RESTRICTED  
  
G/ADP/M/49  
 
9 February 2016  
(16-0831)  Page: 1/20  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 2015 
CHAIR: MR HAMED EL ETREBY (EGYPT) 
1.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
28 October 2015.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/ADP/4: 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVI EW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR 
AMENDED LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIO USLY REVI EWED) .................................................................... 2
 
1.1   Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Su ppl.14-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.12) ................................ 2  
1.2   Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/3-G /SCM/N/1/QAT/3-G/SG/N/1/QAT/3) ....................................... 2  
1.3   US (G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.19-G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.19), 
(G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.20-G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.20), (G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.21-
G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.21) and (G/ADP/N/USA/ 1/Suppl.22-G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.22) .............. 2  
1.4   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) ................................................................................................. 2  
2   SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/272)............................................................................................................... 3  
3   PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ................................................ 16  
4   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 18  
5   DATE OF THE NEXT  REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................... 20  
6   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)............... 20  
 
3.  The Chair made a brief statement regarding th e Informal Group on Anti -Circumvention and the 
Working Group on Implementation.  
4.  On the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention , and as per the new approach agreed upon 
by the Committee, the Chair indicated that the Gr oup would not hold its meeting this time around 
as no new papers were submitted for discussion, nor had any Member requested the meeting to take place. He recalled that Members wishing to ha ve the meeting should either submit papers by 
the deadline of 14 March 2016 or request that the meeting be held by the relevant deadline 
announced in the next annotated draft agenda.   
5.  On the Working Group on Implementation , the Chair stated that in order to optimize the 
use of time available, the Group would meet immediately following the Committee meeting to 
discuss the topic of administrative, arbitral and judicial review under Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (the "AD Agreement").     G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 2 - 
 
  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/Su ppl.14-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.12)  
6.  The written questions concerning the notification of Australia contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 can be found in 
the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/17–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/17 - Submitted by the United States ("US")  
 7.  In addition to the oral introduction and su m m a r y  o f  a n s w e r s   p r o v i d e d  b y  A u s t r a l i a  a t  t h e  
meeting, the written answers to these questions, received on 20 October 2015, can be found in 
the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/18–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/18 - Replies to the US 
 
1.2  Qatar (G/ADP/N/1/QAT/3-G/SCM/N/1/QAT/3-G/SG/N/1/QAT/3) 
8.  Qatar made a brief introductory statement. No oral or written questions concerning the 
notification of Qatar  were posed by any Member. 
1.3  US (G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.19-G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.19), 
(G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.20-G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.20), (G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.21-G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.21) and (G/ADP/N/USA/1/Suppl.22-
G/SCM/N/USA/1/Suppl.22) 
9.  No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding Supplements 19, 21 and 22.  10.   On Supplement 20, written questions were posed and can be found in document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/USA/27-G/SCM/Q1/USA/27 & Corr.1 – Submitted by the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei") 
11.  In addition to the oral summary of answers provided by the US at the meeting, the written 
answers to these questions, received on 27 October 2015, can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/USA/28-G/SCM/Q1/USA/28 – Replies to Chinese Taipei 
12.  Furthermore, oral questions pertaining to Supplement 20 were posed by China, Japan and the 
Russian Federation. The US provided oral answers at the meeting. No written follow-up questions 
were submitted.   
Notifications of new or amended legislatio n or regulations with pending unanswered 
questions:  
 
1.4  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) 
13.  The US reminded Cameroon  of the pending written questions concerning the notification 
contained in document G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1. These written questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3–G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3–G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 - Submitted by the United States on 
15 September 2014.  
                                               
1 Relevant deadlines for written follow-up qu estions and written answers in November and 
December 2015, respectively can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/493-G/SCM/W/565-G/SG/W/234. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
14.  No oral answers were provided at the meeting and no written answers were received to 
date. 
15.  The Chair noted that new legislative notifications from Australia, Colombia, India, Oman, 
Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, as well as any others received and circulated by the 
applicable deadlines2, would be on the agenda for review at the spring Regular meeting of the 
Committee.  
16.  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. He encouraged Members that had not yet made a legislative notification to do so promptly. 
17.  The US appreciated the fact that most Me mbers have submitted a notification with their 
domestic anti-dumping ("AD") legislation or a one-time nil notification. However, some countries 
which have provided such a nil notification, have submitted trade policy review reports indicating that they do have AD laws in effect. In other words, the respective WTO Members have already 
gone to the effort of informing the WTO of its AD legislation status, albeit in another forum. It, 
therefore, encouraged Members to review their respective situations and to make the appropriate notification promptly.  
18.  Concerning the revised list of competent authorities contained in document 
G/ADP/N/14/Add.40, 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. 
19.  The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
2  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-D UMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
(G/ADP/N/272) 
20.  The Chair recalled that a request for submission of semi-annual reports for the first half of 
2015 had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/272 and G/ADP/N/272/Suppl.1. 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. Since document G/ADP/N/272/Add.1 was circulated, Paraguay  had submitted 
a nil notification. He noted that a significant number of Members had not yet responded to the request for semi-annual reports. This notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or 
not they had taken AD actions during the period in question, except for the 44 Members that had 
already submitted a one-time notification. Members were urged to comply with this important notification requirement. 
21.  The Chair also made a statement conveying his significant concerns over the state of 
Members' compliance with this important transparency obligation. He recalled that his predecessors had raised this issue with Member s before and in response Members requested the 
Secretariat to hold a workshop at which the format of that notification, among other issues, would 
be explained. The Secretariat held this workshop  back-to-back with the 2015 spring meeting and 
placed the presentations and the digital audio file on the Members website to be accessible to all 
Members wishing to consult it. The Secretariat had also indicated that it would always be at the 
disposal of any Member wishing to make inquiries in this respect. However, the usual three 
interconnected chronic problems persisted; i.e. the late submission of semi-annual reports, technical errors in these reports as submitted and slow responses to the Secretariat's requests for 
corrections. The cumulative effect of these problems was a major reduction in transparency due to 
delays in the availability of accurate information which had been undermining the ability to maintain an updated and reliable database. 
22.  Concerning late submission, this tardiness considerably reduced the usefulness of the 
Committee's review of these notifications which, following receipt, had to be processed, reviewed and translated, all in time for such documents to be considered at the relevant Committee 
                                               
2 Relevant deadlines can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/493-G/SCM/W/565-G/SG/W/234. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 4 - 
 
  meeting. Exacerbating the negative impact of ta rdy submission was the fact that a very high 
percentage of semi-annual reports, as submitted, contained significant numbers of non-trivial errors. He emphasized that the submitting Member had to complete the notification form pursuant to the instructions agreed upon by Members in document G/ADP/1/Rev.1, to carefully review its 
report for errors prior to official submission and that the Secretariat would always be at the 
Members' permanent disposal to answer any questions or provide any needed assistance. Finally and closely related to the problem of reporting errors, was the tardiness in receipt of some 
Members' responses to the Secretariat's requests for clarifications and corrections of the errors 
which might, in some cases, take weeks or even months.  As much as it would be difficult to circulate a report containing errors, there had always been that constant pressure from Members to circulate these reports as soon as they were received. Needless to say, that the AD database, 
on which Members depend to obtain crucial information, could not be updated until all errors in a 
given report were resolved, which might cause long delays in finalizing the data for a given reporting period. 
23.  The Chair urged Members to carefully review all of the information in their semi-annual 
reports before submitting them by the announced de adlines.  Then, if in spite of a Member's best 
efforts the Secretariat detected an error in a report, the Member would kindly be requested to 
provide the necessary correction within a very shor t time-frame; i.e. no more than one week after 
being contacted by the Secretariat. 
24.  The Committee reviewed the semi-annual reports for the first half of 2015. No Member raised 
questions or made comments concerning the reports of Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Colombia; 
Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Guatemala; Israel; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Mexico; Morocco; 
New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Russi an Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; 
Thailand and Viet Nam. 
25.  Japan expressed its general view and serious concern regarding the recent rapid increase in 
AD measures. For example, the number of AD measures by Members in the metal sector had 
increased from 21 cases in 2011, to 40 cases in 2012, to 69 cases in 2013, and then dropped to 
61 cases in 2014. Japan recognized that the oversupply in steel and some other major industries 
mainly in emerging economies might be a consequence of the increase in its factories' capacities and not necessarily based on a specific economic rationale. The deteriorating market balance had 
triggered the increased use of trade remedy measures globally. Japan expected the Committee 
and its Members to adequately monitor the newly initiated investigations and to examine whether 
the strict requirements under WTO law were actually met in individual cases. 
26.  On the semi-annual report of  Australia, the Russian Federation expressed its disappointment 
regarding the initiation by Australia of the sunset review of AD measure on the imports of 
ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian Federation. In the request for a review, the Australian producers suggested that the prices for gas inputs for ammonium nitrate produced in 
the Russian Federation were lower than expected due to the state regulations thereof. Based on 
the assumption that market prices for ammonium ni trate in the Russian Federation were artificially 
low, they suggested that no market situation prevailed in the Russian Federation's market. 
Notably, the applicants continued with a very si milar logic to that of Members applying the so-
called cost adjustment methodology currently challe nged by several Members. In particular, when 
constructing the normal value for the Russian producers, Australia adjusted the cost for natural gas with the use of an out-of-country benchmark instead of in-country prices. Accordingly, 
Australia launched its review based on the assumption that a particular market situation in the 
Russian gas market existed and even sent a separate questionnaire on this subject to the Government of the Russian Federation. It reiterated its concerns articulated at previous Committee 
meetings regarding the attempts of certain Members to undermine the natural competitive 
advantages of others through the so-called co st adjustment methodology or other related 
methodologies. This methodology was similar to the so-called non-market approach where the actual information in the producers' records was disregarded and out of country benchmarks for 
normal value calculation were used. 
27.  The Russian Federation inquired whether Australia intended to adjust gas costs using an out- 
of-country benchmark if it would establish in its review that a particular market situation existed. 
It also inquired whether Members had the right to disregard producers' records and have recourse 
to any out of country benchmarks in normal value calculations whenever there was a certain degree of state regulation in the exporters market . If both answers were in the positive, then G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Australia's interpretation of Article 2 of AD Agreement would render this article meaningless, as 
every country would always regulate its internal ma rket to a certain degree. It urged Australia to 
abstain from the application of the cost adjustment methodology and review its approach of using the evidence provided by the applicants. 
28.  Australia explained that the sunset review was initiated on 9 October 2015 following a period 
where advice was provided in a public notice, 6 months prior to that time, asking the industry 
whether it was seeking a continuation of the existing measures. As the investigation had just 
commenced, the Russian Federation would be able to submit its arguments and views in writing to 
the AD Commission. The review would be conduc ted with full transparency and would give due 
consideration to all interested parties rights. 
29.  On the semi-annual report of Canada , the Republic of Korea expressed its concern over 
Canada's determination to impose AD duties (" ADDs") in the ongoing expedited review on oil 
country tubular goods ("OCTG") originating in Kore a. First, Article 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement had 
set forth how the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs ("SG&A") and profits, 
which constitute a constructed normal value, would be calculated. In particular, Article 2.2.2 (i)-
(iii) provided three separate bases for deriving th e amounts of SG&A and profits to be used in a 
constructed normal value calculation. In this particular case, the Canadian authority appeared not 
to follow these methodologies with respect to some of the products under investigation. Instead, it 
applied the profit rates of an unknown third country exporters in a way that was not only inconsistent with the requirements of Article 2.2.2 (i) and (ii) of the AD Agreement, but also in a 
manner that failed to satisfy the reasonableness and profit cap requirements under Article 2.2.2 
(iii). 
30.  Second, Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement requ ired investigating authorities ("IAs") to provide 
a public notice report of their preliminary and final determinations. Notices or reports of affirmative 
determinations should include the margins of dumping established and a full explanation of the 
reasons for the methodology used in the establishm ent and comparison of the export price and the 
normal value. However, Canada had not provided such explanations justifying the use of profit 
calculation methodologies using the profit rates of an unknown third country. Accordingly, 
exporters and interested parties were denied the opportunity to defend their interests.  
31.  Finally, on the condition that the dumping margin was de minimis , it was improper to include 
the exports originating from Korea in the injury investigation. According to Article 3 of the AD 
Agreement, a proper injury analysis should focus solely on the impact of dumped imports, not on 
the effect of non-dumped imports that were erro neously found to be dumped in this particular 
case. Korea requested Canada to take its concerns into consideration while conducting the 
expedited review on the ADD imposed on OCTG. 
32.  The Russian Federation was concerned about the provisional AD measure imposed by Canada 
in respect of certain hot-rolled carbon steel plates and high-strength low-alloy steel plate from the 
Russian Federation. First, the language of the disclosure imposing the preliminary measure 
seemed to apply the so-called zeroing methodology. It referred to recital 59 of the statement of reasons of 23 September 2015 and requested Canada to clarify whether the zeroing methodology was eventually applied. Second, the Russian Federation was surprised that the provisional ADD, 
imposed on all Russian producers except those part icipating, was established at the level of 220%. 
It questioned the objectivity of the Canadian authorities' decision to create an all others rate based on the highest difference between the normal va lue and the export price - on an individual 
transaction basis - of a single cooperating producer. It referred to recitals 77 and 78 of the 
statement of reasons and considered such a duty to be exaggerated from an economic point of 
view, as it seemed to be based on an assumption that the Russian Federation producers ought to 
have been always selling their goods in their home market for prices more than three times higher 
than in Canada. It urged Canada to consider its findings in final determination and hoped that the level of duties would be calculated in fu ll accordance with the AD Agreement.   
33.  On the queries posed by Korea, Canada indicated that it was somewhat restricted in 
responding to the questions raised for two reasons.  Firstly, it noted that several of the concerns 
raised by Korea were also subject to an ongoing domestic judicial review proceeding initiated by a Korean exporter. Secondly, Canada's IA was conducti ng an administrative review to update normal 
values with respect to OCTG from Korea. Korea ha d submitted its representation in the context of 
this administrative review. Such representation would be duly taken into account by Canada's IA G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 6 - 
 
  and responded to in the context of that administrative review, scheduled to be completed by 
14 December 2015. As a general comment, it maintained that Canada's decisions in its investigations were clearly explained and parties were provided with a full opportunity to submit evidence to the IA and to defend their interest in all AD proceedings. It emphasized that Canada 
would always conduct its proceedings in full conf ormity with the AD Agreement and with Canadian 
law. 
34.  On the Russian Federation's questions, Canada  indicated that it was also restricted in how 
much detail it could provide in response as the questions posed related to an ongoing 
investigation. On the use of zeroing, Canada confirmed that it would not apply a zeroing methodology in calculating margins of dumping. With respect to the question on the margin of dumping for non-cooperative exporters, the methodology used by Canada's IA to calculate the all 
others rate was consistent with Canadian law and with the approach used in previous AD 
investigations. The methodology reflected the fact that the IA could not assume that dumping by non-cooperative exporters was lower than the dumping found by cooperative exporters. It was not 
a punitive rate, but it had always been based on the facts that were on the administrative records 
of the original investigation. The Russian Federation was encouraged to submit its views in writing, with respect to this ongoing investigation, to the IA so that those views could be taken into 
consideration. 
35.  As a preliminary remark, the Russian Federation  stated that the language used by Canada in 
its response regarding the use of zeroing had not confirmed that the zeroing methodology was not 
used in this case. In addition, Canada indica ted that the dumping margin of non-cooperative 
producers could not be lower than that of the cooperating producers. It queried whether it would 
be reasonable for Canada to establish a 35% margin of dumping for non-cooperative producers because it was the maximum amount established for cooperating producers. 
36.  Canada could not comment on any specific methodologies used in a specific ongoing 
investigation, but it confirmed that it would not apply, as a practice, zeroing in calculating the 
margin of dumping. It added that the IA would fully explain its final methodology for determining 
the margin of dumping in its final determination statement of reasons just as it explained the 
methodology used for its preliminary determination. It invited the Russian Federation to review that final determination and expressed its readiness to discuss if the Russian Federation had any remaining concerns. With respect to the all others rate, as a rule the rate was not punitive. It was 
determined based on the evidence on the record, while at the same time not giving non-
cooperative exporters an advantage over those exporters that did in fact cooperate with the IA. All others rate would be fully explained in the IAs final statement of reasons just as the preliminary 
determination was fully explained in the preliminary statement of reasons. 
37.  The Republic of Korea clarified that its concerns pertained to the original investigation, not to 
the expiry review. 
38.  Canada explained that the Korean concerns were also the subject of an ongoing judicial 
review in Canada initiated by a Korean exporter. As these concerns were raised before Canadian 
courts, Canada could not elaborate further beyond what Korea could find in the IAs statement of reasons. 
39.   On the semi-annual report of China , Japan commented on China's investigation on 
unbleached sack paper and the discrepancies betw een the data on the volume and amount of 
exports between that of China's customs statistics included in the application and that of Japan's 
customs statistics. In addition, as far as quantity  and intended use were concerned, the Japanese 
exports were different from the Chinese domestic products, and not a substitute for such products. The Appellate Body ("AB") in DS454 determined that the IA was required to consider a dynamic 
assessment of price developments and trends in th e relationship between the price of the dumped 
imports and those of the domestic like products, as well as the explanatory force between the dumped imports and the state of the domestic indu stry. In addition, The AB also determined that 
with regard to substitutability, the IA was not only required to assess whether both products 
shared particular physical characteristic or had the same general use, but also consider customers 
demand for a range of products. Japan requested China to take full account of the exporters claims, considering the said AB decision. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 7 - 
 
  40.   The US noted that China's semi-annual report referenced its investigation of optical fiber 
preforms from the US. The US had expressed to China in numerous instances its concerns 
regarding the initiation and conduct of this investigation, which resulted in the issuance of a final affirmative determination on 19 August 2015. It respected China's right to initiate and conduct AD 
investigations, but such right should come with the obligation to adhere to the rules and 
procedures set forth in the AD Agreement. Despite concerns with several aspects of this AD investigation, the US focussed on some examples. China's determination in this investigation failed 
to address significant issues ra ised by the US and responding US companies. In addition, it 
appeared that the determination ignored critical information bearing on a fair and objective evaluation of key issues of dumping and injury. When calculating dumping margins, China rejected critical information submitted by responding US  companies, without asking the companies for 
clarification and without providing sufficient analysis as to why the information was deficient. 
Moreover, China decided not to conduct verifications of the companies, which could have served as a means to confirm the accuracy of the companies' information.  
41.  With regard to China's finding of a threat of material injury to China's domestic industry as a 
result of imported preforms, the US submitted that China had not properly taken into account a series of facts that undermined that finding. The record of the investigation showed that nearly all 
factors of performance of China's domestic indust ry were positive, including output, production 
capacity, profitability, and labour productivity , among others. The industry's performance as 
reflected by these factors was consistently strong throughout the period of the investigation, and there was no indication in the record that these circumstances would change in the future. In 
addition, the facts in the record of the investigation did not appear to support the attribution of 
any negative effects that might possibly be experienced by China's domestic industry to imported preforms. Notably, imported preforms lost market  share in China throughout the period of the 
investigation. More importantly, there was very little competition that Chinese producers actually 
faced in the domestic market, due to the fact that the vast majority of domestic producers of optical fiber consumed their own preforms in the ma nufacture of their own optical fiber. Similarly, 
the vast majority of imported preforms were ship ped to affiliated companies in China, where they 
were also consumed in the production of optical fi ber. China's imposition of duties on US preforms 
in the absence of underlying factual and legal suppo rt appeared to affirm concerns expressed in 
the past by the US and other Members. The US ur ged China to refrain from pursuing the use of 
trade remedies when the record of a particular investigation would not support it, as such an 
approach would be inconsistent with the WTO rules. 
42.  In response to Japan, China indicated that the investigation was initiated on 10 April 2015. On 
15 September 2015, the IA held a public hearing with the participation of various interested 
parties including the interested parties in Japan. It noted that some of the Japanese companies had cooperated and that the Japanese Government had submitted arguments as well. It 
emphasized that all the arguments and evidence submitted by interested parties as well as the 
Japanese Government would be given due consideration in this ongoing investigation and the IA would conduct the investigation according to the Chinese law and legislation as well as in accordance with WTO rules. 
43.  In response to the US, China explained that the preform investigation was initiated on 
19 March 2014 and the preliminary and final determinations were issued on 18 May and 
19 August 2015, respectively. The Chinese IA conducted the investigation in a very prudential 
manner and made sure the investigation was fully consistent with its obligations in the AD 
Agreement. During the investigation, all the fa cts and evidence, which formed the basis for the 
findings, were collected in accordance with the legal procedures and examined thoroughly by the 
IA. All the findings were disclosed properly and timely to every interested party including the 
relevant Government to secure the rights of interested parties. Every piece of evidence and comments were scrutinized carefully before the determination was made. With regard to the 
specific points raised by the US, China provided a number of clarifications.  
44.  First, on the rejection of information subm itted by the responding company, China explained 
that after its response to the original questionnaire, the company, without reasonable explanation provided, re-submitted its response past the prescribed time limits and tried to make significant 
changes to data of production and cost. During  the whole procedure, the company refused to 
provide reasonable explanation for this critical change in data. Consequently, the data was not acceptable to the IA.  G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 8 - 
 
  45.  Second, on the issue of verifications, the AD Agreement prescribed certain means via which 
the IA could collect information and reach sound findings. These included issuing questionnaires, receiving comments, holding hearings and conducting on-the-spot investigation. The on-the-spot investigation was not made mandatory as its necessity and appropriateness should be assessed 
and determined on a case-by-case basis. In this investigation by means of issuing questionnaires, 
receiving comments and holding hearings, the IA was satisfied it had all the necessary information without resort to on-the-spot investigation. 
46.  Third, on injury determination, as this issue was so comprehensive and technical, not to 
mention the economic reality complexity upon conducting an injury analysis, the IA should base its findings on the examination of all the factors considered. It referred to the relevant documents in the public notice of the preliminary determination in pages 24-69 and in the final determination in 
pages 42-114, where the IA had listed all data , evidence, and the reasoning for the injury 
determination. At the same time, all comments and evidence, without prejudice to the confidentiality requirements, have been put on th e record and could be checked and copied in the 
public reading room. 
47.  Fourth, the preform AD investigation was initiated according to an application submitted by 
the domestic industry. The adequacy and the accu racy of the evidence in the application were 
carefully examined. The domestic industry's policy mentioned by the US was not among the 
factors that the IA considered for initiation. The said investigation was highly complicated and witnessed a high level of attention by some of the interested parties, including the US Government. The IA conducted the investigation and reached its findings in a very prudential way, 
while fully complying with China's substantive obligations. Though the legal procedure was 
finalized, China expressed its readiness to provide clarification either bilaterally or in the Committee. 
48.  On the semi-annual report of Egypt , Turkey indicated that follow ing a petition lodged by the 
pertinent domestic industry, Egypt initiated an AD investigation against Turkish originating wet 
wipes imports on 14 April 2015. Turkey submitted its official views regarding the initiation of the 
investigation and the non-confidential version of the complaint to the Egyptian IA on 29 July 2015. 
First, the complaint did not have sufficient injury related evidence and adequate standards for the justification of the initiation of an AD investigation within the meaning of the provisions of Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of AD Agreement. Second, th e lack of a properly identified product scope 
generated difficulties in analysing the definition of the domestic industry, the representativeness of 
the complaint, import quantities and market shares. Third, other known factors might have caused the alleged injury other than the Turkish impo rts. Turkey expected Egypt to terminate the 
investigation without taking any provisional or definitive measures.  
49.  Egypt explained that at this stage of the in vestigation, the Egyptian IA was still collecting 
information and looking into deficiencies. It added th at the IA would hold verification visits to the 
subject companies in Turkey. 
50.  On the semi-annual report of the European Union ("EU") , China raised systematic concerns 
regarding the EU's recent AD investigations. The EU initiated two AD investigations in 
December 2014 and August 2015, respectively. Though the second initiation in August 2015 was 
n o t  w i t h i n  t h e  r e v i e w  p e r i o d  o f  J a n u a r y - J u n e  2 0 1 5 ,  C h i n a  r e f e r r e d  t o  i t  a s  i t  s h a r e d  t h e  s a m e  
problem with the December 2014 investigation. It ex plained that both investigations were against 
a specific Chinese company instead of China as a country, while the AD Agreement indicated that 
the AD investigations should be initiated against imports from one country or countries. No ADDs 
were assigned to any of the companies involved in both investigations as they were found either not to be dumping or had a de minimis  margin in the previous investigation. As the Dispute 
Settlement Body ("DSB") rulings condemned subseq uent administrative or interim reviews for a 
company with a zero % duty in the original investigation, the practice of the EU to initiate a new AD investigation against a specific producer not subject to the existing measure would be inconsistent with the WTO rules. Moreover, in the recent investigations, the EU had not made 
evidence, presented by other interested parties,  available promptly which jeopardized Chinese 
companies' rights to fully defend their interests. In the tartaric acid AD investigation, questionnaire responses were not placed in the public file until nine months after the date of the submission. It 
urged the EU to abide by the WTO rules and ensure the transparency and fairness of the 
investigation process. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 9 - 
 
  51.  The Russian Federation referred to what it had raised at the previous Committee meetings 
regarding certain approaches of the EU in AD investigations; namely the cost adjustment 
methodology, the product scope issues, and long lasting measure on ammonium nitrate from the Russian Federation. While some of these issues were already challenged before the DSB, other 
new sensitive issues surfaced. It provided an outline of the practices and approaches that, in its 
view, constituted violations of the AD Agreement as such and as were established by the EU's 
basic AD regulation and confirmed by the EU's codes of justice.  
52.  First, the EU's practice of calculating an exaggerated constructed export price when a related 
trader would exercise certain export and import functions. In such case, the adjustment might be made for all cost and reasonable profit pertaining to that trader's export and import operations alike. This would inflate the dumping margin in breach of Articles 2.3 and 2.4 of the AD 
Agreement. Second, the recent EU's practice in re view and refund investigations whereby it would 
deduct from the constructed export price the amount of any ADDs paid. By doing so, the EU would treat the ADD as a cost in violation of the Arti cles 2.4 and 9.3.3 of the AD Agreement. Third, 
consistent EU's practice in interim reviews limited to dumping whereby it would not complete the 
dumping margin calculation before the interim review was terminated. The EU followed a special prospective analysis of changed circumstances with a view to establish the so-called lasting nature 
test. According to the EU, the dumping margins should not be established if no lasting nature of 
changed circumstances was found. This would, in turn, deprive the interested parties of the possibility of relying on positive evidence and woul d not conform to the spirit of the Article 11.2 of 
the AD Agreement. Fourth, the EU's continue d application of non-market methodologies. 
Article 2.7 of the EU's basic AD regulation provided explicitly for such methodologies in a manner 
that would not correspond to Article 2 and other AD Agreement's provisions. These methodologies were unlawfully applied to several WTO Members that had not agreed to any specific provisions in 
their accession protocols giving the right to other Members to deviate from the standard AD 
Agreement applications. 
53.  The Russian Federation also expressed disappointment regarding the recent definitive 
disclosure in the EU's investigation on aluminium foil. It submitted that the EU confirmed the 
preliminary findings that were contested by the Russian Federation especially with regard to injury and causality determinations. This investigation was launched soon after the EU's so-called non-market AD measure on the same foil, produced by the Russian company in another country, was 
withdrawn after series of court proceedings. This mi ght indicate that the EU was trying to create a 
constant level of protection for its aluminium foil market.  Due to the lengthy list of complicated issues involved, the Russian Federation invited the EU to engage in a discussion with a view to 
possibly reaching a resolution. 
54.  On the Chinese comments, the EU indicated that although the issues and the products at 
stake were not specified, it was confident that it had met all its obligations under the WTO AD 
Agreement, in particular taking into account the AB ruling in Beef and Rice, which addressed 
specifically the issue raised by China. On the procedural rights of interested parties, it was confident that those were fully respected in the EUs investigations, in accordance with its own basic regulation and with the AD Agreement.  
55.  As regards the cost adjustment methodol ogy raised by the Russian Federation, the EU 
indicated that this issue was subject to ongo ing DS proceedings in DS474 and DS494, which 
a p p e a r e d  t o  b e  a  m o r e  s u i t a b l e  f o r u m  t o  d e a l  w i t h  i t .  T h e  E U  v i e w e d  t h i s  c o s t  a d j u s t m e n t  
methodology to be in line with the AD Agreement.  In any event, this methodology was not applied 
systematically, but was only based on evidence on file and was thus appropriate and duly justified. 
With respect to the calculation of the export  price, the EU confirmed that there was no 
exaggeration in the construction of the export pr ice; that the wording of the basic AD regulation 
followed what was in Article 2.3 of the AD Agr eement and that the EU's practice followed the 
jurisprudence of the AB in this respect. The same was also true regarding the EU's practice in refund investigations where it based itself on its basic AD regulation and on the AD Agreement. 
Finally, on the non-market methodology, which was provided for in Article 2.7 of the EU's basic 
regulation, the Russian Federation should not be concerned, as it was not among the countries to which this methodology was applied.  
56.  With respect to aluminium foil, the EU explained that this was an ongoing investigation and it 
reassured the Russian Federation that its comments would be duly taken into consideration in the G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 10 - 
 
  definitive regulation. It clarified that the EU's aluminium foil investigation was actually initiated vis-
à-vis Armenia whose exports to the EU were now not subject to any ADDs.  
57.  The Russian Federation explained that in ca se of the Russian foil, there was a consecutive 
application of the duties, which started with the Armenian aluminium foil and followed by the 
initiation of an investigation on the Russian foil within a month after the Armenian measure was 
withdrawn. It viewed this as an attempt to create a constant level of protection in the EU's market. 
On the non-market economy treatment, it invite d the EU to discuss this issue bilaterally. It 
submitted that there were no WTO provisions specifying that a Member concerned by certain 
actions, norms or rules - within the jurisdiction of another Member - should raise an issue only if it had a direct economic/legal interest or if it was directly affected. It explained that a Member might be affected indirectly or might have systemic concerns in such respect.  
58.  On the aluminium foil investigation, the EU recalled that the purpose of AD investigations was 
not to protect the domestic market, but to restore a level playing field and fair trade and that any 
initiation and conduct of an investigation should be based on evidence of dumping and injury. With 
respect to Armenia, it was a separate situation where there was no evidence justifying the 
initiation. For the non-market economy treatment, it encouraged the Russian Federation to contact 
Brussels to launch bilateral discussions. 
59.  On the semi-annual report of India , Chinese Taipei raised general concerns regarding India's 
procedures, transparency and due process in AD investigations. First, in some investigations 
India's IA, the DGAD, granted only very short period  of time for the interested parties to review 
and comment on the essential facts of the final findings. For example, in one investigation DGAD 
provided essential facts disclosure to interested parties on 13 May 2014 and required them to 
submit comments by 16 May 2014. The final findings in this investigation were issued on 26 May 2014 without providing sufficient time for interested parties to defend their interests 
pursuant to Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement. Second, in another investigation, DGAD refused to 
calculate an individual dumping margin for one cooperative exporter simply because the exports 
made by that exporter to India were too insign ificant as compared to its capacity and export 
orientation. It also noted that India did not make any prior notification of limited examination as 
required by Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement. Ch inese Taipei submitted that it could hardly see 
any WTO legal base for such determination and urged India to conduct that investigation in accordance with the AD Agreement. 
60.  The US supported the systemic concerns raised by Chinese Taipei in its intervention and 
reiterated its serious concerns regarding India's conduct of its investigations.  It requested India to 
ensure that its investigations were conducted in accordance with the AD Agreement so as not to 
undermine the legitimacy of the IA. In this connection, it referred to page 18 of India's semi-
annual report covering the period January – June 2015, where India notified the extension of the deadline until 16 October 2015, to complete the sunset review of the AD measure on imports of 
cold-rolled stainless steel from the US. On 6 Oc tober 2015, India sent the US the statement of 
essential facts under consideration in the investigation with the deadline for comments of 8 October 2015, giving interested parties less than two full business days to respond. On 
12 October 2015, India issued the final determination of the review with no notification to the US. 
It requested India to explain how a two-day comment period, that closed four days before the final 
determination was issued, was consistent with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement. Further, it requested India to clarify when it would provide notification to the US of the final results of the 
sunset review, as required by Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement. 
61.  On the US' concerns, India reiterated that it had been fully committed to its obligations under 
the AD Agreement, in general and in the subject investigation, in particular.  India understood the 
significance of the "sufficient time" concept in Ar ticle 6.9 of the AD Agreement, but explained that 
special circumstances have occurred in this case and forced DGAD to resort to this action. In this case, unlike other cases, there were two oral hearings, the first of which was held on 28 October 2014. After the hearing, changes were introduced to the designated authority in the 
first week of August 2015. As per the Supreme Court order, a second oral hearing was held on 
18 August 2015 leaving less time to complete the investigation within the deadline. Furthermore, due to clashing urgent overseas meetings which the designated authorized signatory for the AD 
and countervail investigations had to attend, the DGAD had to issue the final findings on 
12 October 2015.    G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 11 - 
 
  62.  India noted that despite the communications/no tices sent to the US Embassy and the four US 
companies, as interested parties; including the notices of initiation, questionnaires, the two oral hearings, and the disclosure statements, neither the US Embassy nor the US companies submitted responses or attended the oral hearings. Hence, the residual duty had been recommended by the 
IA. These facts were illustrated in the final findings document sent by the DGAD to the interested 
parties and uploaded immediately on its generally accessible website, as well as notified to the WTO on 15 October 2015. India expressed its read iness to provide any additional information 
requested by the US. 
63.  On the concerns expressed by Chinese Taip ei, India requested the details of the specific 
cases. 
64.  On the semi-annual Report of Indonesia , Ukraine indicated that on 22 May 2015, Indonesia 
initiated the sunset review of the AD measures on its imports of hot rolled plate originating in 
China, Singapore and Ukraine. Based on the report  of the IA, Ukraine expressed several concerns 
relating to the findings and submitted that the AD measures applicable on that Ukrainian product 
should lapse.  
65.  First, the sunset reviews have to assess whether the expiry of the duty would likely  lead to 
the continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry. In this case, the applicant 
represented only 38% of the total domestic production, which would not be enough to determine 
the standing of the domestic industry and to make  a determination pertaining to the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry pursuant to the AD Agreement and the relevant WTO jurisprudence. Furthermore, the indicators of the activities of other producers 
which represented 62% of the domestic production were not presented in the IAs report. 
Consequently, the IA failed to show the evidence of injury to the domestic industry caused by 
imports, including imports from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 4.1 of the AD Agreement. It 
requested Indonesia to explain how the determinatio n of injury based on the applicants' data that 
represented only 38% complied with Articles  3, 4.1 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement. 
66.  Second, the volume of imports of the subj ect product from Ukraine and its share in total 
imports decreased significantly in 2012-2014. Such a decrease also continued in the fourth quarter 
of 2014 through the first quarter of 2015 due to the continuing and unprecedented security challenges accompanied by the warlike activities in the East of Ukraine, which resulted in considerable reduction of the export capacity of the Ukrainian producers. As a result, exports from 
Ukraine to Indonesia decreased by 87% in the first quarter of 2015, as compared to the same 
period of 2014. Ukraine called upon Indonesia to repeal the AD measures on imports of hot rolled plate from Ukraine as the conditions for the extension of those measures, as set forth in Article 11 
of the AD Agreement, were not met. 
67.  Turkey referred to the AD investigation initiated by Indonesia, on 27 August 2014, on wheat 
flour originating in Turkey, Sri Lanka and India. Essential facts were disclosed on 
7 September 2015, calculating dumping margins ranging from 0% to 29.4% for Turkish 
companies. Turkey underlined two issues. First, wh ile Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement necessitated 
a significant increase in dumped imports in the determination of injury, there was no significant increase in the imports from the alleged countries, namely Turkey, India and Sri Lanka, during the 
investigation period which was 2010-2013. On the contrary, there was a significant import 
decrease by 4% in 2011, 33% in 2012 and 71% in 2013 compared to 2010. Second, whereas Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement necessitated deterioration in the domestic industry's relevant 
economic indicators, the economic indicators of the Indonesian domestic industry such as domestic 
sales, production, productivity, capacity utiliza tion, and employment showed a positive trend. 
Therefore, Turkey was of the view that th e investigation concerned did not have the sine qua non  
requirements for initiation and imposition of measures. It added that since the year 2000, 
Indonesia had initiated five AD and one safeguard investigations on the same product based on the request of the same petitioner. Considering th e fact that the final safeguard measure in the 
form of quota ended on 4 December 2014, Turkey  expressed concern that the petitioner might 
have been attempting to maintain a closed market for wheat flour. It requested the termination of 
the investigation without the imposition of measures. 
68.  On the concerns expressed by Ukraine on hot-rolled plate products, Indonesia explained that 
according to the Government regulation number 34 of 2011, the Indonesian IA initiated the sunset 
review of the AD measures enacted by the Minister of Finance Regulation number G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 12 - 
 
  150/DMK.011/2012 on hot-rolled plate, HS codes 7208510000 and 7208520000 from China, 
Singapore and Ukraine. The measures were imposed for 3 years and 6 months as of 2 October 2012. The investigation was conducted according to the applications received from three Indonesian companies and focused on the analysis  of the recurrence of dumping and the injury 
caused by the dumping to the Indonesian products. 
69.  According to the Indonesian statistics, the import volume of the subject product in 2012 was 
711,596 tonnes, decreased in 2013 to 617,114 tonnes and decreased further in 2014 to become 
357,373 tonnes. The import volume from all three countries in 2012 was about 420,971 tonnes, 
decreased to 358,192 tonnes in 2013 and eventua lly to 256,279 tonnes in 2014. Of all the three 
countries, the biggest volume of imports in  2012 was from Singapore amounting to 175,774 
tonnes and from Ukraine in 2013 amounting to 197,408 tonnes, and to 106,074 tonnes in 2014. 
Indonesia confirmed that it took note of the Uk rainian concern and expressed readiness to discuss 
the sunset review issues further. 
70.  On the concerns of Turkey, Indonesia indica ted that according to the Government regulation 
number 34 of 2011, the Indonesian IA conducted the investigation on wheat flour, HS code 
11010010, from India, Sri Lanka and Turkey upon  the request of the Indonesian Wheat Flour 
Association which represented the domestic industry. In the second semester of 2013, there was 
an increase of 51% in the volume of wheat flour imports compared to the first semester. The total 
Indonesian imports of the wheat flour in 2013 were 205,448 tonnes, of which 176,405 tonnes; i.e. 86% of those imports were exported from the investigated countries. In this connection, the import share of India was 29%, with 28% fo r Sri Lanka and 29% for Turkey in 2013. The 
investigation was conducted for twelve months with the possibility of extension for another six 
months. The IA officials visited the Turkish co mpanies and concluded that what they were 
producing in Turkey was similar to the Indonesian  subject product and that imports of the product 
were increasing at a rate that jeopardized the Indonesian production. As Indonesia's domestic 
industry of the subject product was composed of few companies, Indonesia was requested to 
conduct the same investigation upon the request of the same applicants.  
71.  In response to a follow-up question posed by Turkey inquiring about the rationale behind 
dividing 2013 into two different periods in order to analyse the increase in imports, Indonesia 
explained that as the investigation was on-going, the IA had to follow this method to determine 
whether the act of dumping had occurred during this time. 
72.  On the semi-annual report of Malaysia , Viet Nam referred to the provisional measures 
imposed on pre-printed or printed colour coated coils originating in Viet Nam. First, it referred to 
Malaysia's report in which it stated that the interested parties that had fully cooperated in the 
investigation were those that had responded to the questionnaire completely by declaring that 
they had not exported during the period of the investigation. It noted that some of the Vietnamese exporting companies were not listed as cooperating parties although they had submitted responses 
to the IA. It requested Malaysia to explain the reason behind treating those producers as non-
cooperating companies. Second, with respect to the duty applied for all others, which was equal to the duty for non-cooperating companies based on fa cts available, it inquired about the basis for 
the application of this duty instead of the average margin of cooperating respondents as indicated 
in Article 9.4 of the AD Agreement.  
73.  Malaysia explained that the investigation in relation to the subject product was ongoing. The 
Malaysian AD legislation had similar provisions as that of the AD Agreement, which set specific 
deadlines for interested parties to register in any specific investigation. The Vietnamese companies 
were excluded as they did not meet the stipulat ed deadline that was conveyed to all interested 
parties, including the relevant embassies and the companies based in Viet Nam.  
74.  On the semi-annual report of Turkey , the EU referred to the Turkish AD investigation initiated 
on hot-rolled coil from inter alia  France, Romania and Slovakia. While the EU welcomed that the 
imports from France and Romania were not subject to the recently imposed provisional measures, the EU regretted the provisional measures impose d on the imports from Slovakia. It provided a 
number of remarks on the preliminary determination, particularly concerning the lack of material 
injury and the causal link analysis.  G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 13 - 
 
  75.  As regards injury, the EU submitted that the evolution of the volume of allegedly dumped 
imports, which had increased by only 6% and even decreased by 10% between 2013 and 2014, 
could not be considered as a significant increase in line with the requirements of the AD Agreement, particularly, taking into consideration the fact that the domestic consumption and 
production have increased significantly by 22% and 24%, respectively. Furthermore, the 
preliminary determination concluded that there was no undercutting concerning all the countries subject to the investigation with the exception of one country for which the undercutting margin 
was negligible. The Turkish domestic prices remained relatively stable during the investigation 
period and even increased between 2013 and 2014. Nevertheless, the Turkish IA determined that 
there was price depression in 2014 without explaini ng how this price depression would be caused 
by the dumped imports for which no undercutting  could be found. The EU expressed concern with 
respect to the definition of domestic industry. In particular, it referred to the relationship between 
the company Isdemir – which was not a complainant in the case – and its related company Erdemir as a complainant. The EU's Commission considered that both companies should be taken 
into consideration for the injury assessment unless Turkey had decided to apply sampling, which 
did not appear to be the case. Concerning the situation of the domestic industry, the preliminary determination had not shown the existence of material injury with almost all injury indicators 
showing positive developments in 2014 compared to  2012. While the domestic industry seemed to 
have suffered losses since 2012, its situation had nevertheless been improving. As regards market 
shares, while the domestic industry suffered a loss of market share, the preliminary determination 
suggested that the market share of the allegedly dumped imports decreased even more.  
76.  On the causal link analysis, the EU drew attention to what it perceived as an absence of 
causal link between the alleged dumped imports an d the situation of the domestic industry. This 
was illustrated by the fact that imports decreased by more than 10% in the period 2013 - 2014 
and yet it was only during this period that the domestic industry showed some negative 
developments. This was the clear indication that there were factors other than the imports causing injury to the domestic industry. The EU requested the Turkish IA to carefully examine the request 
for de-accumulation by the Slovakian exporter. 
77.  Finally, the EU considered the criteria for the imposition of provisional measures not to have 
been met and requested the Turkish IA to carefully re-examine the findings, address the arguments raised when making any final decision and terminate the investigation without any 
further measures.  
78.  Israel referred to Turkey's investigation and preliminary measure imposed on its safety glass 
exports. The provisional measure was imposed on 23 May 2015 with a duty ranging from 34.5% to 
53.2%. On 3 July 2015, the Israeli Foreign Trade Administration sent a letter to the Under 
Secretary of the Minister of Economy of Turkey with comments and questions pertaining to this 
investigation, to which it urged Turkey to provide a written response. Israel highlighted that the 
complaint referred to safety glass for automotive products that was not produced by the 
investigated Israeli exporter. In this connection, the definition of the tariff line on which the measure was imposed was too broad; i.e. a four-digit HS code. It noted that the exporter had fully cooperated during the investigation including taking part in a recent verification visit conducted by 
the Turkish IA. Israel expressed serious concerns regarding the determination of the scope of the 
product under consideration. It urged Turkey to take these comments into consideration and provide written replies to its comments. It expressed its readiness to continue these discussions 
bilaterally. 
79.  Egypt indicated that, on 15 October 2014, Turkey initiated an AD investigation on biaxially 
oriented polypropylene films ("BOPP") from Egypt;  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; China and India. It 
submitted that the Turkish IA failed to satisfy th e requirement for the construction of the normal 
value pursuant to Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement. Furthermore, the Turkish IA had not satisfied the provisions of Article 2.4 of the AD  Agreement regarding the fair comparison on ex-
factory level. Finally, the Turkish IA had not satisf ied the provisions of Articles 3.4, 3.5 and 5.2 of 
the AD Agreement regarding the evaluation of the economic factors, other causes of injury and 
causal link. Egypt requested Turkey to terminate this investigation on the Egyptian exports of 
BOPP without imposing ADDs. Finall y, Egypt referred to the follow-up letter sent to the Turkish IA 
on 7 October 2015, to which no written response was received and inquired whether the 
investigation period had been extended and if such extension was notified.  G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 14 - 
 
  80.  The US expressed its continued concern with Turkey's investigation on imports of cotton from 
the US. Turkey denied the US' requests for support ing information and evidence that Turkey used 
as a basis for self-initiation of the investigation. This lack of transparency in the investigatory process was further compounded by the fact that, over one year into the investigation, the Turkish 
IA continued to refuse to release any additional information related to its ongoing analysis of this 
self-initiated investigation. The US believed that an affirmative injury determination in this investigation would suffer from numerous logical and factual deficiencies, which would appear to 
render such a determination inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under the AD Agreement. Upon 
considering its upcoming determination in the investigation, the US urged Turkey to abide by its WTO obligations and examine whether there was in fact sufficient positive evidence supporting a finding of injury to the domestic industry due to the US' imports. In the absence of such evidence, 
Turkey should make a negative determination. 
81.  Japan commented on Turkey's AD investigatio n on hot-rolled coil and regretted that Turkey 
had not sufficiently considered the Japanese exporters claims in the preliminary determination. It 
submitted that the Japanese imports of the subjec t product had been decreasing during the period 
2011 to 2014, while imports from some other countries had drastically increased. In addition, Japan emphasized that its exports focused on high quality products which did not compete with 
the Turkish domestic like products and if Turkey determined the imposition of the ADDs, this might 
negatively affect certain domestic users such as the Turkish automobile industry. The AB in DS454 determined that the IA was required to consider a dynamic assessment of price developments and trends in the relationship between the price of the dumped imports and those of the domestic like 
products, as well as the explanatory force between the dumped imports and the state of the 
domestic industry. In addition, The AB also determined that with regard to substitutability, the IA was not only required to assess whether both products shared particular physical characteristic or 
had the same general use, but also consider customers demand for a range of products. Japan 
requested Turkey to take full account of the AB  decision during the process of determining the 
injury and causal relationship. 
82.  On the EU's and Japan's comments concerni ng the hot rolled coil investigation, Turkey 
acknowledged the significance of the domestic industry definition under Article 4.1 and the 
overarching principles of Article 2.1 of the AD  Agreement, the importance of an accurate 
interpretation of these articles, as well as a consistent analysis of injury and causation as 
stipulated in Article 3. It emphasized that such disciplines would be observed with due diligence 
during the remaining phases of the investigation as it was observed with utmost care until now. 
83.  Concerning the comments made by Israel on safety glass, Turkey underlined the importance 
of the product under consideration and like product definitions to the accurate analysis of injury. It 
confirmed that it had paid utmost attention to the legal disciplines stipulated in Article 3 of the AD Agreement on injury analysis and the link betw een the product under consideration, the like 
product and injury determination. It expressed readiness to continue these discussions bilaterally 
as well as the intention to take into account the comments of Israel at the final disclosure stage which would be submitted to and open for comments by all interested parties. 
84.  With regard to Egypt's comments concerning the BOPP investigation, Turkey confirmed that it 
provided special attention to the use of construc ted normal value as well as constructed export 
price and had taken into consideration all the elements that should be taken into account during these calculations. It noted that although the le tter from Egypt had not been replied to yet, all 
considerations would be taken into account during the final disclosure phase. It also confirmed that 
the investigation had been extended.  
85.  On the comments made by the US regarding th e cotton investigation, Turkey explained that it 
had initiated an investigation in full compliance with Article 5.6 of the AD Agreement. The data 
which had been used during the initiation phase demonstrated the existence of dumping, injury 
and causal link, warranting the initiation of an investigation. Furthermore, the non-confidential 
version of the initiation report satisfied the legal requirements of Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement 
both in respect of the content and the quality of the information. The period that had passed in the 
investigation cannot be assessed by itself as an indicator showing whether transparency requirements were met. Turkey paid utmost attent ion to due process and the rights of interested 
parties to defend their interests. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 15 - 
 
  86.  On the semi-annual report of Ukraine , the Russian Federation raised serious concerns 
regarding the Ukrainian AD investigation on certain nitrogen fertilizers originating in the Russian 
Federation. It submitted that it had detected violations of the AD Agreement in the conduct of this investigation and could not see any reasonable grounds for its initiation. The application for the 
review was fully inconsistent with Article 5.2 of the AD Agreement as it was not dated, had not 
specified the identity of the applicants, contained no indication of a causal link between the Russian imports and the injury caused, and had not considered the price effects of the Russian 
declining imports. The data on injury was also provided only in relation to the applicants not to the 
whole domestic industry and allegations of material  injury were based on a selective picture of the 
complainants' businesses. In fact, Ukraine fully withdrew from its analysis the fact that a well-known complainant's affiliated off-shore profit centre flourished while the basic Ukrainian 
enterprise was making losses, but only on paper,  just because profit was accumulated abroad.  
87.  The Russian Federation added that nothing indicated that the application was filed on behalf of 
the domestic industry. It doubted that the applicants accounted for 50% of the Ukrainian industry 
and there was no information in the application on supporting producers. It was of the view that 
Ukraine was not able to fulfil the requirements of  Article 5.4 of AD Agreement. It submitted that 
Ukraine failed to provide the Russian producers with any adequate opportunity to defend their 
interests. The Russian exporters were provided with a non-confidential summary of the said 
application which could not permit any reasonable understanding of the substance of the confidential information as the majority of the document was treated as confidential without any good cause. Moreover, the access to non-confidential information on the record was provided 
extremely selectively; thus hugely undermining the ri ght of defence. It noted that violations of the 
procedural AD rules became normal for the Ukrainian investigators when dealing with Russian exports. It urged Ukraine to fundamentally reconsid er its approach and adhere strictly to the WTO 
law during the ongoing procedure. 
88.  Ukraine explained  that on 27 June 2015, it initiated the AD investigation on imports of 
nitrogen fertilizers originating in the Russian Federation. The complaint from the domestic industry 
contained enough prima facie  evidence on dumping, injury and causal link and was lodged 
according to Article 5 of the AD Agreement. As it was an ongoing investigation, Ukraine confirmed that it would provide to all interested parties as well as exporters, producers and the Russian authorities the possibility to participate in this procedure to provide Ukrainian authorities with 
information on dumping, injury, causal link and any other issues pertaining to this investigation. 
The Russian companies, producers and exporters co uld provide the replies on the questionnaires 
and submit other information. The position of all interested parties would be taken into 
consideration by the Ukrainian IA upon making certain conclusions or decisions. 
89.  On the semi-annual report of the US, Japan reiterated its concern on the length of US' AD 
measures. The US had 15 measures in force against Japanese products. Five of these were more 
than 20 years old, and the oldest was around 36 years old, having been imposed in 1978. It 
referred to Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and indicated that the AB concluded that an affirmative likelihood determination might be made only if the evidence demonstrated that dumping would be probable if the duty was terminated and not simply if the evidence suggested 
that such a result might be possible or plausi ble. Japanese exporters had less incentive to 
participate in some of the 100 sunset review proceedings, where it was already decided that there would be a continuation or recurrence of dumping.  In addition, Japan understood that the IA did 
not provide the questionnaire of dumping investigation again in the sunset review phase and might 
thus have not been able to obtain the evidence demonstrating that dumping would be probable as well as recognize the requirement of continuation  or recurrence of dumping in Article 11.3 of the 
AD Agreement. It requested the US to revoke swiftly these unjustifiably long measures. 
90.  The Russian Federation reiterated its conc erns expressed at previous Committee meetings 
regarding the issue of the US' practice of determining the scope of the Product under 
consideration. It noted that the US National Court had recently confirmed that ammonium nitrate 
would fall within the scope of the AD order on a mmonium nitrate from the Russian Federation. This 
would confirm the validity of the US' approach in  the determination of likeness and would support 
the Russian Federation's concerns that this issu e would not be resolved through the US National 
Court proceedings. The Russian Federation indicate d that it would submit written questions to the 
US and look forward to getting replies. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 16 - 
 
  91.  On the comments made by the Russian Fede ration, the US looked forward to the written 
questions and confirmed that it would reply in turn. 
9 2 .   W i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  t h e  l e n g t h  o f  U S  m e a s u r e s  a s  r a i s e d  b y  J a p a n ,  t h e  U S  s a w  n o  b a s i s  f o r  
Japan's continued complaints. The expiry proceedin gs conducted by the US were consistent with 
its obligations under the AD Agreement. The US disagreed that older measures were no longer 
valid solely on the ground that the measure were old. The purpose of expiry proceedings was to examine whether dumping and injury would be like l y  t o  c o n t i n u e  o r  r e c u r  i f  m e a s u r e s  w e r e  
removed. The US expiry process is evidence-based and the participation by Japanese companies 
would be helpful both in terms of the relevant information to be provided and the arguments made by interested parties. Furthermore, many measures involving Japanese exports had in fact been terminated. Since the commencement of expiry re views, 64 measures reviewed involving Japan 
had been reviewed, of which 51 or 80% had resulted  in termination of the measure. For the oldest 
measures that remain in effect, i.e. prestressed concrete steel wire strand and carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings; the Japanese industry has failed to meaningfully participate in any sunset 
review proceedings. Lack of respondent participation and consequent lack of evidence from 
respondents limited the information provided to th e IA. In other words, Japanese producers might 
themselves be partly responsible for the result. In many of the expiry processes that included both 
Japan and other Members, respondents from other Members had meaningfully participated in the 
reviews and had 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 the vital elemen t in the termination of other Members' measures 
that also included Japan.  
93.  No comments were made with respect to semi-annual reports that the Committee did not 
previously have the chance to review due to late circulation. 
94.  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 ACTIONS 
95.  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/271, 273, 274, 275, 
276 and 277. During this period  Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Egypt; the European Union; 
Guatemala; India; Japan; Korea; Mexico; Morocco; New Zealand; Pakistan; Peru; Russian 
Federation; South Africa; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Ukraine and the United States notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions, which were listed in these documents. He noted that since 
document G/ADP/N/277 was circulated, Argentina, Australia, Egypt, India, Mexico, Pakistan and 
the United States have submitted such a notification, which would appear in the next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
96.  Turkey referred to Morocco's  initiation of an AD investigation on imports of hot rolled steel 
sheets originating in Turkey and the EU on 21 January 2013 and the determination to impose an 
AD measure of 11% ad valorem  duty on Turkish exporters, which entered into force on 
2 October 2014 following its publication in the Official Gazette of Morocco. Turkey repeatedly 
raised its concerns during the whole investigation procedure via official hearings, in its technical 
views submitted and in bilateral meetings.  
97.  First, Turkey stated that Morocco's final de termination, which was based on the determination 
of non-cooperation and application of facts available was unacceptable as the relevant Turkish 
exporters were in full cooperation with the IA in  each and every step of the investigation, via 
questionnaire responses, on-the-spot verification s, etc. Second, the final disclosure providing a 
basis for the final decision of the IA was not disclosed in a timely manner so as to give the 
exporters the opportunity to defend themselves, in  violation of Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement. 
Third, the import surveillance system, which wa s implemented by the IA in parallel with the 
investigation concerned, could be considered as a specific action against dumped exports, which 
would be inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement. Fourth, considering that the 
investigation was initiated on 21 January 2013 and the final determination was issued on 12 August 2014, it believed that the duration of the investigation was not in compliance with G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Article 5.10 of the AD Agreement. It reques ted Morocco to provide the exact date for the 
conclusion of the investigation. Finally, Turkey be lieved that the decision of Morocco to apply an 
AD measure on Turkish exporters was entirely inconsistent with the relevant WTO rules and jurisprudence and its rights under the related WTO Agreements, including raising the issue before 
the DSB. 
98.  Morocco explained that it had initiated this AD investigation on imports from Turkey and the 
EU. This investigation was initiated in accordance with the rules and procedures of the WTO and all 
necessary measures were undertaken vis-à-vis  the various exporters. The Moroccan IA had 
explained in its findings in detail the reason s why the Turkish exporters were subjected to a 
definitive duty. There were issues related to data discrepancy and a certain lack of cooperation on the part of Turkish enterprises. It expressed read iness to discuss these issues bilaterally with the 
Turkish Authorities and explain in greater detail exactly what was involved in the imposition of this 
measure.   
99.  On the question of the duration of the inve stigation, as the investigation was conducted by 
the IA and the decision would be taken by Minist ers, the investigation would be concluded within 
the deadline, but the decision could take more th an two – three months to be implemented. So, a 
distinction should be drawn between the length of the enquiry and the time it might take for the 
decision to be applied. It indicated that it was no t in a position to provide the exact date on which 
the investigation was concluded, but would inquire and get back to Turkey. It expressed readiness 
to discuss this issue in greater detail bilaterally. 
100.  Ukraine indicated that it had posed to Pakistan , in a bilateral context, a number of 
questions of substantive and procedural nature relating to Pakistan's AD investigation on cold 
rolled coils and sheets. It strongly believed th at the issue of concern would be addressed by 
Pakistan and looked forward to receiving Pakistan's detailed written answers. 
101.  Pakistan believed that this issue could be resolved at the bilateral level outside the 
Committee. 
102.  Turkey referred to the sunset review of ADDs imposed by Pakistan  against hydrogen 
peroxide imports from Turkey. The definitive AD measure had been in force since 
27 September 2010. Following a petition lodged by the pertinent domestic industry, Pakistan initiated a sunset review regarding the AD measure on 2 September 2015. Turkey submitted its official views to the IA on 16 October 2015. Bearing in mind Article 11 of AD Agreement, the 
related WTO jurisprudence as well as the positive financial indicators of the applicants and 
Turkey's hydrogen peroxide decreasing exports to the world markets, Turkey was of the view that 
the extension of the pertinent ADD for Turkey wa s no longer necessary and its revocation would 
unlikely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury or dumping. Turkey requested 
Pakistan to repeal the ADDs imposed on its exports of the subject product as soon as possible. Turkey reserved its rights under the provisions of  AD Agreement and requested to be informed of 
any public hearings in the course of this sunset review. 
103.  Pakistan indicated that it would get back to Turkey as soon as feedback was received from 
the capital. It expressed its readiness to conduct a bilateral meeting with Turkey in this respect. 104.  The Chair drew Members' attention to the continued apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement. These reports we re 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
3 contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information which should be provided. 
105.  Finally, 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 WTO CRN with a copy to the Secretary of the Committee and that any previously submitted notifications should not be resubmitted. He also requested Members to verify the electronic links prov ided to the Secretariat 
                                               
3 G/ADP/2/Rev.2. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 18 - 
 
  to make sure they corresponded to the notificati on 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. 
106.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
4  OTHER BUSINESS 
107.  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 
ensure that an answer could be provided at the meeting. He also made a brief statement 
reminding Members of the demonstration to be provided by the Secretariat on 30 October 2015 of new case management software for AD investigations as well as a brief preview of a new 
computer-based AD training tool, which we re in the final stages of development. 
108.  China reminded WTO Members that Section 15.a paragraph 2 of the Protocol on the 
Accession of China  would expire on 11 December 2016. This section allowed importing WTO 
Members, when carrying out AD investigation against China and where the Chinese producers in a 
given investigation could not clearly show that market economy conditions prevailed in that industry, to use a methodology that was not based on a strict comparison with the actual prices or 
costs in China. This methodology was also know n as surrogate or analogue country methodology 
in the domestic AD laws and regulations of some Members, as these Members use the prices or costs in a surrogate or analogue country which were usually, if not always, much higher than the actual data of the Chinese producers. China had repeatedly pointed out at various 
forums/occasions that these provisions were unfair by nature, transitional and would in any event 
expire on 11 December 2016; i.e. 15 years after China's accession to the WTO according to Section 15.d of the Protocol of China's Accession . After the expiration of this provision, WTO 
Members should no longer use surrogate/analogue country prices or costs in AD investigations 
against China. All such investigations should be based on the general WTO rules which were applicable to all WTO Members and the IAs should accept the actual costs and prices of Chinese 
producers as the basis for the calculation of dumping margins.  
109.  China reiterated its concerns about the surrogate or analogue country methodology still used 
by a few WTO Members in their AD investigations. It urged Members to take the necessary steps to amend/adjust their relevant domestic laws, re gulations or practices and terminate the use of 
this methodology against China in their AD investigations and reviews prior to the expiration of the 
relevant Section on 11 December 2016, so as to faithfully implement the WTO rules and avoid any unnecessary disputes.  
110.  The US expressed concern regarding an item  that was included by the Secretariat in the 
minutes  of the April meeting of the Committee. In this case, it involved responses from Brazil to 
questions posed by the US on Brazil's legislative notification. Those responses were not received 
by this Committee until several months after the meeting, but yet were included in the past 
meeting's minutes. Specifically, the Secretariat included in the April meeting minutes a response submitted by Brazil on 29 July 2015, three months after the April meeting and, as a result, did not 
include these responses or the underlying notification in the agenda for this meeting. 
111.  The US appreciated Brazil's replies and did not have any follow-up questions at the time, but 
expressed concerns about the process for review of legislative notifications in the Committee. The US was concerned that the minutes might misrepresent the information presented before this 
Committee at the time of the meeting. It submitted that it would be one thing if a Member stated 
during the meeting that it would provide a response  shortly after the meeting and do so in a week 
or two, but quite another if this became a re peated pattern and response would come several 
months after the actual meeting, but would yet be reflected in the past meetings minutes. As this 
was not governed by any of the Committees rules, the US requested the Secretariat to give due regard to this concern, take note of the extens ive timeframes for receipt of responses and when 
the minutes would be composed and roll over such  responses to the next meeting so that they 
could be properly reviewed by Members. G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 19 - 
 
  112.  Australia supported the US' proposal with respect to the Committee procedures and 
practices. It would make sense that where the deadlines for providing the follow up written replies 
to questions have lapsed that such replies not be reflected in the past minutes. So the reply would be on the agenda for the following Committee meet ing anyway and it should be reflected in the 
subsequent Committee meeting agenda.  
113.  Canada, New Zealand, the EU and Chinese Taipei supported the US' proposal. 
114.  Japan referred to China's  AD investigations on grain-oriented electrical steel ("GOES") and 
acrylic fibre in July 2015. 
115.  In case of GOES, Japan noted that the number of imports from Japan had decreased 
significantly from 2011 to 2014. According to the data contained in the application concerning economic factors and indices of the domestic industry, Japan believed that it was not possible to 
make an injury determination within the meaning of the Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement. The AB 
in DS454 determined that the IA was required to consider a dynamic assessment of price developments and trends in the relationship betw een the price of the dumped imports and those of 
the domestic like products, as well as the explanatory force between the dumped imports and the 
state of the domestic industry. In addition, Th e AB also determined that with regard to 
substitutability, the IA was not only required to  assess whether both products shared particular 
physical characteristic or had the same general use, but also consider customers demand for a 
range of products. Japan requested China to take fully account of the exporters claims, considering 
the said AB decision. 
116.  In case of China's AD investigation on acry lic fiber, China sampled three exporters although 
the number of Japanese exporters was only four. Japan was of the view that such a sampling 
method was likely to be inconsistent with Arti cle 6.10 of the AD Agreement. In addition, Japan 
noted that the exporter, who was not initially selected, had submitted the necessary information in 
time. It requested China to determine an individual  margin of dumping for each exporter. It also 
requested China to take full account of the expo rters' claims, considering the aforementioned AB 
decision, particularly the analysis pertaining to the competitive relationship. 
117.  Japan also referred to Indonesia's  sunset review on cold-rolled steel sheet in 
September 2015. It was of the view that if the ADD continued, this would impose a burden on the 
domestic users in the automotive sector such as the automotive and automotive parts manufacturers, which would eventually lead to a drop in their international competitiveness. It 
requested Indonesia to take full account of the exporters claims and swiftly revoke the measures. 
118.  On the two investigations referred to by Japan, China indicated that they were still ongoing 
and that it was not in a position to say much about them. As an initial response in case of GOES, 
the IA had recently received the responses of the questionnaires. It encouraged the Japanese 
responding companies or maybe the Japanese Government to provide evidence and present 
arguments to the Chinese IA, which would in turn; give full consideration to the views and 
arguments presented and provide the answers in  the determinations. On the acrylic fiber 
investigation and the issue of sampling, China explained that at this stage the number of 
companies would not be the sole consideration for the IA when deciding whether to conduct sampling. For example, categories of the product, the burden on the IA and some other issues had 
to be taken into consideration before resorting to sampling. It encouraged the full cooperation of 
the Japanese companies as well as the Japanese Government. It emphasized that the IA would fully consider all arguments and views in order to reach a fair and objective determination. 
119.  On Japan's comments, Indonesia explained that according to the Government regulation 
number 34 of 2011, the sunset review of any ADD might be conducted pursuant to the request of 
the applicants in the period of 15 months prior to the expiration of the ADD. The sunset review 
involving the subject Japanese products was underway and the IA would issue its results in due 
course. It invited Japan to cooperate with the IA  throughout the process and present its concerns. 
It indicated that it would transmit Japan's concerns to capital. 
120.  Turkey referred to China's  AD investigation conducted against Turkish acrylic fiber in 
July 2015. Turkey shared the views of Japan regard ing this issue. Furthermore, Turkey had only 
6.8% share in China's total acrylic fiber imports; whereas it had only 1.3% share in the domestic G/ADP/M/49 
 
- 20 - 
 
  market during the investigation period. Moreover, Turkish exports were at its lowest level 
compared to other years of the injury period wh ereas its export price had been increasing. After 
reviewing the petition, Turkey was not convinced of the existence of any injury caused by its 
exports to China and was surprised to be informed of the initiation of such an investigation. It 
requested China to conduct this investigation in conformity with the provisions of the AD 
Agreement.  
121.  China indicated that it would give full consideration to any arguments or evidence presented 
by the Turkish companies in order to reach a fair and objective finding. 5  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING 122.  The next spring Regular meeting of the Commi ttee will be held in the week of 25 April 2016. 
6  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  
123.  The Committee adopted its 2015 Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
 
__________