RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/44  
 
8 July 2013  
(13-3562)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 24 APRIL 2013 
CHAIR: MR SHAI MOSES (ISRAEL) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
24 April 2013. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/4113. 
2.  In order to create a Rules Committees Contact List of delegations, the Chair reiterated his 
request to Members to provide the Secretariat with their up-to-date email addresses.  
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREV IOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATI ONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED)1 
1.1  Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.7-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.5), 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.8-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.6), 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.9-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.7) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.10-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.8) 
3.  The written questions concerning the notifications of Australia  contained in documents 
(G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.7 - G/SCM/N/1/AUS/ 2/Suppl.5), (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.8 -
(G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.6), (G /ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.9-G/SCM /N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.7) can be 
found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/AUS/15-G/SCM/Q1/AUS/15 – Submitted by the United States ("US") 
 
4.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/AUS/16-G/SCM/Q1/AUS/16 – Replies to the US 
 
1.2  European Union ("EU") (G/ADP/N/1/EU/1) and (G/ADP/N/1/EU/2) 
5.  No written questions concerning the notifications of the EU were posed by any Member. 
1.3  New Zealand (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.4 – G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.4) 
6.   No written questions concerning the notification of New Zealand  were posed by any Member. 
1.4  Russian Federation (G/ADP/N/1/RUS/1-G/SCM/N/1/RUS/1-G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) 7.  The written questions concerning the notification of the Russian Federation  can be found in 
the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/RUS/1–G/SCM/Q1/RUS/1–G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 - Submitted by the US 
G/ADP/Q1/RUS/2–G/SCM/Q1/RUS/2–G/SG/Q1/RUS/2 - Submitted by Australia 
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines could be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/488-G/SCM/W/560-
G/SG/W/228. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
8.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
No written answers were received to date. 
 
1.5  Ukraine (G/ADP/N/1/UKR/1/Suppl.1–G/SCM/N/1/UKR/1/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/1/UKR/Suppl.1) & Corr. 1 
9.  The written questions concerning the notification of Ukraine  can be found in the following 
documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/UKR/9–G/SCM/Q1/UKR/9–G/SG/Q1/UKR/9 - Submitted by the US 
G/ADP/Q1/UKR/10–G/SCM/Q1/UKR/10–G/SG/ Q1/UKR/10 - Submitted by Australia 
 
10.  The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/UKR/11– G/SCM/Q1/UKR/11–G/SG/Q1/UKR/11 - Replies to the US 
G/ADP/Q1/UKR/12–G/SCM/Q1/UKR/12–G/SG/Q1/UKR/12 - Replies to Australia 
 
11.  On previously reviewed legislative notificati ons, the Chair indicated that in accordance with 
the procedures agreed upon by the Committee (G/ADP/W/284), Members desiring to put any 
previously-reviewed legislative notification on the agenda of this meeting for further review should 
have submitted questions in writing to the notifying Member and to the Secretariat not later than 11 March 2013. As this was not the case, this item was not placed on the agenda.   
12.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifica tions, from Australia, Cameroon, Chile, Morocco 
and the US along with any others received and circulated by the applicable deadlines2, would be on 
the agenda for review at the autumn Regular meeting of the Committee.    
13.  The Chair expressed concern that some Members had yet to submit a notification on 
legislation, particularly where all that could be required is a nil notification. The Chair encouraged 
all Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
14.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.35, the Chair invited Members that  had not done so to submit the information 
required by Article 16.5 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement (the "AD Agreement"), and encouraged 
Members to review and update previously submitted information where necessary. 
15.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
2  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-D UMPING ACTIONS (ARTILCE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/237) 
16.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the second half 
of 2012 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/237 and Suppl.1. He reminded those Members 
taking no anti-dumping ("AD") actions to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year. He 
clarified that this would not apply to those Members that had already submitted a one-time 
notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement.  
17.  The Chair noted that Members that had notified actions were identified in paragraph 1 of 
document G/ADP/N/237/Add.1. Paragraph 2 identified Members that had submitted nil notifications. Following the issuance of this document, Croatia has submitted a nil notification. 
Paragraph 5 listed Members that had submitted a one-time notification pursuant to the agreed 
format (G/ADP/19). The Secretariat had frequently expressed to the remaining Members eligible to use the format its full readiness to explain how to use it and to provide any necessary assistance 
to facilitate the submission of this notification . As of the date of the meeting, 37 Members had 
made such notifications.
3 Finally, a significant number of Members referred to in paragraphs 3 
                                               
2 Relevant deadlines could be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/488-G/SCM/W/560-
G/SG/W/228. 
3 G/ADP/N/193 document series. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 3 - 
 
  and 4 had not yet responded to the request for semi-annual reports. This notification requirement 
applied to all Members, whether or not they had taken AD actions during the period in question, except for those Members that had already submitted a one-time notification. Members were urged to comply with this important notification requirement. 
18.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual report s for the second half of 2012. No Member 
raised questions or made comments concerning the reports of Australia; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Egypt; Israel; Japan; Korea; Malaysia; Morocco; New Zealand; Peru; Chinese Taipei; 
Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine and Uruguay. 
19.  On the semi-annual report of Argentina , Chile indicated it would follow closely the 
two investigations initiated by Argentina on steel drums and self-adhesive sheets and film from 
Chile. It referred to its comments at the October 2012 Committee meeting on the preliminary 
determinations of dumping. The National Commission on Foreign Trade, the authority responsible 
for the determination of injury to the domestic industry and causal link, had not yet issued its preliminary determinations in these investigations, and no date had been set for the publication of 
those determinations. It added that the interested parties should be given enough time to submit 
their comments on the preliminary determinations prior to the publication of the final determinations. 
20.  Argentina took note of the questions, indi cated that it had conveyed them to capital and 
would provide responses in due course.  
21.  On the semi-annual report of Brazil , New Zealand referred to the review of anti-dumping 
duties ("ADDs") on milk powder from New Zealand concluded in February 2013, with ADDs being 
continued for additional five years. It subm itted that the standard of review under the 
A D  A g r e e m e n t  i n  t h e  c a s e  o f  s u n s e t  r e v i e w s ,  a l l o w i n g  f o r  A D D s  t o  b e  c o n t i n u e d  o n l y  i f  t h e i r  removal would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to 
the domestic industry producing like products, was not met in this case. No imports from 
New Zealand to Brazil took place in 2011, nor have there been any since 2007 and New Zealand's milk powders were not, nor have they been the cause of any material injury to Brazil's dairy 
sector. Rather, the major New Zealand dairy processor had established strategic relationships in 
Brazil to produce and supply dairy products there both for the domestic Brazilian market and for other export markets. It added that it would continue to work with Brazil to address its concerns pertaining to technical issues and to the need to maintain an open, rules-based, international 
trading system without recourse to protectionist measures.   
22.  Vietnam referred to the Brazilian investigation on stainless steel cold roll coil from Vietnam 
initiated on 13 April 2012 and scheduled to be completed on 14 October 2013. It made a 
submission to present its concerns, requested to  be excluded from the list of investigated 
countries, attended the public hearing held on 19 December 2012 and presented its views. It explained that business profits and sales of Brazil' s domestic stainless steel industry had actually 
increased during the period of investigation and the exports of the subject product to Brazil by 
Vietnamese companies was negligible, less than  3%, compared to other companies of major 
exporting countries. In previous AD cases, Brazil had excluded from the investigation countries with negligible volume such as in the case of viscose, GNO and LWC paper investigations. It 
reserved its right to submit further comments during the course of the investigation and indicated 
its openness to bilateral discussions with Brazil.   
23.  On New Zealand's questions, Brazil explained that in February 2013, Resolution CAMEX No. 2 
extended the AD measures on milk powder from the EU and New Zealand. All formal procedures 
were respected during the review and all interest ed parties and government representatives were 
immediately notified, given the opportunity to express their views and to consult with the 
investigating authority ("IA") in Brasilia. Althou gh questionnaires were sent to New Zealand's 
exporters requesting new information, no such information was received. The investigation complied with the national decree and with AD Agreement requirements. The current measure will remain in force for five years until February 2018 at which time Brazil will initiate its next sunset 
review.    
24.  On the questions from Vietnam, Brazil indica ted that it would analyze the information received 
during this investigation. It encouraged interested parties in Vietnam to fully cooperate with G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 4 - 
 
  the IA, expressed its readiness to receive any pertinent information during the legal period of the 
investigation and requested Vietnam to submit its questions in writing.   
25.  New Zealand noted that the continuation of an ADD required a determination that injury 
would continue to be caused by dumped imports,  and if there was no evidence that imports, 
dumped or not, would continue, there could be no evidence of any consequent injury.  
26.  On the semi-annual report of Canada , a written question was submitted by Chinese Taipei4 
prior to the meeting and reiterated orally at the meeting regarding the investigation on certain 
carbon steel welded pipes. 
27.  United Arab Emirates ("UAE") stated that the final dumping determination issued in this 
investigation by the Canadian Border Services Agency ("CBSA") on 9 December 2012 found that 
the subject goods exported by one of the UAE ex porters to Canada were not dumped, while those 
exported by two other exporters were. The CBSA did not terminate the investigation with respect 
to the exporter found not dumping, but included the exporter with a zero per cent duty rate in the AD order with respect to all UAE exporters on th e base of an overall country margin of dumping 
which subjected this exporter to administrative and changed circumstances reviews. Following the 
final determination of the Canada International Tribunal ("CITT") on 11 December 2012, the CBSA initiated on 7 January 2013 a re-investigation of norm al values and export prices of certain carbon 
steel welded pipe from inter alia  the UAE, including the exporter with a zero dumping margin. The 
Panel and Appellate Body ("AB") in Mexico – AD Measures on Beef and Rice  rejected this approach 
and emphasized that the term margin of dumping in the AD Agreement referred to individual and 
company-specific margins of dumping and therefore exporters for which a de minimis margin of 
dumping had been determined should be excluded from the AD order and it would follow that the 
exporter with a margin of dumping of below de minimis  should not be subject to administrative or 
changed circumstances reviews. On the CBSA initiation of a re-investigation of normal values, it 
requested Canada to clarify how this re-investiga tion was warranted and how it complied with its 
obligations under Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement,  especially since a re-investigation of normal 
values was initiated less than one month from the date of the CITT's final determination which was 
not Canada's usual practice regarding re-investigations. It also inquired whether including a 
UAE exporter with a zero margin of dumping in  the re-investigation was in conformity with 
Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement.   
28.  Canada submitted that administrative reviews were allowed under the AD Agreement and that 
exporters could, during such reviews, submit in formation allowing the IA to update the normal 
values and export prices of the subject products in a manner that would reflect market conditions. Canada conducted its own research and took numerous factors into consideration when 
determining whether to initiate a review. One of the reasons a review was initiated in that case 
was that representations were received from exporters indicating that selling prices of the subject product had significantly changed since the end of the original investigation period. In response to 
the question posed by Chinese Taipei and supported  by the UAE, Canada indicated that it would 
provide a written answer.
5  
29.  On the semi-annual report of China , Japan referred to China’s investigation on M-
dihydroxybenzene or resorcinol exported from Japan and the US. China initiated this investigation 
on 23 March 2012 and made an affirmative determination on 22 March 2013. During the 
investigation period, there was no significant increase in imports and the market share of the imports had dropped. The import price had been higher than the Chinese domestic price all 
through the investigation period and the increase of  the import price had been lower than that of 
the Chinese domestic price. The Chinese mark et was growing and domestic production was 
increasing more than the rate of market grow th. Nevertheless, the Chinese authorities found 
material injury caused by the subject imports which raised concerns pertaining to its consistency 
with Article 3 of the AD Agreement. The interested parties faced difficulties in understanding the grounds for the IA's decisions due to the lack of  transparency. Japan urged China to reconsider 
and rectify the determination in this case, and to take that into account upon conducting future 
investigations. 
                                               
4 G/ADP/Q2/CAN/1. 
5 G/ADP/Q2/CAN/2. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 5 - 
 
  30.  China explained that it had provided full  responses to all the arguments submitted by 
interested parties and that the investigation was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The 
price effect, injury and casual link analyses were fully explained in the final determination. The final measure would also be notified in due course. The rights of the Japanese Government and 
enterprises were fully safeguarded in this investigation as China provided to all interested parties 
public versions of all submissions and arguments. The IA also held public hearings for all interested parties. One  Japanese enterprise applied for a public hearing, but the applicant refused to attend 
such a hearing. Upon the request of that enterpri se, it held a meeting with the IA at which the 
latter entertained the enterprise's arguments. Two months following the preliminary determination, the same Japanese enterprise requested another public hearing. Although the investigation was approaching its end, the IA held the requested hearing which was attended by 
the requesting enterprise, Japanese Government officials and domestic users. This investigation 
was thus conducted in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations and WTO rules.    
31.  On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic , Turkey referred to the definitive 
measure of 13 June 2011 on steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in Turkey. 
It also referred to the Committee's meeting on 23 April 2012 at which it raised this issue. A number of procedural errors had occurred during  the investigation and the allegations brought 
were deficient and lacked relevant evidence to initiate an investigation contrary to Articles 5.2, 5.3 
and 6.5 of the AD Agreement. The IA violated Article 7.1.(iii) of the AD Agreement in its 
determination of the provisional ADD, acted inconsistently with the non-attribution principles under Article 3.5, and violated Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 9. 3 of the AD Agreement through the imposition of 
country-wide definitive measures in spite of the fact that one of the cooperating parties had a 
negative 0.49% dumping margin. It requested revocation of the definitive AD measures. It reminded the Dominican Republic of its written question in document G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1 on 
19 October 2011 which remained unanswered. 
32.  The Dominican Republic stated that it had conducted an open and transparent procedure 
where a hearing was held, interested parties were given the opportunity to participate and review 
all the documents. Also, a special meeting was held with Turkey. Written answers would be 
provided to the questions posed soon. 
33.  On the semi-annual report of the EU, written questions were submitted by the 
Russian Federation6 prior to the meeting and reiterated orally at the meeting regarding the final 
decision of the interim review on seamless pipes and tubes. 
34.  The US indicated that it had been involved as a respondent in the investigation on bioethanol 
from its inception and had raised concerns ranging from the imposition of a country-wide margin, 
the use of facts available, a lack of sufficient o pportunity for respondents to defend their interests 
– including the failure to disclose the basis for the Commission's calculations –, to concerns regarding the Commission's injury analysis. It wa s disappointed with the imposition of the ADDs 
and the failure to either resolve or properly address the number of significant procedural and 
methodological issues raised throughout the investigation.  
35.  On the US' questions, the EU requested to re ceive the questions in writing. On the questions 
of the Russian Federation, the EU summarized its consistent practice regarding the determination 
of the normal value applied in all investigations, including this one. The IA would first establish if 
there were sufficient domestic sales of the product under investigation in the domestic market of the country concerned. If so, the IA would assess whether the domestic sales were made in the 
ordinary course of trade. The IA would then compar e the domestic selling price to the total cost of 
production. The cost of production could be esta blished based on the records kept by the parties 
subject to the investigation. However, in cases where the records had not reasonably reflected the 
cost of production, such records would not serve as a basis for calculating the normal value. 
Consequently, the EU's Basic Regulation provided that costs would be adjusted or established based on sources of information other than those records, such as the costs incurred by other producers/exporters or on the basis of information from other representative markets.  
36.  On the production costs, the EU indicate d that it examined whether such costs were 
reasonably reflected in the records of the party under investigation. It was found that the domestic price paid by the exporters/producers was around one third of the export price of natural gas for 
                                               
6 G/ADP/Q2/EU/1. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 6 - 
 
  the Russian Federation. In this regard, all availabl e data indicated that domestic gas prices in the 
Russian Federation were regulated prices which were far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas. Thus, gas prices were not reasonably reflected in the exporters/producers records and had to be adjusted. In the absence of any sufficiently representative undistorted gas 
prices related to the Russian domestic market , it was considered appropriate to base the 
adjustment on the information from representative markets. The adjusted price was thus based on the average price of the Russian gas sold for ex ports at the German-Czech border, the Waidhaus, 
adjusted for local distribution costs. The Waidhaus was a representative market as it has been the 
hub for Russian gas sales to the EU and had prices reasonably reflecting costs. The provisions of the EU's Basic Regulation which were the legal basis for this methodology, were challenged by several Russian exporters over the past years, bu t the judgement rendered by the European Court 
of Justice in February 2013 entirely confirmed the EU's practice.   
37.  On how such comparison would correspond to the market economy status of the Russian 
Federation in the WTO, the EU clarified that the methodology applied for non-market economy 
countries was completely different with different legal basis, namely Article 2.7 of the EU's Basic 
Regulation. In the case in question, the normal value was not established on the basis of that article. On the evidence used by the IA to prove the regulatory status of the prices for natural gas 
in the Russian Federation, the EU pointed out that such evidence was disclosed to the parties 
concerned and expressed readiness to examine al l evidence which the Russian Federation would 
present in order to demonstrate that prices of natural gas in the Russian Federation were the result of free market forces.  
38.  On the enlargement of the product scope, th e party subject to the review failed to report 
correctly some exports sales of the product under investigation because it considered that those sales would not fall under that scope. However, the IA considered that such exports sales were 
indeed covered by the product scope as set out in the initial investigation. The IA had just 
corrected the misclassification of those exports by taking them into account in the dumping calculations. The EU also would provide written answers to the written questions at a later stage.  
39.  Australia indicated that it was not in a position to comment on the specific case at hand, but 
wished to confirm that Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement identifies certain circumstances where 
sales may not be made in the ordinary course of trade, including because of the particular market situation. This had been discussed in the contex t of Jamaica’s paper submitted to the Working 
Group on Implementation. 
40.  On the semi-annual report of India , written questions were submitted by the 
Russian Federation
7 prior to the meeting. India submitted written answers to these questions and 
recited them orally at the meeting.8   
41.  The Russian Federation indicated that it ha d received the answers and expressed readiness to 
continue consultations on a bilateral level.  
42.  The US expressed serious concerns about India's AD investigation on imports of solar 
products from the US, particularly procedural lapses in the investigation process. It quoted 
Article 12.1 and in part Article 6.1.3 of the AD Ag reement and indicated that despite this language, 
it took repeated requests by the US to obtain  further information and documentation regarding 
this investigation. On 16 January 2013, nearly two mo nths after the actual initiation, India notified 
the US of the initiation. The delay gave the impression that India was intentionally avoiding its responsibility to conduct a transparent investigation and make case documents promptly available 
to parties to the investigation, as well as to relevant exporting Member States. It also observed 
similar instances of untimely notifications in other AD investigations. It referred to an investigation initiated by India on imports of dichloromethane,  or methylene chloride from the US where India 
did not officially notify the initiation of the investigation to the US upon initiation, nor did India 
provide a copy of the non-confidential petition to the US. This might reflect a broader problem inherent in the administration of India's trade remedy laws. India should carefully consider and review these systemic lapses and take immediate action to effectively address these concerns.  
                                               
7 G/ADP/Q2/IND/13. 
8 G/ADP/Q2/IND/15. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 7 - 
 
  43.  Turkey indicated that India initiated an AD investigation regarding imports of soda ash on 
10 February 2012 and that the official document including the views of Turkey regarding the 
investigation was submitted to India on 12 June 2012. Turkey attended a hearing on 
3 January 2013 in New Delhi. On 9 February 2013, India took a final decision to impose an 
additional duty of 18,39$/ton – 75,16$/ton on impo rts of soda ash. The final disclosure statement 
did not meet the criteria for imposition of an AD measure, as it lacked relevant evidence on the existence of any dumped imports from Turkey, mate rial injury to the domestic industry and the 
causal link. Turkey would follow this investigation closely and reserved all its rights under the 
relevant WTO Agreements. 
44.  Norway indicated that it had similar problems  as those indicated by the Russian Federation in 
the case of caustic soda from Norway.   
45.  The UAE posed two questions. First, it referred to the definitive ADDs imposed by India since 
13 March 2008 on compact disc recordable from th e UAE, and requested information regarding the 
status of these duties and whether they were terminated in March 2013 or if a sunset review had 
been initiated. On the sunset review initiated on 9 April 2012 on white cement from the UAE, it 
requested India to provide information concerning the status of this investigation and whether preliminary or final findings were made in April 2013. It also inquired as to why it had not received 
any information during the review.  
46.  Japan acknowledged receipt of India's answers
9 to its questions10 and indicated that it would 
thoroughly examine them. It pointed out that in In dia’s answer to question 1, there seemed to be 
a discrepancy pertaining to the date of receipt of the final findings in case of melamine and that it 
would check with the Japanese Embassy in New Delhi in this regard. It strongly requested India to 
ensure that non-delivery of disclosure documents that occurred in case of acetone, phenol and 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane would never happen in future. It also suggested that India notify the 
Japanese Embassy in New Delhi that it would be sending disclosure documents before those 
documents were actually mailed, as a useful practice followed by other Members. 
47.  On the question by Japan regarding melami ne, India explained that the disclosure statement 
was dispatched by Speed Post to the Embassy of Japan in India on 17 May 2012, i.e., well before 
the issuance of the final findings and was rece ived by the Embassy on 18 May 2012. It requested 
Japan to check with its Embassy in New Delhi and expressed its readiness to discuss bilaterally means of ameliorating the system . On the questions of the UAE,  it requested to receive the 
questions in writing. On the issues raised by Turkey, it requested to receive specific questions and 
to further discuss these issues bilaterally. It also took note of the issues raised by the US and the 
advance written questions sent to India on a bilateral basis before the meeting, but answers were 
still being formulated in capital. On a preliminary basis, it indicated that detailed public notices in 
both cases referred to by the US were published pursuant to Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement 
and were also made available on the Department's website and that notifications under 
Article 16.4 were made in both cases as well. All its investigations were conducted in a transparent 
manner as required by the AD Agreement and it had always taken its obligations under this agreement and under its own domestic law seriously.  
48.  On the semi-annual report of Mexico , Chile at the October 2012 Committee meeting 
consulted with Mexico concerning the review procedures pertaining to the importation of 
mushrooms of the genus agaricus from Chile and China which led to the publication of final measures on 25 October 2012. It appreciated Mexico 's replies on that occasion which, together 
with the background information provided with the Resolution, had shed some light on the 
procedure used. However, Chile still had doubts regarding the procedures followed and requested 
further clarification. It first referred to the ex officio review corresponding to the procedure laid 
down in Article 70.I of the Foreign Trade Act ("LC E") which stated: "An annual review process, at 
request of an interested party or ex-officio, to evaluate both the degree of price discrimination or 
the amount of the subsidies and the injury". It no ted that the Regulations to the Foreign Trade Act 
("RLCE") stated in paragraph 99 that "[i]n carrying out the review of the final countervailing 
duties, the substantive and procedural provisions contained in the Act and in these Regulations 
shall be observed, together with those relating to the initiation of proceedings, preliminary resolution, final resolution, conciliation meeting, countervailing duties …". In this investigation, to 
                                               
9 G/ADP/Q2/IND/14. 
10 G/ADP/Q2/IND/12. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 8 - 
 
  calculate the price discrimination margin, the IA relied on Chile's export prices to a third market, 
given that there were no exports from Chile to Mexico during the investigation period. It added that the original measure, applied in 2006, had pu t an end to Chile's exports to Mexico, as the 
Resolution itself pointed out. However, paragraph 30 of the LCE stated that importation under 
conditions of price discrimination consisted in the introduction of goods into the national territory 
at less than their normal value. Chile referred to Mexico's argument that it had used that method at the request of the exporter, but considered that the method used to determine the price 
discrimination margin – which was subsequently used to determine the duty – conflicted with the 
LCE as regards ex-officio reviews in that it had not met the condition of introduction of goods into the national territory. 
49.  As regards the review, Article 70.II of the LCE described it as follows: "An ex officio review of 
the countervailing duty in effect, to determine whether termination of the duty would lead to the 
continuation or recurrence of the unfair practice". In this connection, Chile indicated that the review under Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement in  Article 70.II of the LCE would not require the 
calculation of the dumping margins to determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. However, when relying on dumping margins for the purposes of the review, the calculation should conform to the provisions of the AD Agreement. It also referred to 
Paragraph 127 of the AB Report in United States  - Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (DS244). In this case, the review determined a price discrimination margin of 0.3712 dollars per kilogram which was used to determine a final duty of the same amount for all imports from Chile of a value exceeding 
2.05 dollars per kilogram. This duty would be in force until 2016. The initial determination in force 
from 2006 to 2011 was 0.1443 dollars per kilogram, less than half of what was determined in this 
case, and it led to the cessation of exports from Chile to Mexico of the product in question. Chile 
requested Mexico for a clarification regarding the procedures which led to the definitive 
AD measure notified in this case, and in particul ar, it inquired whether Mexico had often generally 
used the described method and what the legal basis for it was. 
50.  Mexico confirmed that the methodology used in  this investigation to determine the margin of 
dumping had neither violated the provisions of the LCE, nor those of the AD Agreement. It 
rejected Chile's arguments that as Chile had no exports of the subject product during the review period, Mexico had violated the conditions set in Article 3.30 of that law which necessitated the 
introduction of goods into Mexico's territory at a lower price than normal. This article had not 
stipulated that a margin of dumping could not be calculated during a review unless there were such imports. This article actually defined imports in case of price discrimination. If there were no 
export price because there were no imports, the ap plicable article of the law would be Article 35. 
This article stipulated that when an export price could not be obtained or relied upon, it could be calculated on a reasonable basis as determined by the IA. As per the final determination, the 
methodology to calculate the export price based on the sales of Chile to Venezuela was proposed 
by the Chilean exporters themselves and the IA  f o u n d  i t  t o  b e  r e a s o n a b l e .  T h e  r e v i e w  w a s  
concluded and a reference price, which actually favoured the Chilean exporters and which was significantly lower than the one suggested by the Ch ilean authorities, was calculated. This provided 
the possibility of paying lower ADDs or even none  at all. The approach taken in these proceedings, 
as well as all other proceedings, was completely op en and responsive to the concerns and requests 
of the exporters. Mexico was ready to bilaterall y discuss this issue, if Chile so requested.  
51.  On the semi-annual report of Pakistan , the UAE  raised questions regarding the 
AD investigation on bixially oriented poly propylene film ("BOPP film") originating in or exported 
from China, Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It noticed that Pakistan's semi-annual 
report omitted to cite the UAE among the subject countries and requested Pakistan to revise its 
semi-annual report accordingly. It expressed serious concerns over compliance of the proceedings with the AD Agreement. On 27 September 2010, the National Tariff commission ("NTC") issued the 
notice of initiation. While the investigation was under way, an importer filed a written petition with 
the Islamabad High Court ("IHC") which issued, on  6 July 2011, a stay order on the proceedings. 
On 6 March 2012, the IHC directed that the earlier initiation "is not passed by the properly 
constituted Commission"  and concluded that the decision to initiate was "void ab initio". On 
23 April 2012, the NTC reinitiated the AD investigation and on 27 April 2012 addressed a letter to 
the UAE exporters to inform them of the re-initiation pursuant to the IHC order. The NTC proceeded with the same complaint pending before it since April 2010 and retained the 
same period of investigation ("POI") for the determination of dumping from 1 January 2009 to 
30 June 2010.  G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 9 - 
 
  52.   On 14 August 2012, the NTC issued its notice imposing provisional ADDs on imports of BOPP 
film and issued on 7 February 2013 its final determination notice confirming the preliminary determination. The UAE quoted Articles 3.1 and 5.3 of the AD Agreement. It also indicated that the Panel and AB reports in Mexico – AD Measures on Beef and Rice  confirmed that the 15 months gap 
between the end of the period of the investigation and the initiation of the investigation was 
sufficiently long as to impugn the reliability of the period of the investigation to deliver, for the purposes of a determination, evidence that had to requisite pertinence or relevance, thereby failing 
to meet the criterion of positive evidence pursua nt to Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement. It also 
referred to the Committee's Recommendation adopted on 5 May 2000 on periods of data collection for AD investigations.
11  
53.  It requested Pakistan to explain in writing how using a POI which ended more than 20 months 
prior to the initiation of the investigation would be consistent with Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, 
how using a period of 18 months to collect data  for the dumping determination would implement 
the Committee's Recommendation on periods of data collection, why the NTC used a period of 
18 months for the dumping determination, especially that it had been Pakistan's unusual practice 
to select a period of 18 months and how the NTC complied with its obligations under Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement having proceeded with the same complaint pending before it since April 2010.  
54.  Pakistan indicated that not referring to the UAE as one of the countries targeted by the 
investigation on BOPP film was a clerical error. On using a POI which ended more than 20 months 
prior to the initiation of the investigation, it explained that when the stay order granted by the IHC was released, the IHC protected the application and stated that the investigation should be based 
on the same application. Thus, the IA could not change the POI or use a more recent period. As to 
whether using a period of 18 months to collect data for the dumping determination contradicted the Committee's Recommendation on periods of data collection, Pakistan explained 
that as the 12-month period referred to in this recommendation was qualified by the word 
"normally", longer or shorter periods could be used. All the other concerns raised by the UAE have been addressed in the final determination report. It also requested to receive the questions in 
writing.  
55.  The UAE confirmed that it would send its questions to Pakistan in writing.  
56.  On the semi-annual report of the Russian Federation , Turkey indicated that the 
Russian Federation initiated an anti-dumping investigation on 16 November 2011 against the 
imports of LCVs originating in Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey. The document including the 
official views of Turkey were su bmitted to the Russian Federation through diplomatic channels on 
14 February 2012. In addition, Turkey participated  in the public hearing held on 22 March 2012 in 
Moscow and presented Turkey’s views on this investigation. On 28 March 2013, the Department 
for Internal Market Defense of the Eurasian Economic Commission (the DIMD) published the Final Determination Report containing the findings. As an interested party, Turkey would submit its 
official views regarding the Report in the near fu ture. Turkey submitted that this investigation did 
not meet the criteria for the imposition of an AD measure, as it lacked relevant evidence on the 
existence of any dumped imports from Turkey, mate rial injury to the domestic industry and the 
causal link within the context of the related rulings of panels and AB in specific disputes. It 
requested the DIMD to terminate the ongoing AD investigation without imposing any definitive 
measure, underlined that that it would follow this investigation closely and reserved all its rights under the WTO Agreements.  
57.  The Russian Federation submitted that the righ ts of interested parties were respected in this 
investigation. Turkey had provided all replies to the questionnaires and the calculations and 
analysis made as well as the conclusion reached by  the IA on the dumping side were based on the 
data provided by the sole Turkish producer/e xporter. On the questions of procedural and 
substantive nature, it indicated that the final determination report had not yet been published and that it was still analysing all the comments and submissions by interested parties which were received in response to the disclosure of facts and that all such comments/arguments would be 
addressed in that report.  
58.  On the semi-annual report of South Africa , the US indicated that it continued to have 
concerns regarding  South Africa's AD measure on chicken imports from the US which it had raised 
                                               
11 G/ADP/6. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 10 - 
 
  on numerous occasions at the Committee. In May 2012, South Africa's High Court upheld the 2007 
Supreme Court of Appeals finding that the ADDs on twelve products, including those on the US' 
imports of frozen chicken meat and acetaminophenol, had lapsed since sunset reviews on each of the affected products were not initiated in time to maintain the duties beyond the original five year 
period. Given this ruling, it requested South Afri ca to explain the steps the International Trade 
Administration Commission ("ITAC") had taken to implement the High Court's decision and whether it intended to revoke the AD measures.     
59.  South Africa explained that having perused recent Committee minutes it could not find trace 
of this issue having been raised by the US in the Committee for the last four Committee meetings 
over the preceding two years. South Africa and th e US had on a number of occasions, via ITAC in 
Pretoria and in certain bilateral consultations outside this Committee, responded to concerns raised 
by the US. On each occasion, South Africa explained that US chicken producers had neither 
participated in the original investigation, nor in subsequent sunset reviews. This issue had a long legal history in South Africa's courts. With regard to the latest judgment by the South African High 
Court, there was some misunderstanding as to the implications of the finding of the court. ITAC 
had approached the High Court to obtain a declaratory order regarding the legal status of various ADDs flowing from the earlier 2007 judgment. The declaratory court order handed down upheld all 
of ITAC's requests. It declared all the subject du ties in issue invalid but suspended this decision 
with retrospective effect to allow ITAC and the Minister to rectify the situation by conducting sunset reviews to make new determinations pertaining to the likelihood of dumping and injury continuing or recurring, should the duties expire. All sunset reviews on these affected products 
were completed by ITAC and where applicable, duties were introduced for a further 5 years. This 
was the case for chicken exports from the US due to their producers' non-participation and as a result of the finding of continuation or recurre nce of dumping and injury if the duties were 
removed. It expressed readiness to discuss an y further queries on this issue bilaterally. 
60.  On the semi-annual report of the  US, Japan  submitted that the US had 13 measures in force 
against Japanese products. Five measures were more than 20 years old, and the existing oldest 
measure was more than 34 years old, dating back to 1978. With regard to the 17 year-old clad 
steel plate measure, which underwent its third sunset review recently, the United States International Trade Commission ("USITC") made an affirmative decision and the measure was extended for another five years. It referred to the views of the USITC and the separate and 
dissenting views of two Commissioners, though base d on the same data and facts; they reached 
completely opposite conclusions. One was that the imports from Japan were likely to increase significantly once the measure is revoked, while the other indicated that it was unlikely that 
Japanese producers would significantly increase exports to the US. This might indicate that sunset 
reviews had their natural propensity to end up in a simple roll over. The average length of 
US' measures against Japanese exports had been 18 years. It requested the US to swiftly revoke 
these unjustifiably long measures. 
61.  The US saw no basis for Japan's chronic comp laints and confirmed that the expiry proceedings 
conducted by the US were consistent with its ob ligations under the AD Agreement. It disagreed 
that the older measure would no longer be valid solely on the ground that the measure was old. 
The purpose of an expiry proceeding was to allo w the IA to examine whether dumping and injury 
would be likely to continue or recur if the meas ures were removed. The US' expiry process was 
evidentiary-based and participation by Japanese companies in the expiry proceedings was helpful 
both in terms of the relevant information to be provided and the arguments to be made by 
interested parties. Since the commencement of expiry reviews, there had been 64 measures reviewed involving Japan, of those 51, or 80%, had resulted in termination of the measure.  
62.  For the oldest measures in effect on prestressed concrete steel wire strand and carbon steel 
butt-weld pipe fittings, the Japanese industry has failed to meaningfully participate in any sunset review proceeding. Lack of respondents' partic ipation, and the consequent lack of evidence 
provided by respondents, would limit the informatio n available to the authorities. In many of the 
expiry processes that included both Japan and other Members, respondents from the other 
Members had participated in the review and made relevant arguments as to why the measure should be terminated as to their specific country and the measure had been terminated. It 
suggested that Japan inquire with its own industries as to why there was a lack of interest in 
participating in the process, particularly given that participation had been a vital element in the termination of other Members' measures that also included Japan.  G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 11 - 
 
  63.  With regard to the participation in sunset reviews, Japan explained that this issue was 
discussed with Japanese industries, and they had sometimes participated in the USITC reviews, 
but it was difficult for them to do so for the United States Department of Commerce’s ("USDOC") review for various reasons. First, it seemed that there had been no case revoked upon the 
USDOC's decision that revocation would not be likely to lead to continuation and recurrence of 
dumping. Long lasting measures were revoked either because the USITC found no likelihood of continuation and recurrence of injury, or the US domestic industry had not expressed interest in 
continuing the measure. Second, in spite of its low probability for successful revocation, the cost of 
participating in the US sunset reviews was very high for the responding industries, especially after having almost no exports to the US market for many years. It requested the US to take steps to resolve these issues.   
64.  The Chair opened the floor for comments with respect to the semi-annual report of the 
Russian Federation12 covering the period January–June 2012. No Member took the floor. 
65.  The Chair drew Members attention to document G/ADP/Q2/IDN/4 containing the questions 
posed by the Russian Federation to the previously reviewed semi-annual report of Indonesia 
contained in document G/ADP/N/230/IDN.   
66.  Indonesia indicated that it was not in a position to answer the questions posed and that it 
would provide answers once received from capital.  67.  Japan urged Indonesia, as a frequent user of AD measures, to submit its semi-annual report 
for the period July – December 2012 as soon as possible. It also expressed serious concerns with 
regard to Indonesia’s recent decision to impose ADD on cold rolled coil/sheet from Japan. This 
Japanese product was a fine-controlled product, qualified with strict specifications which were 
indispensable for the automobile and electrical & electronics industries operating in Indonesia and 
that the Japanese exports formed a very important part of the global value chain. It reiterated that 
domestic steel manufacturers in Indonesia would not meet such high quality and stringent 
specifications required from user industries. Thus, the exports from Japan hardly compete with the domestic products of Indonesia, and consequently, would not cause material injury to Indonesian 
industries. It regretted that in spite of its concerns expressed in this Committee and bilaterally, the 
IA made an affirmative decision on 21 December 2012, and the Ministry of Finance of Indonesia issued a public notice to impose the ADDs on 19 March 2013. It strongly requested Indonesia to reconsider and rectify its decision. 
68.  The Chair also opened the floor for comments regarding any other report which had not 
previously been reviewed. No Member took the floor. 
69.  The Chair noted that in connection with its move away from paper documentation, the 
Secretariat has begun exploring what would be involved in establishing an on-line system for 
submitting semi-annual reports, which Members could use if they so wished. Systems of this sort have been and are in the process of being establis hed for notifications in other areas of the WTO. 
The Secretariat would keep Members informed of its efforts in this regard. 
70.  The Committee took note of the semi-annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided. 
3  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ATIONS 
71.  The Chair referred to the no tifications of preliminary and final AD actions submitted by 
Members since the Committee's last meeting listed in documents G/ADP/N/235, G/ADP/N/236, 
G/ADP/N/238, G/ADP/N/239, G/ADP/N/240 and G/ADP/N/241. During this period, Argentina; 
Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Egypt; the EU; India; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Mexico; Morocco; 
Pakistan; Peru; the Russian Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey and the US had notified preliminary and/or final AD actions. Since document G/ADP/N/241 had been circulated, 
Argentina; Brazil; Chile; the EU; India; Mexico; Peru, South Africa; Turkey and the US had 
submitted additional notifications, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
                                               
12 G/ADP/N/230/RUS. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 12 - 
 
  72.  The Chair drew Members' attention to the cont inued apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement. These reports were a key element of the required transparency concerning Members' AD actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations. All Members taking AD actions were strongly 
urged to notify their preliminary and final actions, consistently and in a timely fashion. The 
minimum information format
13 contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information which should be provided. 
73.  Turkey indicated that Morocco  initiated an AD investigation regarding imports of hot rolled 
steel sheets on 21 January 2013. It explained that  it had been following the investigation and 
would submit its official views regarding the non-confidential version of the complaint and the initiation of the investigation to Morocco soon. The complaint had not met the criteria for the 
i m p o s i t i o n  o f  a n  A D  m e a s u r e ,  a s  p u r s u a n t  t o  A r ticle 3 of the AD Agreement it lacked relevant 
evidence on significant increase in volume of allegedly dumped imports, existence of a material injury to the domestic industry and a causal li nk. It requested Morocco to terminate the ongoing 
AD investigation without the imposition of definitive measures. It reserved its rights under the 
relevant WTO Agreements.  
74.  Morocco requested to receive Turkey's observations in writing. It referred to document 
G/ADP/N/240 where two actions were reported to have been taken by Morocco on polyvinyl (PVC) 
chloride and on hot-rolled steel sheets from Turl ey and the EU. It emphasized that both actions 
pertained to initiations and not to preliminary measures imposed.   
75.  The Chair clarified that ad hoc notifications should cover all actions taken, not only preliminary 
and final measures, but also initiations and that was why these two initiations were included in 
that document. He directed Members that have questions in this respect to contact the Secretariat.   
76.  Korea referred to documents G/ADP/N/239 and G/ADP/N/240 on the US's imposition of ADDs 
on large residential washers from Korea. It explai ned that Korean manufacturers of these products 
have substantial commercial interest in this matter and that it would continue to monitor it closely and pursue further discussions with the US in due course.   
77.  The Chair drew attention to the fact that some Members were still submitting the same ad hoc 
notifications pertaining to certain AD actions via different means; i.e. electronically, by fax and 
post. In certain instances, certain Members, while submitting new Ad hoc notifications, would also tend to resubmit previously notified actions and in some cases provide electronic links that do not 
correspond to the notification the Member submitted.  In addition, some of these notifications were 
not submitted to CRN directly, but to the Rules Division Secretariat which had to resend it to CRN for registration. He reminded all Members that a gi ven Ad hoc notification, as in case of all other 
notifications, should be sent electronically and only once to CRN with a copy to the Secretary of 
the Committee and that any previously submitted noti fications should not be resubmitted. He also 
requested Members to verify the electronic links pr ovided to the Secretariat to make sure it would 
correspond to the notification submitted. He emphasized the need to avoid any confusion; 
repetition or duplication as these notifications, which are circulated in monthly documents developed by the Secretariat, are the source of necessary information contained in Annex D of the Committee's annual report. 
78.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
4  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTICIRCUMVENTION  
79.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 24 April 2013 and that no new papers were 
submitted for discussion. Members agreed that work in the Group should continue along the same 
lines as had been the case to date.14  
80.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
                                               
13 G/ADP/2/Rev.2.   
14 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the autumn 2013 meeting could be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/488-G/SCM/W/560-G/SG/W/228. G/ADP/M/44 
 
- 13 - 
 
  5  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTION  
81.  The Chair indicated that the Group had met on 24 April 2013 and that there were two papers 
on the agenda of the meeting submitted by Jamaica.  The first was entitled "Article 5.3 – Accuracy 
and Adequacy Test, while the second was entitled "Article 2.2 – Export Price to a Third Country or 
Constructed Normal Value". With respect to both papers, Jamaica made detailed introductory 
remarks, followed by a questions and answers se ssion that addressed a wide range of issues 
contained in each paper. Some Members also took the opportunity to explain their practices on 
similar issues. At the autumn meeting of the Group in October 2013, the Group would continue 
discussing Jamaica's two papers. The Chair encouraged other Members to submit papers on the nine topics currently under discussion in the Group.
15  
82.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
6  RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON THE NOTIFCIATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS BY 
INDONESIA – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES 
83.  The US noted that on 1 October 2012, it submitted written questions to Indonesia with 
respect to its notification of Regulation 34. To date, Indonesia had not issued a written response. 
It looked forward to receiving Indonesia's written responses to these questions. 
84.  Indonesia indicated that it was not in a position to answer the questions posed and that it 
would provide answers once received from capital.  85.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
7  OTHER BUSINESS 86.  No Member raised any issue under this item. The Chair encouraged Members that had issues 
to raise with other Members under other business to provide sufficient notice to the Member 
concerned prior to the meeting in order to ensu re that an answer could be provided at the 
meeting. 
8  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
87.  On the date of the next autumn meeting, which was proposed to be held in the week of 
14 October 2013, Egypt, Jordan, the Kingdom of Sa udi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey noted that the 
meeting would fall during the Islamic Eid-Al-Adha week which would make it difficult for their 
experts to travel to Geneva. The Chair explained th at in the context of preparations for the Bali 
Ministerial Conference, this week was proposed as the CTG, to which the Rules Committees' annual reports are submitted, will hold its last meeting of the year on 18 October 2013.
16 
9  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
88.  The Committee elected by acclamation Ms Parima Damrithamanji (Thailand) as Chair and 
Ms. Alana Hudson (New Zealand) as Vice-Chair to hold office until the end of the Committee's 
spring meeting of 2014.    
 
__________  
                                               
15 Relevant deadlines pertaining to the autumn 2013 meeting could be found in section 4 of document 
G/ADP/W/488-G/SCM/W/560-G/SG/W/228. 
16 Following the meeting, a joint fax dated 26 April 2013 from the Chairs of the Committees on Anti-
Dumping Practices, Subsidies and Coun tervailing Measures and Safeguards was sent to all Members indicating 
that the meeting of these Committees shall be held in the week of 21 October 2013.