
 
4 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in t he October 2021  meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/508 - 
G/SCM/W/584 - G/SG/W/254 . G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 8 - 
 
  55. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of April 2021.  
56. Ghana  was not present at the time. Oral answer s were not provided at the meeting, nor had 
written answers been received . 
2.3 Liberia (G/ADP/N/1/L BR/1)  
57. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/LBR/3 – Submitted by the U nited States  
58. The Chair  noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting 
of October 2020.  
59. Liberia was not present at the time. Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor had 
written answers been received.  
60. The Chair informed Members that, pursuant to the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of the October  2022 meeting of the 
Committee, the notification should be circulated in all three languages by 12 September  2022. 
Shortly after this date, the Secretariat would  circulate the annotated draft agenda  informing 
Members of all legisla tive notifications to be reviewed at the next Committee meeting 
in October  2022.5 
61. The Chair reminded Members that all unanswered written questions pertaining to new and 
previously reviewed legislative notifications reviewed at the meeting, as well as the subject 
notifications, shall, past the applicable deadlines, be automatically retained on the agenda of the 
next Committee meeting and on the agendas of subsequent Committee meetings until written 
answers are submitted.  
62. The Chair noted that the new legisla tive notifications of the United Kingdom , as well as any 
other legislative notifications received and circulated by the applicable deadlines, would be on the 
agenda for review at the regular meeting of the Committee in October 2022.  
63. The Chair expressed con cern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that would be required is a nil notification. The Chair encouraged 
Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.  
64. Concerning the revised  list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.56, the Chair invited Members that had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the AD Agreement and encouraged Members to review and update 
previously submitted information, where necessary.  
65. The United States  appreciated the fact that most Members have submitted a notification with 
their domestic AD legislation or a one -time notification that they d id not have an AD legislation. 
However, some co untries which have not provided a notification of their legislative status have 
submitted trade policy review reports indicating that they have AD laws in effect. In other words, 
the respective WTO Members have already gone through the effort of informing the WTO of their 
respective AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. The United States encouraged Members to 
review their respective situations and make the appropriate notification promptly. It added that the 
notification of AD laws and any revisio ns to those laws were a key element in maintaining 
transparency in the administration of the AD remedy. It encouraged all Members to submit future 
notifications promptly following the implementation of the relevant legislation . It also encouraged 
Members t o think creatively as to how compliance with notification requirements could be improved. 
In addition, the United States noted that timely and complete notifications enabled the 
WTO's  negotiating arm to function properly. The information that Members have committed to 
 
5 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/ 509 - G/SCM/W/ 586 - 
G/SG/W/ 255. G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 9 - 
 
  provide through existing notification obligations was necessary to improve the operation of 
WTO agreements, Members' monitoring work in WTO committees, and Members' ability to negotiate 
meaningful outcomes.  
66. The United States mentioned that the re was currently a proposal on Procedures to Enhance 
Transparency and Improve Compliance with Notification Requirements  (documents 
JOB/GC/204/Rev .8 and JOB/CTG/14/Rev .8), which  called for an open, member -driven process to 
identify and recommend improvements to notification practices. It include d constructive suggestions 
for process improvements and other actions that would streamline submission of notifications and 
improve compliance.  Acknowledging that many Members face d resource and capacity constraints 
and other challenges that c ould hinder their ability to prepare and submit notifications in a timely 
manner, any Member may seek specific technical assistance and capacity -building sup port to enable 
them to submit notifications and build their capabilities. In this way, the proposal was structured so 
as to encourage a greater sense of ownership and agency in Members who would  be able to 
participate more fully in the work of the WTO.  
67. According to the Unites States, this proposal could deliver practical and tangible changes in 
notification procedures that would bring greater transparency to the WTO, while fostering inclusivity 
and responding to Members' needs. Co -sponsors were presently ca rrying out a new round of 
outreach to Members and considering additional revisions with the expectation of having a revised 
proposal ready for the next General Council meeting. It already had broad support from nearly 
one-third of WTO Members (20 Members p lus the European Union -27) and represented a reasonable 
step that Members could take now to introduce reform to the Organization and contribute to a more 
stable and predictable trading environment. The United States welcomed support for this proposal.  
68. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, and statements.  
3 SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS  OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/ 357) 
69. The Chair  recalled that a request and a reminder for submission of semi -annual reports for 
the second half of  2021 had been circulated in document G/ADP/N/364. Members taking no 
AD actions should submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. This would not apply to those 
Members that had already submitted a one -time notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of  the 
AD Agreement.  
70. The Chair noted that a number of Members had not yet responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports. This notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not they had 
taken AD  actions during the period in question, except f or the 51 Members that had already 
submitted a one -time notification.6 The Chair urged Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement.  
71. The Chair explained that while Members were free to raise at the Committee's meetings any 
questions that  they wished regarding the actions reflected in the semi -annual reports, Members may 
agree that raising issues that were subject to dispute settlement proceedings may be better pursued 
in depth in other WTO dedicated fora.  
72. The Chair was pleased to inform M embers that the new AD portal has been extensively used 
by Members to submit their semi -annual reports. The Chair noted that 138 users from 41 Members 
were registered to access the portal. Regarding the most recent semi -annual report, out of all the 
report s containing actions, 72.5% were submitted using the new online platform.  
73. The Committee  reviewed the semi -annual reports for the second  half of 2021.  No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; the member States of the 
Eurasian Economic Union (Armenia; Kazakhstan; Kyrgyz Republic; and the Russian Federation); 
Australia; the member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council "GCC" (Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, 
the State of; Oman; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Qatar; and United Ara b Emirates); Canada; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Egypt; El Salvador; Indonesia; Israel; Japan; 
 
6 All such notifications are contained in the G/ADP/N/193  series of documents.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Madagascar; Malaysia; Morocco; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Chinese Taipei; Türkiye ; 
Ukraine; Uruguay; and Viet Nam.  
74. On the semi -annua l report of Brazil , the United States  raised concerns about the investigation 
by Brazil on imports of liquid caustic soda from the United States . The United States underst ood that 
this investigation was ongoing  and that Brazil ha d issued a preliminary determination finding no 
causal link between imports from the United States and the alleged injury to the domestic industry . 
The United States agree d with the investigating authority's  preliminary conclusions regarding the 
causal link , and request ed that Brazil take into consideration the comments submitted by the 
United  States on the record of this investigation, as well as those submitted by the 
United  States'  respondents . The United States expected Brazil to make a final determinati on that 
would be  consistent with both Brazilian law and the AD Agreement, and that would not result in the 
imposition of AD duties.  
75. Brazil  stated that this was an ongoing investigation  conducted in accordance with national 
legislation  and WTO rules. Brazil  emphasize d that the investigating authority decided not to apply 
provisional measures. All comments submitted by interested parties on the record of this 
investigation would be taken into consideration . Issuance of the final determination was expected 
by 26 July . 
76. On the semi -annual report of China , Japan  expressed its concern on the final determination 
made by the Chinese authorities in June 2016 and the continued imposition of an AD duty on grain 
oriented flat rolled electrical steel from Japan. Japan noted that it had repeatedly pointed out that 
there w as no evidence of injury to the Chinese domestic industry and of a causal link between the 
Japanese imports and the injury, if any. Japan regretted that AD measures were imposed 
since July 2016 and that a sunset review was initiated in July 2021.  
77. Japan  pointed out that Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall 
be terminated in five years unless the authorities determine the substantial necessity to maintain 
the measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would likely lead  to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan urged China to adhere strictly to Article 11.3 of the 
AD Agreement and perform appropriate reviews in accordance with the WTO Agreement. Japan 
requested early termination of the AD measures, w hich were, in its view, improperly maintained for 
a long period.  
78. China  took note of Japan's concerns and stated that it continued to follow a prudent and 
conservative approach with respect to the continuation of existing trade remedy measures. The duty 
order on the special steel products came into force in July 2016. Upon an application from the 
domestic industry, the investigating authority started the first sunset review in July 2021. Two 
Japanese producers participated in the review  and China encourage d all interested parties to 
continue their cooperation . The Chinese investigating authority w ould adhere to the relevant law s, 
regulations and protocols, and fully consider all submissions and comments made by interested 
parties, including by the Japanese pr oducers . China was committed to mak ing a fair and objective 
determination.  
79. On the semi -annual report of the European Union , Morocco  referred to the initiation, on 
17 November 2021, of an AD investigation by the European Commission on imports of certain 
aluminium wheels from Morocco. Morocco stated that this initiation was of concern because it 
affected the flow of exports to European countries, which had already been affected by the COVID 
crisis. Morocco feared that this investigation would undermine the ex pected recovery of its producers 
in the automobile sector. Specifically, Morocco considered that the complaint underlying the initiation 
of the investigation contained shortcomings that should normally have led to the termination of the 
investigation witho ut the application of any measures. First, Morocco noted that the wheels produced 
and exported by Morocco were not comparable to those of European producers because they did not 
belong to the same range of products and to the same market sector. Moroccan e xports were not 
competing with European products, but they were complementary to one another. Second , Morocco 
asserted that data from the European industry did not demonstrate injury – except for a drop in 
certain indicators observed for the year 2020. Thi s dip was, however, a direct consequence of the 
sharp decrease in demand in the automobile sector due to the restrictive measures related to the 
COVID pandemic. Moreover, Morocco observed that the production capacity utilization rate 
reached  90% in the fou rth quarter of 2020 after a drastic drop in the second quarter. Third, Moroccan 
exports represented only 1.8% of the European market of aluminium wheels. This was a minimal G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 11 - 
 
  share and could not have had any impact on the European wheels sector. In sum, Moro cco thus 
believed that the complaint submitted by the European industry did not justify the initiation of an 
investigation and, therefore, asked that the investigation be terminated without further action being 
taken.  
80. The European Union  underscored the fact that the investigation was initiated on 
17 November  2021. It noted that the complaint included sufficient elements to justify the initiation 
of the investigation. The European Union was already in receipt of Morocco's observations tha t it 
was now examining. It also encouraged Morocco to provide any other information and materials for 
further review. The European Union assured Morocco that it would revert with its conclusions on this 
matter.  
81. Türkiye  expressed concern on the initiation, on 24 June 2021, of an AD investigation by the 
European  Commission on imports of corrosion resistant steel products  from, among others, Türkiye. 
Türkiye provided its comments on the initiation of the investigation and on the non -confidential 
version of the  complaint to the investigating authority on 11 August 2021. As Türkiye stated in its 
written submission, it took the view that most of the complainants' financial indicators showed 
positive trends during the period of injury. Certain financial indicators,  such as sales, market shares 
and investment levels, worsened during the investigation period, but the negative trajectory in the 
economic indicators did not stem from the subject imports. Türkiye asserted that the negative effects 
were due to the closure or reduction in the production of the complainants' steel mills as a result of 
containment measures taken during the investigation period  and circumvention by dumped imports 
that were already subject to AD measures by another Member. Türkiye opined that th ese negative 
effects were thus not attributable to imports from subject countries. Türkiye noted that by council 
regulations (EU) 2022/428, dated 15 March 2022, and (EU) 2022/355, dated 2 March 2022, the 
European  Union put in force restrictive measures aga inst the Russian Federation and Belarus. These 
measures prohibit the direct or indirect importation of iron and steel products from the 
Russian  Federation.  
82. Türkiye also observed that the European Union already protected its domestic industry from 
the effec t of imports by way of a safeguard measure that obliged exporters of Turkish subject 
merchandise to pay a 25% out -of-quota duty. For this reason, Türkiye believed that the European 
steel market was already heavily protected by trade remedy measures, specif ically the safeguard 
measures and the prohibition of direct and indirect importation of iron and steel products originating 
in the Russian Federation and Belarus. It highlighted the possibility of a supply shortage in the event 
of increased protection from  AD duties on Turkish exports, entailing detrimental effects on the 
European market and impacting European interests as a whole. Türkiye, therefore, requested the 
European  Union to terminate the investigation without imposing any definitive measures.  
83. The European Union  stated that the investigation was initiated and that provisional measures 
were not imposed, as per the European Commission's communication in January. It took note of the 
concerns and invited Türkiye to convey them as part of the investigatio n. The comments would be 
taken into account and addressed in the disclosure of the findings. Türkiye would have an additional 
opportunity to comment on and rebut the findings, if it so wished.  
84. China  voiced its concerns about the European Union's AD measures on certain fasteners 
imported from China. According to China, in 2016, the European Union revoked the AD measures 
on fasteners imported from China in order to implement the findings in the Appella te Body Report 
in DS397. Five years have passed, and in the absence of substantial changes in the Chinese and 
European fasteners markets, the European Union once again conducted an AD investigation on the 
same product imported from China. In doing so, it r elied on similar methods that were found to be 
WTO-inconsistent in the aforementioned dispute.  
85. Highlighting several points, China mentioned, first, the selection of an abnormal price from a 
surrogate country to calculate, among other things, raw materials of Chinese exporters. Second, it 
referred to the injury analysis that lacked consideration of the competitive relationship and 
interchangeability between the imported products, i.e., standard fasteners, and the domestic 
products, i.e., non -standard fastene rs. Third, China took issue with insufficient transparency, such 
as the failure to disclose essential information in a timely manner, and the refusal to disclose certain 
information without good cause. China emphasized the importance of transparency and du e process 
for the parties' ability to defend their interests, particularly given the pandemic -related repercussions 
on the companies involved in the investigation.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 12 - 
 
  86. In addition, China reiterated its position concerning the European Union's so -called "market  
distortion" legislation and practices. China believed that the relevant provisions of Article 2.6(a) of 
the European Union's Basic AD Regulation and the country reports on significant market distortions 
were inconsistent with the AD Agreement. In China's view, WTO Members should fulfil their 
WTO obligations in good faith. China hoped that the European Union would strictly abide by the rules 
of the AD Agreement and the findings in the Appellate Body reports. China indicated its willingness 
for further excha nge but also reserved its rights under the DSU.  
87. The European Union  explained that on 17 February, the European Commission imposed 
AD duties on imports of iron or steel fasteners from China. The duties ranged from 22.1% to 86.5%. 
According to the European U nion, the investigation was conducted fully in line with WTO rules and 
found significant dumping in the European market where imports were heavily undercutting the 
Union industry's sales prices. European producers lost market shares and profitability and w ere 
injured by the dumped imports. All interested parties had the opportunity to cooperate and to 
present information during the investigation. Comments were taken into account and addressed 
during the investigation.  
88. The European Union attached great impor tance to transparency and understood 
China's  comments in this regard as relating to the fact that certain companies in the investigation 
had requested anonymity on legitimate grounds. The European Union stated that the 
European  Commission had assessed and granted this request, in full compliance with the provisions 
of the WTO and the European Union's Basic AD Regulation.  
89. Finally, the European Union recalled its past statements in this Committee and elsewhere that 
the new methodology adopted in December 2017  was fully compliant with the relevant provisions of 
the AD Agreement and other WTO rules. In response to China's comment that it reserved its rights 
to bring a WTO challenge, the European Union invited China to exercise its rights, stating that it was 
confident of its ability to defend the legality of the new methodology in the appropriate fora.  
90. On the semi -annual report of India , Japan  referred to the AD investigation on imports from 
Japan of e lectrogalvanized steel. The investigation was initiated in Jun e 2021 and Japan participated 
in a public hearing in April 2022. Japan requested India to take into consideration the concerns 
raised by Japan and its exporters during the hearing.  
91. India acknowledged Japan's concerns and stated that they will be addressed in the final 
determination given that the investigation is still ongoing.  
92. On the semi -annual report of the Republic of  Korea , Japan  expressed its concern on the 
final determination , made in July 2004 , and the continued imposition of AD duties based on the 
fourth sunset review , on 22 January 2021,  regarding Japan ese exports of stainless -steel bar.  
93. Japan explained that o n 30 November 2020, a WTO panel report was issued on the 
Republic  of Korea's measure extend ing the imposition of AD duties on the same produc t as a result 
of the third sunset review. The panel found that the extension measure was inconsistent with the 
AD Agreement and recommended that the Republic of Korea bring its measure into conformity with 
that agreement. In view of the panel's determination, the fourth extension measure at issue lacked 
any proper  basis. While the Republic of Korea should have terminated the AD measure upon the 
fourth sunset review, it decided favourably on the fourth extension.  
94. According to Japan, the determination did not explain why concerns regarding the lack of 
competitive relationships and export incentives in the third sunset review , as considered by the 
panel,  did not equally apply with respect to t he fourth sunset review.  Japan argued that the authority 
had failed to reasonably explain why the termination of the AD  duties was likely to lead to the  
recurrence of injury to the domestic industry  and that  therefore  the Republic of Korea  should review 
the determinations on the  competitive relationships, etc. by appropriately considering the findings  
of the panel. Japan requested early termination of the AD measure which was, in its view, improperly 
continued for a long period.  
95. The Republic of Korea  responded that  the AD measures against Japan ese imports  were still 
under appeal . Its decision to appeal was due to the flaws in the panel report , as articulated in detail 
in the Republic of Korea's notice of appeal.  All the technical issues raised by the panel report have G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 13 - 
 
  been properly addressed in the final determination of the fourth sunset review against Japanese 
stainless -steel bar.  
96. The United States  raised the expiry review by the Republic of Korea on imports of butyl glycol 
ether from the United States. It understood that this expiry review was ongoing and that the 
United  States'  respondents have provided specific arguments to the Korean authorities . The 
United  States requested that the Republic of Korea give full consideration to these comments and 
make a determination that is consistent with both Korean law and the AD Agreement.  
97. The Republic of Korea  stated that the expiry review was still ongoing,  for which reason it 
declined to answer to questions or to comment. It assured the United States that its investigating 
authority would  conduct the review  in a transparent manner in accordance with the relevant laws 
and regulations.  
98. On the semi -annual repo rt of Mexico , the United Kingdom  took note of the new investigation 
that was initiated on 31 August 2021 on type I and type H steel beams originating in Germany and 
the United Kingdom . The affected exporter in the United Kingdom was participating fully in the 
proceedings, and the United Kingdom would continue to monitor the progress of this investigation. 
The United Kingdom would appreciate more clarity about the expected date of completion of this 
investigation.  
99. Mexico  mentioned that this was an ongoing in vestigation initiated in line with WTO rules and 
that it would relay the United Kingdom's statement to the investigating authority.  
100.  On the semi -annual report of Thailand , Japan  expressed its concern on the final 
determination made in May 2003 and the conti nued imposition of the AD duty on Japanese flat 
hot-rolled steel in coils and not in coils. Japan reiterated its view that there was no evidence that 
Japanese steel products had caused injury to the domestic Thai industry. Japan regretted that 
AD measures were imposed in May 2003 and, most recently, extended for another five years in the 
sunset review in June 2021.  
101.  Japan recalled that Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement stipulates that any AD measure shall be 
terminated in five years unless the authorities det ermine the substantial necessity to continue the 
measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would be likely to lead to the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping and injury. Japan noted that Japanese steel products were of higher quality 
and fell i n a different price range than the Thai steel products. Japan asserted that they were 
therefore not in a competitive relationship with one another. Japan thus disagreed that the 
termination of the AD measures on Japanese steel products could lead to the co ntinuation or 
recurrence of injury to the domestic Thai steel industry.  
102.  As Japan explained, it had submitted its views in July 2020 and March 2021 as part of the 
sunset review. Japan also made an intervention on this matter at the Committee meeting in 
April 2021. Japan requested that the Thai authority give full consideration to the comments of the 
Japanese steel industry and terminate immediately the AD measure, which has been in place for 
more than seventeen years.  
103.  Thailand  did not take the floor.  
104.  On the semi-annual report of the United Kingdom , the Russian Federation  commented that 
it was well aware of the unwillingness of certain Members, including the United Kingdom, to engage 
constructively within this Committee. The Russian Federation opined that such  conduct impaired the 
effective functioning of the Committee and, ultimately, of the multilateral trading system. As the 
Russian  Federation noted, this remained on the conscience of those Members. Notwithstanding this, 
the Russian Federation stated that it  would make this statement for the record of the Committee.  
105.  The Russian Federation was concerned about the transitional review of the AD measure on 
imports of cold -rolled flat steel products of Russian origin. In its view, the review was conducted in 
a WTO -inconsistent manner. As it followed from the statement of essential facts, the 
United  Kingdom's authorities left unchanged the dumping margins originally calculated by the 
European  Union. This was puzzling because, in the Russian Federation's view, the Un ited Kingdom 
needed a comprehensive and WTO -consistent establishment of dumping, injury and causality to G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 14 - 
 
  have the right to apply the measure in its territory. The European Union's calculations were 
WTO-inconsistent, and the Russian Federation referred the Members to its interventions in this 
Committee in April and October 2016 for the details.  
106.  The Russian Federation added that the United Kingdom also adopted the 
European  Union's  practice of adjusting the costs incurred by the producers with out -of-country d ata. 
Specifically, the authorities of the United Kingdom adjusted the costs of natural gas and railway 
freight using data on corresponding prices in the United States. In this regard, the 
Russian  Federation drew the attention of the United Kingdom to numer ous rulings of panels and the 
Appellate  Body, specifically in EU – Biodiesel , Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate  and EU – Cost 
adjustment Methodologies II , which, in its view, unambiguously explained the WTO -inconsistency of 
such practices. The Russian Federation urged the authorities of the United Kingdom to read those 
rulings attentively and to abstain from making WTO -inconsistent adjustments.  
107.  The Russian Federation was also wondering about the relationship between the 
United  Kingdom's determinations of likelihood of dumping and injury  and the recently 
introduced  35% additional duties on Russian products and the ban on Russian steel imports, 
including cold -rolled steel products.  According to the Russian Federation, it was incomprehensible 
how sales could be made at dumped prices while such sales were banned altogether. The Russian 
Federation believed that the United Kingdom had absolutely no grou nds for the continued application 
of the measure and requested its termination.  
108.  The United Kingdom  stated that it did not intend to engage with the statements made by the 
Russian  Federation.  
109.  China  made an intervention concerning  the continued application by the United Kingdom of 
the European Union's  trade remedy measures and the transition reviews conducted by the 
United  Kingdom after Brexit. China opined that this practice was in breach of the provisions of the 
AD Agreement and infringe d upon the legitimate interest s of Members.  
110.  China noted that the European Union and the United Kingdom were independent 
WTO Members and th at the European Union's AD measures were imposed by the European Union in 
its capacity as a WTO Member. Following Brexit, the United Kingdom as an independent 
WTO Member no longer had any relationship with the European Union's AD measures. According to 
the European Union, "all anti -dumping and anti -subsidy measures in force apply from 
1 January  2021 only to imports into the twenty -seven Member States of the European Union". China 
noted that WTO rules did not authorize a Member to apply AD measures of other Members. Absent 
a WTO -compliant investigation, the United Kingdom's continued application of certain AD measures 
of the European Union would be inconsistent with WTO rules. The European Union's AD measures 
were based on the European Union's trade remedy le gislation and on information and data from 
its 28 member States. China hoped that the United Kingdom would respect other Members' interests, 
abide by WTO rules and terminate the application of the European Union's AD measures and the 
transitional reviews.  
111.  The United Kingdom  stated that it had retained certain definitive trade remedy measures 
applied before the end of the United Kingdom -European Union transition period and in respect of 
which the United Kingdom held an interest.  These measures had been estab lished based on an 
investigation covering the entire territory of the European Union, including the United  Kingdom.  
Therefore, they have been maintained in respect of the United Kingdom territory as of the end of 
the United Kingdom -European Union transitio n period.  The United Kingdom explained that it 
determined which AD measures should be retained based on evidence presented by the 
United  Kingdom's industries and all interested parties , including international industries. The 
relevant assessment was based on objective evidence relating to specific criteria, including a market 
share threshold for the United Kingdom -based producers of the product in question of more than  1%. 
The United Kingdom underlined that it was committed to maintain a fair and transparen t approach. 
Its investigating body would conduct objective evidence -based transition reviews of the retained 
measures. These reviews would determine whether the measures remained necessary to offset 
dumping and whether injury of the United Kingdom's domest ic industries would recur in case the 
measures were lifted. This could result in the measures being amended, terminated, or maintained. 
Until the conclusion of the reviews, the measures would be maintained.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 15 - 
 
  112.  The United Kingdom added that up until 31 Decembe r 2021, the investigating authority had 
initiated transition reviews of 10 AD measures, so far resulting in the extension of two measures 
and the termination of another two measures. All reviews could be tracked through the fully digital 
trade remedy servi ce, and the United Kingdom encouraged exporters and foreign governments to 
engage in the reviews, as appropriate.  
113.  The Russian Federation  shared the systemic and commercial concerns on the same matter 
that China had raised. It considered the c all for eviden ce to be clearly insufficient for maintaining 
the European Union's m easures in the United Kingdom , given that the latter was a separate and 
distinct WTO M ember. It called on the United Kingdom to adhere to  the rules of the AD Agreement.  
114.  The United Kingdom  stated that it would continue to refrain from engaging with the 
Russian  Federation 's statements.  
115.  On the semi -annual report of the United States , Japan  took issue with the a dministrative 
review , conducted from June 2020 to May 2021 , of the AD duty order on imports of g lycine from 
Japan . Japan explained that it had issued a written opinion in April . It requested that the 
United  States'  Department of Commerce ("USDOC") calculate the price difference in the review 
based on a fair comparison in accordanc e with paragraph 1 of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and 
Article  2.4 of the AD Agreement, taking into consideration the approval and registration system 
related to pharmaceutical products and the existence of two different grades of glycine.  
116.  Separately, Japan  also raised concern regarding the prolonged imposition of AD measures 
against Japanese products. Japan pointed out that the United States currently had 19 measures in 
force against Japanese products.  The longest measures have continued for more than 42 ye ars, 
and 16 of them were in force for more than 5 years.  For example, Japan referred to  the sunset 
reviews on the following products that were initiated during the period covered by the semi -annual 
report: Certain carbon and alloy steel cut -to-length plate ; carbon steel butt -weld pipe fittings ; 
certain hot -rolled steel flat products ; and stainless steel wire rod . Article 11.3 of the AD  Agreement 
stipulates that any AD measure shall be terminated in five years unless the authorities determine 
the substantial  necessity to continue the measure, namely that the elimination of the AD duty would 
likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  Japan urged the United States  
to adhere strictly to  Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and to perform ap propriate reviews in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement.  Japan did not consider that old measures were no longer valid 
solely on the ground that the measures were old. Japan requested the United States to make 
determinations when conducting sunset reviews w ithout simply assuming, but after a careful 
examination of, the likelihood of the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.  The 
Government of Japan has liaised with the companies, and Japan understood that they were taking 
necessary action. Japan also requested the early termination of these AD measures which had been 
improperly continued for a long period.  
117.  The United States  did not see any basis for Japan' s recurring complaints.  The expiry 
proceedings conducted by the United States were consistent with the obligations under the 
AD Agreement.  The United States explained that the purpose of expiry reviews was to examine if 
dumping and injury would be likely to continue or recur if the measures were removed. The 
United  States ' expiry review proceedings were evidence -based and participation by Japanese 
companies was helpful in terms of obtaining relevant information and arguments from the relevant 
parties.  The United States observed t hat many measures involving Japanese exporters ha d been 
terminated; out of 65 reviews 52 have resulted in  the termination of measures.  Seven of the 
oldest  10 measures remained in effect due to the lack of participation by Japanese companies. Lack 
of respon dents' participation, and the consequent lack of evidence provided by respondents, limited 
the information provided to the investigating authorities. In other words, Japanese producers may 
themselves have been partly responsible for the result. The United States added that i n many of the 
expiry reviews  that involve imports from both Japan and other Members, respondents from other 
Members have meaningfully participated when Japan ese respondents have not. The United  States 
suggest ed that Japan inquire with it s own industries as to why there was a lack of interest in 
participating in the process, particularly given the fact that participation has been a vital element in 
the termination of measures applied with respect to goods from other Members as well as good s 
from Japan.  
118.  China  called upon the United States to refrain from maintaining, through repeated sunset 
reviews, AD measures for unnecessarily long periods. China noted that, according to statistics G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 16 - 
 
  published by the United States' International Trade Commis sion ("USITC") , as of 1 April 2022, the 
United  States maintained 23 AD measures that were taken in the 20th century against Chinese 
products, among which 6 measures were even taken in the 1980s and had been in place for more 
than 35 years, specifically on imports from China of potassium permanganate, barium chloride, iron 
construction castings, petroleum wax candles, porcelain -on-steel cooking ware and tapered roller 
bearings. China was not the only Member that was subject to numerous quasi -permanent 
AD measures imposed by the United States. China observed that the United States has applied 
AD measures against prestressed concrete steel wire strand from Japan since 1978 and AD measures 
against iron construction castings from Brazil and Canada since 1986, to name just a few.  
119.  China recalled that according to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, AD measures shall be 
terminated within 5 years, unless the authorities determine through sunset reviews that the expiry 
of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. China opined 
that with the rapid changes in market structure and the technological progress made in the real 
business world, it was unlikely that for decades exporters kept selling subject merchandise to the 
United  States at prices lower than the normal value, and that the revocation of the order would still 
cause injury to the United States' domestic industry, even when the domestic industry had been 
under the protection of the AD order for more than 30 years. In other words, to China, these 
measures taken for so long, had distorted the trade order because they hampered the motivation to 
innovate and develop, and they hurt the interests of the importers and consumers in the 
United  States. Therefore, these excessively lon g and even permanent AD measures have become 
barriers to free and fair international trade. China hoped that the United States took seriously the 
concerns shared by China and other Members and would provide exporters reasonable opportunities 
to defend thei r interests.  
120.  The United States  explained that expiry proceedings conducted by the United States were 
consistent with the obligations under the AD Agreement.  In the United States' view, China  appeared 
to imply that an old measure was no longer valid solely on the ground that the measure was old.  
The United States disagreed on this point.  The United States explained that the purpose of expiry 
reviews was to examine if dumping and injury would continue or recur if the measures were 
removed.  The United States' expiry review proceedings were evidence -based and participation by 
Chinese  companies was helpful in terms of obtaining relevant information and arguments from the 
relevant parties.  To the ex tent that Chinese respondents had comments regarding any particular 
expiry review, the United States suggest ed that the comments be submitted on the record of that 
particular review.  
121.  In response, China  noted the United States' comment that participation by  Chinese companies 
was helpful in terms of obtaining relevant information and arguments . It also noted  the 
United  States'  suggestion that the comments be submitted on the record of a particular review.  
Despite the United States' claim that the expiry revie w proceedings were evidence -based, Chinese 
companies interest ed in participa ting in such reviews often complained about an insufficient 
opportunity to participate . As regards the reasons, China mentioned, first, the issue of "adequate 
response". China expl ained that United States' law sets forth different criteria for what constitutes 
an "adequate response ". The USDOC would normally conclude that domestic interested parties have 
provided an adequate response to a notice of initiation when it receives a comp lete substantive 
response from at least one domestic interested party. In contrast, the USDOC would normally 
conclude that respondent interested parties have provided an adequate response when it receives 
complete responses from respondent interested parti es accounting, on average, for more than 50% 
of the total exports of subject merchandise to the United States. If there were no exports from the 
subject country to the U nited States , the USDOC would determine that the response was not 
adequate. If this understanding of the operation of the United States'  expiry review s was correct, 
respondent s would be put at a disadvantage with respect to the initiation of a full expiry review, 
discourag ing them from participating in the proceedings . 
122.  Second, China remarked  on the issue of " determining likelihood of continued or recurred 
dumping ". According to China, United States' law required the USDOC to consider the 
weighted -average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews and 
the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period before and after the issuance of the 
AD order. Generally, the USDOC found  the following three scenarios as hi ghly probative of a 
"likelihood ": (1) dumping continued at any level above de minimis  after the issuance of the order; 
(2) imports of the subject merchandise ceased following the order; and (3) dumping was eliminated, 
and import s volumes declined. In China 's view, it seemed that the only way to prove negative G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 17 - 
 
  "likelihood " was related to  import s volume. China suggested that, as the USDOC had admitted, the 
scenario of declining dumping coupled with increasing imports may indicate that foreign companies 
would  not have to dump.  China invited  the United States to clarify whether such a scenario really 
existed in the real business world where , after years of an AD  order  in place , imports of a particular 
product exceed ed the pre -initiation level while the dumping l evel decrease d at the same time.  If so, 
China requested the United States to provide an example to better understand this scenario. China 
also queried how respondent companies  could participate in a review proceeding and prove negative 
"likelihood" if the only issues in such a proceeding were related to volume and dumping rate.  
123.  Third, China commented on the issue of the "magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to 
prevail ". As China explained, United States' law require d the USDOC to provide to the USITC t he 
magnitude of the margins of dumping that would  likely prevail upon revocation of the order . China 
noted that the USDOC  would always choose a rate calculated in the investigation or review based 
on adverse facts available. China hope d that the USDOC could respect the facts. As stated  in the 
Issues and Decision Memorandum for the expedited fifth sunset review of the AD Duty Order on 
potassium permanganate from China, the sole Chinese exporter was given a margin of $0.00/kg for 
the period of review of 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015. No administrative reviews followed 
subsequently . Notwithstanding this , the USDOC reported to USITC an adverse facts available rate 
of 128.94 % dating from 1989 . 
124.  The United States  stated that given the number of issues raised by China, it would respond to 
some comments but suggested that a bilateral exchange might be more appropriate  to address 
case-specific issues . The United States also noted that most of China's concerns were directed at 
the USDOC and did not relate to the USITC's sunset review process, which, however, concerned the 
vast portion of orders subject to sunset reviews.  
125.  Regarding th e participation level, the United States was surprised that China felt it had 
inadequate opportunities to reply or to participate in the proceedings. The United States countered 
that there were several opportunities to do so in expiry reviews both on the U SDOC and the USITC 
sides. Mindful of the case -specific nature of the issues raised, the United States believed that the 
concerns might have been related to the quality of information and not necessarily the opportunity 
to participate.  
126.  The United States the n commented on examples of increases in imports after an order had 
been put in place. The delegate of the United States explained that from his previous professional 
experience as a council for respondents in proceedings in the United States, he could poin t to two 
specific cases in which he was involved and where that fact pattern applied. One case related to 
silicone metal from Brazil and the other to hot-rolled steel from Thailand. In both cases, imports 
increased after the imposition of the orders and th e orders were revoked with respect to specific 
respondents.  
127.  Concerning the likelihood of injury and the magnitude of dumping margins, the United States 
remarked on the case -specific nature and pointed to several instances in the USDOC's record where, 
absen t a prior review for some time, the margin s were  updated either by the petitioners or by the 
responden ts. According to the United States, this was either a matter of the respondents' willingness 
to seek a review or the petitioners' request for a margin adj ustment.  
128.  With respect to semi -annual reports that the Committee had not  been previously reviewed 
due to late submission and circulation, neither comments were made, nor questions were posed by 
any Member.  
129.  The Committee took note  of the semi -annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed, and the answers provided.  
4 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS: NOTIFICATIONS  
130.  The Chair  referred to the notifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members sinc e the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/362, 363, 365, 366, 367 
and 368. During this period Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; 
Dominican  Republic; European Union; India; Indonesia; Japan; Kazakhstan; Republic of Korea;  
Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; Morocco; Pakistan; Philippines; Russian Federation; South Africa; G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Chinese  Taipei; Türkiye ; Ukraine; United Kingdom; the United States and Viet Nam  notified 
preliminary and/or final AD actions, which were listed in these documents.  Since document 
G/ADP/N/36 8 was circulated, Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada;  European Union; India; 
Indonesia; Kyrgyz Republic; Mexico; Pakistan; Russian Federation; Türkiye ; and the United  Kingdom 
have submitted such a notification, which will appear  in the next list circulated by the Secretariat . 
131.  Brazil  referred to a notification made by  South Africa  with regard to an investigation  
concerning imports of frozen poultry from Brazil and other origins. Brazil has been closely following 
this investigation  and has been participating as an interested party. It attached great importance to 
this proceeding because frozen chicken were Brazil's main export to South Africa.  
132.  Brazil stated that, as mentioned in previous meetings of this Committee, the investigation was 
flawed and should not have been initiated in the first place.  It was surprised and disappointed that 
the South African investigating authority made a positive pr eliminary determination and decided to 
impose provisional AD duties on imports from Brazilian exporters. As Brazil saw it, the initiation 
application failed to fulfil certain core requirements of the AD Agreement. The investigating authority 
not only delib erately disregarded these flaws, but also ratified many in its preliminary determination.  
133.  Brazil also considered that the investigating authority did not properly explain in the 
preliminary determination the reasons for reaching certain conclusions and ado pting certain 
methodologies. Relatedly, public summaries of confidential information were not sufficiently clear 
and did not enable parties to fully understand the facts. Brazil thus had serious doubts about the 
fairness and transparency of these proceedin gs. 
134.  Brazil referred to the investigated companies' operational and financial burden associated with 
the investigation and claimed that the proceedings were not in keeping with a fair bilateral trade 
relationship between the two countries. Brazil worried th at further damage would ensue for all actors 
if definitive measures were applied. Brazil also noted the recently issued essential facts letter which 
lacked important information and failed to meet the WTO requirements.  
135.  Brazil looked forward to bilateral di scussions and encouraged the South African investigating 
authority to terminate promptly the investigation.  
136.  The European Union  referred to the same notification made by South Africa in relation to the 
investigation against imports of frozen poultry, includ ing from Poland, Spain, Ireland and Denmark,  
as well as, separately, South Africa's notification of an investigation on imports of frozen potato chips 
from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.  
137.  First, the European Union elaborated on its concerns regarding  the investigation on imports 
of frozen potato chips , noting that South Africa's International Trade Administration Commission 
("ITAC") initiated this investigation ex officio  without providing any explanation concerning the 
special circumstances that just ified doing so. In the European Union's view, the initiation was not 
based on sufficient evidence. Specifically, the evidence of dumping was clearly flawed since ITAC 
used actualized normal values from a past investigation that did not even correspond to t he 
investigation period at issue. There was also a lack of evidence showing that injury, if any, was 
caused by allegedly dumped imports. During the period analysed, most of the investigated imports 
from Belgium and the Netherlands were subject to AD duties  ranging from 5% to 30% and they 
were therefore not injurious. Imports from Germany had a marginal market share of 1.4% which 
was why, absent any further explanation, it was difficult to see why they could have caused injury. 
ITAC also failed to assess oth er factors causing injury, including the decline in consumption during 
the COVID -19 pandemic and the significant cost increase due to the increase in raw material costs, 
for instance for potatoes, frying oil, energy, and labour. Moreover, the European Unio n was 
concerned that for purposes of its preliminary determination, ITAC disregarded information duly 
submitted by two cooperating exporters in the ir questionnaire replies.  ITAC's reasons for doing so 
were insufficient and did not comply with the requireme nts of the AD Agreement. The 
European  Union argued that ITAC could not simply reject all questionnaire replies although the 
information was verifiable and appropriately submitted.  
138.  Second, the European Union commented on the investigation on imports of froz en poultry . It 
expressed its concern arising from the various measures that were concurrently impeding European 
poultry exports to Southern African Customs Union ("SACU"). While the European Union did not G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 19 - 
 
  object to Members having recourse to AD or safeguar d measures when all legal conditions are met, 
South  Africa's measures did not meet the necessary legal standards. The European Union observed 
that it had voiced its concerns since the beginning of the first proceeding against imports from 
Germany, the Netherlands,  and the United Kingdom but measures were imposed in 2015 and 
extended in August 2021. In addition, in February 2021, a new investigation was initiated against 
imports from Poland, Spain, Ireland and Denmark and p rovisional measures were imposed in 
December  2021. A final decision in this case was expected by spring or early summer 2022. The 
findings in the ongoing investigation were replete with deficiencies, specifically in view of the 
significant decrease by 34% of subject imports. Most injury indicators developed positively, and a 
non-attribution analysis was omitted. In the European Union's view, the main cause of injury, if any, 
was related to other low -priced imports, mainly from the United States and Argentina, which 
represented abou t 47% of total imports. The European Union recalled that it had expressed its 
concerns over the past years at all possible occasions and that it had also raised these issues in the 
investigations. It encouraged South Africa to adequately address all issues  in the final determination 
and hoped that South Africa refrain from imposing any unjustified measures.  
139.  South Africa  did not take the floor.  
140.  Türkiye  expressed concerns about the initiation , by the European Union , of an investigation 
against imports of Turk ish ceramic tiles. On 18 January 2022, Türkiye had provided its comments 
on the initiation of the investigation and the complaint to the investigating authority.  
141.  Türkiye understood that the complainants had omitted certain European producers while 
calculat ing the total Union's production and the complainants' representativeness. Considering that 
the complainants argued that they represented 25.8% of the total Union production, and given the 
possibility that other producers with significant production were n ot accounted for, Türkiye doubted 
that the application was made by or on behalf of domestic producers expressly supporting the 
application and fulfilling the 25% threshold set forth in Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement. Türkiye 
added that the European Commis sion segmented the domestic industry and thus undertook a limited 
examination of only a small portion of the domestic producers without assessing the situation of the 
domestic industry as a whole, contrary to the requirements under Article 3.1 of the AD Ag reement.  
142.  Türkiye was also of the view that the complainants did not rely on information pertaining to a 
period that was as close as practicable to the date of initiation of the investigation, contrary to the 
considerations of the panel in Mexico - Steel Pi pes and Tubes . Moreover, most of the figures 
underlying the injury allegations were positive during the period of injury from 2017 to 2020. Türkiye 
argued that some slightly negative indicators in the year 2020 did not constitute sufficient evidence 
to sub stantiate injury allegations. Finally, Türkiye noted that the complaint presented the allegedly 
dumped imports as the sole source of injury, without assessing other factors, specifically the 
developments related to the COVID -19 pandemic, increases in costs  of raw materials, energy, 
transportation as well as the Union's transition to a competitive low -carbon and resource -efficient 
economy. Türkiye expected the European Commission to consider all such known factors in a manner 
consistent with Article 3.5 of t he AD Agreement.  
143.  In sum, Türkiye requested the European Union to take into consideration the aforementioned 
issues in the investigation.  
144.  The European Union  responded by noting that the investigation concerning imports of ceramic 
tiles originating in India and Türkiye  was initiated on 13 of December 2021  and that the deadline for 
the imposition of provisional measures , if any , was set to  13 August 202 2. Definitive measures , if 
any, would then be taken six months later , on 23 February 2023. The European Union  explained 
that, as the investigation was still ongoing, it would give full consideration to all the issues raised by 
Türkiye as part of the investigation. The European Union took this opportunity to encourage Türkiye 
and the Turkish exporters to participa te in the investigation.  
145.  Türkiye  mentioned the notification made by Morocco  with regard to the initiation, on 
9 March  2022, of an investigation concerning imports of galvanized wire from Türkiye. Türkiye 
referred to the written comments that it had provide d on 12 April 2022 on the petition and the 
initiation of the investigation. It stated that it had serious concerns about the initiation of this 
investigation.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 20 - 
 
  146.  Türkiye contended that at least one of the domestic producers was a direct importer of the 
subjec t merchandise for which reason the assessment of the representativeness of the domestic 
industry did not meet the criteria under the AD Agreement. Moreover, Türkiye noted a significant 
temporal gap between the data underlying the initiation  and the actual initiation of the investigation, 
the former relating to the year 2020 and the latter having occurred on  9 March 2022 . Separately, 
Moroccan authorities specified the calendar year 2021 as the dumping period and the five calendar 
years 2017 -2021 as the injur y period, despite the absence of any data on alleged dumping, imports, 
alleged injury, and alleged causal link for the year 2021. I nitiating the investigation without data for 
the year 2021  also violated Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because the parties did not have 
sufficient opportunity to defend their interests.  
147.  Given this, Türkiye expected Morocco to terminate promptly the investigation. Otherwise, it 
requested the Moroccan authorities to thoroughly examine the allegations as regards  the increase 
in imports, injury , and  causal link as well as to consider other factors that may have caused the 
alleged injury.  Türkiye  also reserved its rights stemming from the AD Agreement and from relevant 
dispute settlement practice.  
148.  Morocco  explained that the investigation, initiated on 9 March 2022 , followed a complaint filed 
with the Ministry of Trade in January 2022 . Morocco reas sured Türkiye that the investigation would 
cover the most recent data preceding the date of initiation , which, according to the notice of 
initiation , covered the calendar year 2021 . The injury period would cover the three calendar 
years  2017-2021. Data on the year 2022 would be considered where appropriate and upon decision. 
Morocco affirmed that it would give full consideration to all the issues raised and that it would also 
take into account all factors that may have caused injury.  
149.  China  expressed concern s as regards sunset reviews conducted by the European  Union . It 
referred to the r egular meeting of the Committee in October 2021 , when China detailed the 
AD measures that the European Union has been implementing for more than 20  years.  According to 
China, this was not an uncommon phenomenon among Member s and many exporters , including 
those of the European Union, were victims of these "sun never sets" measures.  Although China 
recognized that it was the right of every investigating authority to initiate a sun set review , it 
disagreed with certain Members' claims that their reviews  were impartial and that exporters could  
defend their rights by  actively  participating. As opposed to original investigations, the obligation of 
the applicant in sunset review s was obviously lighter, and it was easier for the investigating authority 
to conclude that injury may recur . This stood in contrast with the fact that the exporter had to bear 
the same  or an even heavier burden by responding to the inquiries, while the company was often 
confronted with the continuation or maintenance of the measure. In China's view, this was precisely 
the reason why exporters did not actively respond to inquiries in man y "no sun sets" measures 
reviews.  
150.  The European Union  responded to China's concerns regarding expiry reviews by observing, 
first, that measures were rarely in place for such long periods of 20 years or similar. Second, the 
European Union submitted that, in any event, it was completely irrelevant  whether a measure was 
in force for a certain number of years. Under the relevant legal framework, what mattered was 
whether there was a likelihood of recurrence  or continuation  of dumping and injury . This was a 
case-specific assessment based on the facts submitted by the parties and solicited by the 
European  Commission based on  its questionnaires.  This was the sole basis for taking a decision in 
an expiry review. If the facts spoke in favour of the likelihood of conti nuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury , consistent with European Union and WTO law, a measure could be continued, 
and, might exceptionally last for 20 years. Therefore, the European Union took issue with being 
criticized for retaining measures for a l ong period because it was simply a question of applying the 
national and multilateral legal frameworks. It also disagreed with the proposition that respondents 
were subject to a different burden of proof. The European Union was assessing the 
exporters'  transactions, export prices to the Union and to other destinations and the normal value, 
all of which were among the information necessary to make an adequate determination. The 
European Union failed to see why it should place a particular burden on responden ts or why it should 
prevent respondents from replying.  The European Union agreed with China's observation that in 
many instances exporters refrained from cooperating in expiry reviews. But it did not concur that 
this should prejudge a finding that there wa s no likelihood of recurrence or continuation of dumping 
and injury . After all, it would appear that the European Union and China had to agree that they 
disagreed on this issue.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 21 - 
 
  151.  The Chair noted that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc  notifications 
pertaining to certain AD actions via different means, i.e. , electronically  and even by post . In some 
instances, certain Members also tend ed to resubmit previously notified actions or provide 
inconsistent information.  
152.  The Chair reminded all Members  that a given ad hoc  notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to the Centre of Registration and 
Notification ( CRN) with a copy to the Secretary of the Committee , and that any previously submitted 
notifications should not be resubmitted. The Chair also requested Members, instead of providing 
electronic links to general websites, to attach directly the relevant document containing the action 
they wish to notify in WORD or PDF formats. Members were also a ble to consult presentation audios 
and interactive presentations made by the Secretariat at the 2015 workshop on notifications, which 
have been  made available on the AD webpage on the WTO website. The Chair stressed the need to 
avoid any confusion, repetit ion or duplication as these notifications were the source of necessary 
information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report.  
153.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
5 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
154.  The Chair  recalled that the Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention met on  27 April 2022. The 
United  States made a presentation regarding its amended anti -circumvention regulations. In what 
was the liveliest exchange in re cent years, a discussion followed with Members posing questions and 
offering comments. As for the Autumn 2022 meeting, the approach agreed in the Spring of  2015 
would be applied in deciding whether the Informal Group will meet.  
155.  The United States  took the f loor to confirm that it would make available the presentation on 
its amended anti -circumvention regulations . 
156.  The Committee took note  of the report and statements made.  
6 CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON 
IMPLEMENTATION  
157.  The Chair  indicated that the Working Group on Implementation held a hybrid meeting on 
28 and 29 October 2021 back -to-back with the October  Committee meeting at which the Group 
discussed issues relating  to (i) reviews for the purpose of determining individual m argins of dumping 
for any exporters or producers in the exporting country (new shipper reviews); (ii)  price 
undertakings; and (iii) access to non -confidential case files. Ms. Yomna Elshabrawy of Egypt served 
as discussant  and circulated a roadmap of issues  to officials before the meeting to assist delegations 
in their work. A good discussion took place at which representatives of many investigating authorities 
shared their practices and asked questions to each other about their experiences.  
158.  The Chair remind ed Members that the Working Group would hold a meeting on 
28-29 April 2022, to discuss issues relating to: (i) order and application of tests for determining the 
ordinary course of trade and 5% test; (ii) determination of the viability of domestic sales in  dumping 
margin calculations; (iii) application of "arm's length sales test" on domestic sales to related parties 
and treatment of affiliated parties in dumping calculations; and (iv) duty assessment.  Mr Wolfgang 
Mueller  of the European Union, serving as d iscussant, circulated an outline of issues for discussion 
in document RD/ADP/WGI/16.  
159.  Finally, the Chair noted that the topics and discussant of the next Working Group have not yet 
been determined by Members. This matter would  be taken up by the incoming Ch air in due course.  
160.  The Committee took note  of the report made.  G/ADP/M/61  
 
- 22 - 
 
  7 OTHER BUSINESS  
161.  The Chair  encouraged Members that had issues to raise with other Members under other 
business to give sufficient notice to the Member s concerned prior to the meeting in order to ascertain 
whether or not an answer could be obtained at the meeting . 
162.  No issues were raised under Other Business.  
163.  The Committee took note  of the statement made.  
8 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
164.  The next regular meeting of the Committee would be held in the  week of 24 October 2022.  
9 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
165.  The Chair recalled Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure which provides that the 
election of the new Chair shall take place at the fi rst regular meeting of the year and that the election 
shall take eff ect at the end of that meeting.   
166.  The Chair stated that  consultation at the CTG level regarding the selection of the new chair of 
this Committee as well as of other subsidiary bodies  under the CTG was still under way, therefore  a 
new Chair cannot be elected at this meeting . In these circumstances, the Chair suggest ed that 
the Secretariat send a communication once the CTG ha d completed its work, indicating the Chair 
identified by the CTG. The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the Committee abs ent any 
objection. This approach, which ha d been taken in previous years, would obviate the need for an 
additional meeting of the Committee . 
167.  On the Vice -Chair,  the Chair propose d to postpone the election of the new Vice -Chair until the 
new Chair was appoin ted, and he or she  had held the usual consultations and sen t the usual 
communication nominating a new Vice -Chair who, absent any objection, would be deemed to be 
elected by the Committee.  
168.  The Committee so decided . 
__________