RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/27 
22 February 2005 
 
 (05-0742) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 26, 28 AND 29 OCTOBER 2004 
 
Chairman
:  Mr.  David Evans (New Zealand)1  
         and Mr. Ernesto Fernández (Costa Rica)  
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
26, 28 and 29 October 2004 ("this meeting"). 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS........................................................................................................ .........1 
B. ARGENTINA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION...........................................2 
C. CANADA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION..................................................3 D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION................3 
E. JAPAN –  REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION.....................................................3 
F. JORDAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION...................................................3 G. CHINA – FURTHER REVIEW OF PR EVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE 
 NOTIFICATION.................................................................................................................. .................3 
H. FOLLOW-UP WRITTEN QUESTIONS AS PART OF THE CONTINUING REVIEW 
 OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
 REGULATIONS, CONTAINED IN G/ADP/Q1/CHN/44, G/ADP/Q1/MEX/12   AND G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/6 – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES..................................4 
I. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS.........................................................5 
J. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS............................................................7 K. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION  
 OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION..........7 
L. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING  
 GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION.....................................................................................................16  
M. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON ME ETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON  
 ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION............................................................................................................ ......16 
N. OTHER BUSINESS.............................................................................................................. ...............17 
 (i)  United States – Proper understanding of Annex D of the Committee's Annual Report –  
  Avoiding a Misunderstanding of the Number of Preliminary and Final Actions Notified..........17 
O. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ...........................................................................................19 
P. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS................................................19 
 
 
A. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS 
3. The Chairman  recalled that, at the time of the Committee's April 2004 meeting, the Chairman 
of the Council for Trade in Goods had not completed his consultations on the nomination of Chairperson for the different bodies operating under th e auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  
Thus, the Committee had not elected officers at th at meeting, as provided for in the rules of 
procedure, but instead had agreed as an extraord inary measure to extend the terms of the Chairman 
                                                     
 
1 Mr. David Evans was only chairing th e meeting's discussion of Item A, infra .  G/ADP/M/27 
Page 2  
 
 and Vice Chairman, Mr. David Evans and Mr. Mateo Diego-Fernandez, until the following (i.e., this) 
meeting of the Committee.  The Chairman proposed th at the election of new officers take place as the 
first order of business, with immediate effect.   
4. The Committee so agreed.
 
5. The Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods  had completed his informal consultations on 
the nomination of Chairpersons for the differe nt bodies operating under the auspices of the Council 
for Trade in Goods, and in that connection had prop osed the nomination of Mr. Ernesto Fernandez of 
Costa Rica.   
6. The Committee elected  Mr. Fernández as Chairman by acclamation. 
7. Regarding the election of a Vice Chairperson,  the Chairman, with the cooperation of the 
Chairman-elect, had conducted c onsultations with Members on the basis of which he proposed the 
election of Ms. Nicole Matrai of Australia. 
8. The Committee elected  Ms. Matrai as Vice Chairperson by acclamation. 
B. ARGENTINA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
9. The Chairman  noted that the items B-G on the agenda concerned the review of notifications 
of anti-dumping legislation and/or  regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the 
Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (G/ADP/W/284).  The Chairman recalled that 
deadlines for the submission of documents for next spring's regular meetings of the Committee, the 
Working Group, and the Informal Group had b een established and would be announced, and 
circulated in a Secretariat reminder document.2  All Members were encouraged to take note of make 
every effort to meet these deadlines.   
10. Questions concerning new notifications of legi slation were to have been submitted to the 
Member concerned and the Secretariat no later than 7 October 2004.  As provided for in the agreed 
procedures, Members which had received written ques tions in time were asked to respond orally to 
those questions in the meeting, and subsequently to respond in writing to all questions received in 
written form.  Follow-up questions could be asked, a nd were to be submitted in writing no later than 
18 November 2004 if the Member posing the questi on wished to receive a written answer.  Written 
answers to all written questions in connection with the review of new notifications, whether received 
prior to the meeting or as written follow-up questio ns, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later 
than 13 January 2005. 
11. The Committee then turned to the notification of Argentina .   
12. The questions regarding the notification of Argentina can be found in the following 
document: 
  G/ADP/Q1/ARG/15 Submitted by the United States Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:    G/ADP/Q1/ARG/16   Replies to the United States  13. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers. 
                                                      
2 Circulated as document G/ADP/W/444.  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
 C. CANADA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
14. The questions regarding the notification of Canada  can be found in the following document: 
  G/ADP/Q1/CAN/12 Submitted by the European Communities Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:    G/ADP/Q1/CAN/13   Replies to the European Communities  
15. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers. 
D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
16. The questions regarding the notifi cation of the European Communities  can be found in the 
following document: 
  G/ADP/Q1/EEC/23 Submitted by the United States 
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
  G/ADP/Q1/EEC/24 Replies to the United States 17. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers. 
E. JAPAN –  REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
18. The questions regarding the notification of Japan  can be found in the following documents: 
  G/ADP/Q1/JPN/11 Submitted by the European Communities 
  G/ADP/Q1/JPN/12 Submitted by the United States  Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:     G/ADP/Q1/JPN/13 Replies to the Eur opean Communities and the United States.  
19. The Committee took note
 of the notification and the questions and answers.   
F. JORDAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
20. The Chairman  noted that no questions had been posed concerning the notification of Jordan, 
which contained corrections to the notifi cation reviewed at the last meeting.  
21. The delegate of Jordan  recalled that Jordan had submitte d another corrigendum in document 
G/ADP/N/1/JOR/2/CORR.2.   
22. The Committee took note  of the notification and of the statements made. 
G. CHINA – FURTHER REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
23. The Chairman  stated that questions concerning the pr eviously reviewed notification of China 
had been submitted by Mexico in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/45.  These questions, which were 
identified as follow up questions, were on the age nda of this meeting as questions regarding G/ADP/M/27 
Page 4  
 
 previously reviewed legislation because they had not  been received by the d eadline for written follow 
up questions from the spring meeting.  Answers to  these questions, which were to have been 
submitted by 14 October 2004, had been received on 27 October 2004, and were contained in 
document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/47.   
24. The Committee took note
 of the notification and questions and answers. 
25. The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their replies to the questions posed, as well as the 
Members who had formulated questions.  The process of reviewing notifications continued to be a 
positive one, of benefit to all Members.  The Chai rman informed Members that the new legislative 
notifications of Australia, contained in documen t G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.3, China, contained in 
document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/1/Suppl.3, the European Communities, contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.6, the Former Yugoslav Re public of Macedonia, contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/MKD/1, and Mongolia, contained in doc ument G/ADP/N/1/MNG/2, among others, were 
expected to be on the agenda of the April 2005 meeting.   
26. In this regard, pursuant to the procedures for revi ew of notifications of legislation adopted by 
the Committee, in order for a new notification of legi slation to appear on the agenda of the April 2005 
meeting, it would need to circulate in three langua ges no later than 22 February 2005.  As a practical 
matter, in light of translation requirements, no tifications of legislative text received after 
31 January were unlikely to be translated by that da te.  The Secretariat would inform Members in late 
February 2005 of any additional new notifications to be considered at the spring meeting.  The 
deadline for submission of questions regarding new no tifications of legislation for the next meeting 
would be 17 March 2005.  However, Members were encouraged to subm it their questions as early as 
possible, and Members receiving questions were we lcome to submit written answers in advance of the 
meeting if possible.  In order for a previously re viewed notification of legislation to appear on the 
agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in April 2005, questions regarding such notification would 
need to be submitted to the Secretariat, and to th e Member whose notification is in question, no later 
than 24 February 2005.  Answers to those questions would be due by 24 March 2005. 
27. Finally, the Chairman expressed continuing c oncern over the failure of some Members to 
submit any notification at all concerning legislation or regulations relevant to  anti-dumping.  He noted 
that for many, if not most, of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification, indicating that 
there was no such legislation or regulation curren tly in effect, would be sufficient.  For those 
Members who conducted anti-dumping investigations but  had not yet notified their legislation, it was 
obviously important for transparency and the better understanding of all Members that such 
legislation be notified.  He thus encouraged Members who had not yet done so to make their 
notification of legislation promptly. 
H. FOLLOW -UP WRITTEN QUESTIONS AS PART OF THE CONTINUING REVIEW OF 
NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS , CONTAINED IN 
G/A DP/Q1/C HN/44, G/A DP/Q1/M EX/12 A ND G/A DP/Q1/Z AF/6 – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
28. The delegate of the United States  stated that his delegation took note of the Chairman's 
statement establishing a deadline for follow-up questi ons with respect to legislative notifications 
discussed in this meeting, and recalled that th e same requirement had been established at the 
Committee's spring 2004 meeting.  On 13 May 2004 , the United States had submitted written follow-
up questions to the previously reviewed legislative notifications of four Members:  China, Mexico, 
South Africa and Peru.  The United States thanked the delegation of Peru for its timely answers to the 
questions.3  The United States had since received written answers from South Africa4 and China5 and 
                                                      
3 G/ADP/Q1/PER/29.  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
 the delegation of Mexico had also indicated that its  replies were to be provided soon.  These latter 
three sets of answers had been provided long after th e deadline which was estab lished by the Chair of 
the Committee at the spring meeting.   
29. The opportunity to exchange written follo w-up questions and responses was the best 
opportunity for Members to learn about one another's legislations.  The process was of great 
importance, and the US delegation urged all Member s to adhere to the deadlines established by the 
Chair of this Committee. 
30. The delegate of Mexico  apologized for the delay in answering the US questions and indicated 
that its replies would be sent to the WTO Secretariat in the near future.6  
31. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
I. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
32. The Chairman  recalled that the request for semi-annual reports covering the first half of 2004 
had been circulated to Members in document G/ADP/ N/119, dated 30 June 2004.  The reports were to 
have been submitted by 31 August 2004.  Most  Members taking actions had submitted semi-annual 
reports, although not all reports ha d been submitted by the deadline.  The Chairman hoped that there 
would be continued improvement in this respect.  Particularly for Members making a nil notification, 
reporting consisted simply of submitting a letter repor ting that no actions had been taken, once before 
the end of February and again before the end of  August.  Although there continued to be some 
problems in the formatting of reports, Members clearl y had made an effort to submit reports in the 
format established by the Committee, in the guidelines  set out in document G/ADP/1.  The Secretariat 
was always available to assist Members with questions about the format of reports.   
33. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports we re identified in paragraph 1 of document 
G/ADP/N/119/Add.1, dated 20 October 2004.  In add ition, Trinidad and Tobago also had submitted a 
semi-annual report, although it was not reflected in th at document.  To the extent possible, the semi-
annual reports had been translated and circulat ed to the Committee, and were included in the 
documents made available for the meeting.   
34. In addition to the Members submitting semi-annua l reports, a number of Members, listed in 
paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/119/Add.1, had notified the Committee that they had not taken 
any anti-dumping actions during the period in questi on.  In addition to those listed, Barbados had 
submitted such a notification too late to be included in that document   
35. While there appeared to be a degree of gene ral compliance with the obligation to submit 
semi-annual reports, or reports of no actions taken, there remained  a significant number of Members 
who had not submitted either type of report and t hus failed to comply with this aspect of the 
requirements set out in Article 16.4 of the Agreem ent.  These Members were identified in document 
G/ADP/N/119/Add.1 at paragraph 3.   The Chairman strongly urged all Members to comply with the 
requirement to submit semi-annual reports in a timely fashion in the future. 
36. The Committee then turned to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted. 
37. With respect to the semi-annual report of Argentina , the delegate of the United States  noted 
that a new definitive ad valorem  anti-dumping duty on imports of PVC suspension from the United 
                                                                                                                                                                     
4 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/46. 
5 G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/7. 
6 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/13 and Corr.1. G/ADP/M/27 
Page 6  
 
 States was reported.  He asked Argentina to conf irm that this anti-dumping duty rate  had been 
calculated as the result of an expiry review and to explain whether this rate would serve as a new 
prospective rate assessed on imports of PVC suspension from the United States. 
38. The delegate of Argentina
 requested the United States to provide this question in writing. 
39. Regarding the semi-annual report of Australia , the Australian  delegate stated that a 
clarification should be made in the course of this Committee meeting with respect to the investigation 
on imports of Steel plate, hot rolled, of a thickness > 4.75 mm from China, Indonesia and Japan.   
40. Regarding the semi-annual report of Canada , the delegate of Chinese Taipei  asked why data 
on trade volumes on imports from the Separate Cu stoms Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and 
Matsu were treated as confidential. 
41. The delegate of Canada  asked the Chinese Taipei to submit the question in writing.  
42. Regarding the semi-annual report of Korea , the delegate of the United States  noted that the 
anti-dumping duty rate associated with the provis ional measures that Korea had initiated against 
imports of lithium manganese dioxide batteries from the United States was absent from Korea's semi-annual report.  He asked Korea to identify the anti-dumping duty rate for these provisional measures. 
43. The delegate of Korea
 stated that there was no provisional measure taken on this product.  He 
informed the US Delegation that a final determin ation was made on this product, with a final anti-
dumping duty rate of 18.19% being imposed.  He stated  that this action would be reported in Korea's 
next semi-annual report, and that that action had duly been reported to the WTO under Article 16.4 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as re flected in document G/ADP/N/122. 
44. Regarding the semi-annual report of Mexico , the delegate of Chinese Taipei  stated that in the 
Regular Committee meeting of April 2004 his delega tion had registered its concern over Mexico's 
anti-dumping sunset investigation against baby  carriages imported from the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and Ch ina.  His delegation had stated that the sunset 
review initiated seven months after the end of the five years from the imposition of the duty might not be in conformity with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Chinese Taipei had consulted 
with Mexico on several occasions on this issue.  Unfortunately, his delega tion had not received any 
justification.  Mexico had decided on 21 May 2004, th at is 6 years and 14 days after the imposition of 
the initial measure, to extend the measure for anothe r 5 years.  Chinese Taipei wanted to advise the 
Mexican Government to promptly review this measu re in light of Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  Chinese Taipei reserved its right to  pursue this matter in the appropriate venue. 
45. The delegate of Mexico
 stated that his delegation remained  open to continue consultations on 
this matter.  Furthermore, Mexico would be  submitting a corrigendum to its semi-annual report.7  This 
was circulated as document  
46. Regarding the semi-annual report of Chinese Taipei , the delegate of Chinese Taipei  stated 
that the measure imposed on H-Beams from Australi a had been terminated.  A corrigendum had been 
sent to the WTO Secretariat.8 
47. No comments or questions were formulat ed regarding the semi-annual reports of Brazil , 
China , Costa Rica , Czech Republic , Egypt , European Communities , India , Indonesia , Israel , 
                                                      
7 G/ADP/N/119/MEX/Corr.1. 
8 G/ADP/N/119/TPKM/Corr.1.  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 7 
 
 
 Jamaica , Japan , Latvia , Lithuania , Malaysia , New Zealand , Peru, Philippines, Poland, South 
Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States , or Venezuela.  
48. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
J. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
49. The Chairman  noted that lists of the notifications  of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions received by the Committee had been  circulated to the Committee in documents 
G/ADP/N/117-118, and G/ADP/N/120-123.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary 
and final anti-dumping actions had been notified by Argentina, Australia, Canada, Egypt, the 
European Communities, India, Indonesia, Jamaica,  Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, 
Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey and the United States.  The Chairman stated that there continued to be a 
lack of full compliance in this area.  Some  Members who had subm itted semi-annual reports 
indicating actions in progress had not  submitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  If the 
Committee was to carry out its role in monitori ng and discussion actions taken by Members, it was 
extremely important that Members notify their measures as required by the Agreement.  The 
Chairman strongly urged all Members to comply with their notification requirements. 
50. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's statement.   
K. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF ACCESSION  OF 
THE  PEOPLE'S  REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  TRADE  ORGANIZATION 
51. The Chairman  recalled that Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization provides that all subsidiary bodies, including the 
ADP Committee, "which have a mandate coveri ng China's commitments under the WTO Agreement 
or [the] Protocol shall, within one year after a ccession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the 
implementation by China of the WTO Agreement and of  the related provisions of [the] Protocol."  He 
noted that China was to provide relevant informati on in advance of the review, including information 
specified in Annex 1A to the Protocol, and that Chin a can also raise issues relating to any reservations 
under Section 17 or to any other specific commitments made by other Members in the Protocol, in 
subsidiary bodies which have a relevant mandate.  The Committee must report the results of the 
review promptly to the Council for Trade in Goods.  Review is to take place after accession in each 
year for eight years, with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier date decided by the 
General Council.  The Chairman also recalled that  there are no procedures set out for the conduct of 
the transition review in the Protocol, except that Ch ina is to provide relevant information in advance 
of the review.   
52. The Chairman noted in this regard that there is  no information specified for submission to this 
Committee under Annex 1A.  He further noted that  Members had submitted questions and comments 
in the context of the transitional review by the Committee, and that these had been circulated in 
documents G/ADP/W/439 (submitted by the Europe an Communities), W/440 (submitted by Japan), 
W/441 (submitted by the United States), and W/ 442 (submitted by Chinese Taipei).   
53. Before turning to the questions posed by Memb ers, the Chair asked whether any Member had 
any general comments.   
54. The delegate of the United States9 stated that in the three year s since China had acceded to the 
WTO, China had expended a great deal of effort to  fashion an anti-dumping regime intended to satisfy 
its obligations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and its Protocol of Accession.  The goal of 
                                                      
9 The statement of the United States was circulated in docu ment G/ADP/W/443. G/ADP/M/27 
Page 8  
 
 the transitional review of the Committee, itself a pr ovision of China’s Protocol of Accession, is to 
allow Members to examine and report on China’s progress in meeting its obligations under the  
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  As of that point, China had made noteworthy strides in promulgating laws 
and regulations and building an administering author ity, but it still had much work to do.  China had 
quickly become one of the leading users of the an ti-dumping remedy – in the previous year China had 
imposed the second highest number of anti-dumping measures among all WTO Members.  However, 
China did not appear to have placed sufficient em phasis on the fundamental principles of transparency 
and fair procedures.  Transparency  and fair procedures form the co re of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
– in order to build a WTO-compliant anti-dumping regime, any Member must embrace those concepts and instil them in its administrative culture.  The United States wished to outline its principal 
observations and concerns.  
55. China modified the legal framework of its an ti-dumping regime in the wake of the 2003 
reorganization of China’s anti-dumping administer ing authority into the Ministry of Commerce 
("MOFCOM").  However, it was not clear from Chin a’s recently delivered response to the questions 
the United States posed in May 2004
10 which ministerial rules were still in force, which rules had 
been annulled and which rules had been modifi ed.  For example, it was the United States' 
understanding that as part of this overhaul, China also had revised its Foreign Trade Law.  To the 
United States' knowledge, these revisions had not been notified to the Committee for Members’ 
information and review.  The status of ministerial- level rules was even more problematic.  While the 
United States appreciated China’s recent notifica tion of its regulations pertaining to anti-dumping 
actions, it urged China to clarify in detail to the Committee the full set of rules, regulations and laws 
that currently governed its anti-dumping regime. 
56. In addition to issues surrounding the legal fra mework of China’s anti-dumping regime, the 
United States continued to be concerned about tran sparency in several aspects of China’s conduct of 
its investigations and reviews.   
57. A principal concern involved timely access to info rmation needed by interested parties to 
participate meaningfully in China’s anti-dumping investigations.  The United States appreciated 
MOFCOM’s efforts to make certain types of documents available to interested parties.  The Bureau of 
Fair Trade ("BOFT"), MOFCOM’s dumping investiga tion unit, maintained a public reading room in 
which it provided non-confidential versions of the petitions filed by Chinese domestic industries and 
most anti-dumping-related questionnaire responses s ubmitted by responding parties.  Furthermore, the 
United States understood that the BOFT generally made  available to responding parties a summary of 
the key facts and decisions underlying the agency ’s dumping margin determ inations, although the 
United States was concerned about the limited substa nce and detail revealed in those summaries.  The 
United States urged BOFT to go a step further and ma ke available in the public reading room, or at 
least to interested parties, summaries of meet ings between interested parties and agency  
decision-makers and to ensure that confidentia l documents not released were identified in 
comprehensive indices so that all parties knew of their existence. 
58. In contrast to the relative ease  of access to non-confidential versions of documents from the 
BOFT, the United States had serious concerns a bout the availability of information from the 
Investigation Bureau for Industry Injury ("IBII"),  MOFCOM’s injury arm.  As noted in China’s 
response to questions posed by the United States  in May 2004, the IBII had just recently begun 
placing documents in the BOFT public reading room.  However, based on a very recent visit by US 
Embassy officials, that reading room contained a limited number of documents pertaining to a limited 
number of China’s ongoing investigations, but hardly all of its proceedings.  Furthermore, interested 
parties, including responding parties and officials of the US Government, had been frustrated in their 
attempts to obtain from the IBII non-confidential vers ions of even basic documents, such as Chinese 
                                                      
10 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/46, 18 October 2004  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 9 
 
 
 industry responses to IBII questionnaires.  Unfort unately, the IBII often denied access to such 
documents, or it imposed impossible preconditions, su ch as requiring parties to identify the precise 
titles of the documents requested – despite the fact that there was no record available to a requesting 
party that listed the documents in the IBII’s possessi on.  This situation was exacerbated at an even 
more fundamental level.  To the knowledge of th e United States, the IBII had never disclosed to a 
responding party the essential facts under consideration as required by Article 6.9 of the Agreement.  
The United States intended to continue monitoring th is practice very closely but hoped that the IBII’s 
having recently placed in the public reading room so me documentation related to its current injury 
investigations was a signal that it intended to  make a broad move towards disseminating key 
information to interested parties on a timely basis. 
59. The timely availability of information, however, was only a first step.  Article 6 of the  
Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that non-confiden tial summaries of confidential documents must 
be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable unde rstanding of the substance of the information 
submitted in confidence.  Without access to conf idential information submitted to MOFCOM, it is 
essential to responding parties to have comprehens ive and informative non-confidential summaries in 
order to be able to mount an effective defence.   The United States noted that the quality of the  
non-confidential summaries China had made availabl e varied considerably, and urged China to 
enforce tighter standards. 
60. Furthermore, the United States was concerned that, in some cases, critical arguments or 
evidence put forward by interested parties had not b een addressed adequately in either preliminary or 
final determinations.  This problem  was especially prevalent in injury determinations.  Similarly, and 
again especially in injury determinations, many of  the conclusions MOFCOM reached did not appear 
to be supported by adequate evidence.  In many in stances, either no evidence was cited at all, or the 
evidence cited was not available to anyone except the administering authority.  Conclusory statements 
without evidentiary support do not constitute "p ositive evidence" within the meaning of the  
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In particular, details of the factual basis and reasoning supporting the 
investigating authority’s decisions as well as pe titioners’ allegati ons and briefs must be made 
available to all interested parties.    
61. Given the increasing number of investigations and reviews being undertaken by China, the 
United States urged China to apply fair procedures to  all parties to an investigation as envisioned by 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  For investigations a nd reviews, this includes, but is not limited to, 
timely access to administrators and favourable c onsideration of hearing requests, as embodied in 
Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The United States was aware of a number of delays in 
responding to requests to hold hearings requested by in terested parties.  The United States also noted 
with some concern the increased use of meetings othe r than formal hearings in some investigations 
and urged that interested parties not present be quickly informed of matt ers discussed at such 
meetings. 
62. The United States recognized the e fforts that China had made to inject transparency into its 
anti-dumping regime.  However, with three years of WTO membership behi nd it, China needed to 
redouble its efforts to ensure that its anti-dumpi ng system fully conformed to WTO rules.  The 
United States stood ready to assist China in these efforts and looked forward to seeing substantial 
improvements in the very near future.   
63. The delegate of China  stated, with regard to the meeting,  that China preferred to finish the 
agenda item during the morning session, because ther e was another transition review meeting going 
on in another Committee.  China hoped that the Me mbers would be understanding about finishing the 
meeting in the morning, to save time and avoid the conflict of the two meetings.  G/ADP/M/27 
Page 10  
 
 64. The Chairman
 responded that as long as the discussion could be finished in time, this would 
not pose any problem for the Chair.  He invited the delegation of China to take the floor to respond to 
the questions and comments submitt ed by the European Communities. 
65. The delegate of China  wished to present the Committee th e developments in the area of anti-
dumping of China since the review of the previous y ear.  Firstly, in terms of China's legislation on 
anti-dumping, China's legal framework in its regime  was based on the foreign trade law which was 
just amended on 6 April 2004 and came into effect as of 1 July of the same year.  Comparing to the 
old Foreign Trade Law, the amendment does not in clude many essential changes in the area of anti-
dumping.  The translation of the full text of this newly amended Foreign Trade Law was almost 
accomplished and would soon be subm itted to WTO for notification. 
66. On 31 March 2004 the State Council of Chin a issued its Decree No. 401 to amend the 
regulations of the People's Republic of China on an ti-dumping.  The amended regulations came into 
effect on 1 June 2004.  This amendment mainly i nvolved changes in the anti-dumping investigation 
and implementation brought by the recent Chine se Government restructure.  In addition the 
amendment also introduced adjustments in China' s investigation and implementation of anti-dumping 
measures in a manner more consistent with th e relevant WTO rules.  On 20 October 2004 the 
WTO Secretariat had circulated a notification of th e full text of this amended regulation submitted by 
China.  Secondly, on China's investigation and implementation of anti-dumping measures during the 
previous few years, China had initiated anti-dumpi ng investigations agains t nine imported products 
and had made preliminary determina tions on five products and final de terminations on three products.  
Since the first initiation of anti-dumping investig ations in December 1997, China had initiated  
anti-dumping investigations against a total of 33 im ported goods, all of which had been carried out in 
strict accordance with the anti-dumping regulatio n of China and with the WTO Agreement on  
Anti-Dumping Practices.  China sincerely believe d that the sole purpose of the Anti-Dumping 
measures should be to protect a balanced interna tional trading order, a fair competition environment 
as well as the rights and interests of the importing c ountries' domestic industries.  China believed that 
a target of anti-dumping investigations should only be the injury-causing imports priced below normal 
value.  As a major target of the anti-dumping invest igations China objected to any trade protectionism 
by means of anti-dumping measures, which China believe d would certainly do harm to the trade of all 
Members, especially that of the developing countries.   
67. The Chairman  recalled that the Committee was looki ng at the questions posed by the 
European Communities, and suggested  that for any future statements that China might be making on 
other replies, it would be appreciated if China could provide copies of their statements to the 
interpreters, as this would facilita te communication of their statements.  The Chairman asked the 
delegation of China if they wished to refer to the questions from the European Communities. 
68. The delegate of China  stated that a copy of the statement just made already had been given to 
the interpreter.  The delegate wished to respond to the questions raised to China, but to save time and 
also to avoid some overlapping questions, he intende d to respond to all of the questions relayed from 
the Members.  He apologized to the interpreters because the responses were going to be picked up 
from the various detailed regulations and rules, and he did not have a readily available copy of his 
statement.   
69. On the question regarding notification and rela ted matters of the Anti-Dumping Legislation, 
all of the current laws and regulations relati ng to anti-dumping practices under dates of issues and 
publications were available at the official website at the Ministry of Commerce.  To respond to the 
particular point raised in the opening statement of the representative of the United States, China's 
notification of Anti-Dumping Legislation reflected the latest development of the legislation.  One or 
two pieces of the legislation were not notified and th e reason was basically the burden of translation.  
As indicated, the translation of the revised Fore ign Trade Law was almost done and it would be  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 11 
 
 
 notified in a couple of weeks time.  The newly amended Regulations of the People's Republic of 
China on anti-dumping had already been notifie d to the WTO and the reference number was 
G/ADP/N/100/CHN.  As to the changes made in th ese legislations, they mainly reflected the recent 
Chinese Government restructure and could be identif ied easily when compared to the old version of 
the legislation.   
70. On the question of notification of the choice of  the time-period in making a determination of 
negligible import volumes, China had submitted its notification a couple of weeks earlier.  On the 
question relating to the responsibilities between the Ministry of Commerce and the Customs General 
Administration, the Ministry of Commerce was respons ible for the investigation and determination of 
anti-dumping cases and the Customs General Administ ration was responsible for the implementation 
of anti-dumping measures.  The regulations on anti-dumping of the People's Republic of China 
stipulated that the Customs General Administ ration implemented the anti-dumping measures in 
accordance with the anti-dumping determination noti ces issued by the Tariff Commission of the State 
Council and the Ministry of Commerce.  The Depart ment of Duty Collection and Administration in 
the Customs General Administration was the respons ible office for anti-dumping with the function of 
implementing the anti-dumping measure throughout  the customs offices across the country and 
resolving related problems in customs clearance.   
71. On the question relating to information discl osure, Chinese investigating authorities had 
always attached great importance to the informati on disclosure and transparency requirements.  The 
investigation authorities had enacted the interim rules on information disclosure in anti-dumping 
investigations and the interim rules on access to pub lic information in anti-dumping investigations.  
The two rules had been notified to the Committee.   Information of the investigations was duly 
disclosed in line with the provisions set forth in th e two rules.  And the interest of every concerned 
party were effectively protected.  While China c ould understood the concern expressed by one of the 
Members in this regard on some specific case s, China also recognize the requirement to 
"appropriately protect the confidential information"  as identified in Article 6 and Article 12 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On that consideration th e authorities would not be in a position to release 
in the public notice some of the data used to de termine the dumping margin which was classified as 
commercial secrets.  However, the analysis of the data and the final determination were included in 
the public notice.  Furthermore, it needed to be underlined that Chinese authorities had always abided 
by the requirements identified in Articles 3, 6 a nd 12 identified by the Agreement.  Apart from the 
explanation of the public notice, the method and data employed in the calculation of the dumping 
margin were also provided to each and every ente rprise under investigation.  Sufficient opportunities 
for comment were also provided to the enterprises.  Chinese authorities were also ready to listen to 
comments from enterprises on the issue of informa tion released.  On the question regarding essential 
facts, according to the interim rules on the info rmation disclose in anti-dumping investigations, the 
essential facts included the following information:  with respect to normal value they included the 
establishment of normal value submit the transaction data and adjusted data in calculation of the 
normal value, data rejected in calculation of a norma l value and a reason for the rejection, etc.  With 
respect to export prices they included the establishment of export prices submitted with transaction data and adjustments of the data used in calculation of export prices, data rejected in calculation of the 
export prices and the reasons for the rejection, etc.  With respect to costs they included the data for the 
establishment of cost of production, allocation method for various expenses and data adopted, 
estimate of profits, establishment of abnormal or non -recurring items, etc.  They also included use of 
best information available and facts available and th e reasons, but with confidential information of all 
interested parties excluded.  They also in cluded the methodologies where calculation of dumping 
margins and other information the investigatin g authorities consider necessary to disclose.  
Considerations and interpretations of the data, which is the question of one of the Members, may be 
considered as essential facts.  And also access to the file could also be a part of the disclosure of 
essential facts.    G/ADP/M/27 
Page 12  
 
 72. On the question regarding the measures fo r accessing the anti-dumping public information 
access room, the measures mentioned were firstly issued  by the former Minister of Foreign Trade and 
Economic Cooperation and reissued after the establis hment of the Ministry of Commerce, and was 
still working.  Information on injury investigations could also be accessed in the same reading room.  
MOFCOM's public reading room for anti-dumping inv estigation and reviews was the official place 
for all interested parties to have access to the public information on both dumping and injury 
investigations.  MOFCOM maintained a public inde x for all documents for the public, in the public 
reading room.  For the confidential materials, MO FCOM maintained an index of all documents only 
used by investigating authorities.  On the length of  time to make available documents relating to the 
dumping phase of the anti-dumping investigation, pub lic documents would be placed in the reading 
room immediately after receipt.  When relating to the injury phase of anti-dumping investigations the 
information would be placed in the reading room within 10 working days after the authorities obtain 
or generate them. 
73. For the ongoing cases involving US exporters, all the public documents relating to the cases 
had been put in the public reading room and were re adily accessible for all interested parties related to 
specific anti-dumping cases.  MOFCOM also provided the public version of written applications for 
initiation of the anti-dumping cases to the Govern ment of the exporting Members according to 
Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Up until  that time, all public documents related to the 
anti-dumping cases had been put in the public reading room and were available to all interested parties relating to the specific anti-dumping cases in a timely manner.  Public information was 
provided to interested parties in strict accordan ce with the two rules on public information, as 
mentioned before.   
74. On the treatment of confidential information th e authorities would examine the request of the 
confidentiality and its explanation for good cause.  The examination would be based on evidence 
provided by interested parties.  Whether the in formation was considered  confidential depended on 
whether its disclosure would be of significant comp etitive advantage to a competitor or whether its 
disclosure would have a significantly adverse effect  upon a person supplying the information or on a 
person from whom that person acquired the information.  If the information had already been made public legally it would not be cons idered as confidential any longer. 
75. As to the requests for confidentiality posed by foreign parties, they were fully respected by 
the investigating authorities.  As a matter of fact th e confidential information in all the cases that had 
been submitted by the interested parties had never b een disclosed or used elsewhere, other than in the 
investigations.   
76. On the on-spot visit at domestic industry – in a ll the investigations initiated to that point, the 
authorities had conducted on-spot verification of th e domestic industry before making the preliminary 
determination.  Such a practice was likely to continue  in the future in good faith.  Verifications were 
conducted with the procedure in accordance with the requirements for data veri fications of domestic 
industries in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
77. In regard to use of facts available, the Chin ese authorities used facts available in cases where 
interested parties refused access to or otherwise did not provide the necessary information within a 
reasonable period, or significantly impeded the inv estigation.  Use of facts available depended on 
specific situations and the conditions of a specific case.  In line with Annex 2 of the WTO  Anti-Dumping Agreement, if the evidence or in formation was not accepted, the supplying party 
would be informed and given an opportunity to provide further explanations by the 
Chinese authorities.  On-spot visit was carried out to  prove supplied information or evidence.  Some 
evidence or information favourable to the investigat ed company or enterprise would be verified and 
accepted.  As a result the definitive duty levels mi ght be lower than the provisional ones imposed on 
the basis of facts available which was unfavourable to the enterprise.  The authorities do not rule out  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 13 
 
 
 the possibility of conducting on-spot visits prior to the imposition of provisiona l measures.  It depends 
on the specific situation and conditions of the investigation in a specific case.   
78. On judicial review, pursuant to Articles 14 a nd 17 of the Law of the People's Republic of 
China on State procedure, the first trial of an admi nistrative case in relation to anti-dumping was to be 
heard by the Second Intermediate Court of Be ijing.  Also pursuant to the law of China on 
administrative procedures and the judicial interpre tation of the Supreme People's Court on certain 
issues concerning the application of law, on hearin g anti-dumping administrative cases, all interested 
parties were equally entitled to the judicial right s of filing a case, entrusting representatives providing 
evidence, debate before the court, accepting the ju dgement, appeals, and applying for endorsement, 
etc.  On the notification of this judicial interp retation, China was finalizing the translation, which 
would be notified in the coming months. 
79. On the issue of legal representation on anti-dumping cases, this was an issue of trade in 
services in nature.  The current requirement of China in this regard was consistent with the specific 
commitments made on legal services as contained in China's Services Schedule.  As far as China was 
aware, such a requirement was not only maintained by China but also by a lot of other Members.  As 
to whether there would be any change of this practice,  this was an issue to be dealt with in Services 
Negotiations.   
80. As to the comment of a Member on China's practice regarding cumulative assessment, if one 
looked into the facts, it was not true that authorities cumulatively assessed imports without demonstrating by positive evidence that the volume of imports from each country was not negligible.  
In all the anti-dumping cases initiated by China, th e authorities did conduct serious examinations on 
the volume of imports of every interested country  in accordance with the ev idence and data provided 
by interested enterprises in order to confirm whether the volume was negligible.  The practice of the 
Chinese investigating authorities in conducting cumula tive assessments were in full consistency with 
Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  When the import volume from certain countries was determined to be negligible the investigations were terminated in a manner consistent with the 
requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  If th e Member concerned looked carefully into the 
cases notified to the Committee, it would find that  strict examination on whether the volume of 
imports was negligible was a common practice of the investigating authorities of China.  Secondly, the Member's statement that Chinese authorities conducted its investigation on condition of 
competition without any reason was also not true at a ll.  As stated in the notices cited by the Member, 
the investigating authorities of China always took into consideration physical and chemical 
characteristics, structure of raw materials, pr oduction process and also use of the products under 
investigation.  When examining the above elemen ts the authorities usually consulted experts who 
were completely neutral for advice.  China also noticed that the Working Group on Implementation of 
the Committee was discussing the draft paper regard ing the practice to be followed in cumulative 
assessment of imported products.   
81. China was willing to exchange views with othe r Members as to how to improve examination 
in this regard, but believed that there was no ground to say that the investigating authorities of China 
did not meet the requirements of positive evidence, and an objective examination in Article 3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In fact China's practic e was in strict accordan ce to the WTO rules and 
domestic legislation.  Therefore, China did not accept this allegation.  As to the issue of like product 
the facts also were not as commented by the Me mber.  The investigating authorities of China had 
always observed Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agre ement when determining like product.  It was 
well acknowledged that determina tion on products in anti-dumping investigations was a complex 
issue subject to further discussion.  In the process of determining like-product in every investigation, the investigating authorities of China carefully examin ed its physical characteristics, and users of the 
product made explanations thereof in the determinati on.  The situation referred to by the Member did 
not exist at all.  China therefore kindly advi sed the Member to make comments based on solid G/ADP/M/27 
Page 14  
 
 evidence and facts of individual cases.  On the speci fic case of dispersion single mode optical fibre, 
even before the comments were made by the Me mbers, the Chinese investigating authority had 
listened to reports and comments on this issue from the interested parties, and was working on a 
solution.  As always the investigating authorities in China had granted the right, in that particular case, 
to interested parties to comment and protect their own interests. 
82. Lastly was the question on the inquiry point.  The website was being r econstructed but this 
inquiry point, establishing the Ministry of Commerce, is working properly.  Inquiries could be sent to 
the inquiry point by fax or mail at the follo wing address which was the WTO Notification and 
Enquiry Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce of Ch ina, at 2 East China Street, Beijing.  The fax 
number was 00681065197340. 
83. China had faithfully prepared detailed responses to a number of the questions in a good spirit 
of cooperation and did not want to prolong the meeting, but hoped that the responses were satisfactory 
to Members who had raised these questions. 
84. The delegate of the United States
 stated that his delegation continued to believe that the 
transition review was a very useful exercise both for China and other Members.  It allowed Members 
to have their questions and concerns addressed, it helped Members to assess China's implementation 
progress, and it also clarified areas of agreement or disagreement.  The United States appreciated 
China's detailed responses to its questions and ha d just a few clarifications that it sought.   
85. The United States thanked the Chinese delegation for the efforts that they were making to 
implement transparency in their system.  The answer that was given regarding the types of 
information that both the BOFT and IBII would eventually be providing as part of their disclosure of 
essential facts was well-taken.  To the United St ates' knowledge, IBII had never as of that point 
disclosed essential facts to responding parties and th e United States asked if that was correct, and if 
not, whether the delegation of China could indicate cases where the IBBI had disclosed essential facts 
to responding parties. 
86. Also in response to China's answer about th e placement of documents in its public reading 
room, the United States was pleased that the IBBI had begun to do so, but as noted in the opening 
statement of the United States, this appeared more to represent China's goal in cases involving the 
United States rather than complete fact.  Given that  this did not yet reflect the actual situation, the 
United States asked what steps MOFCOM was taki ng to ensure that adequate non-confidential 
versions of all information subm itted to, or generated by MOFCOM, in the future would be made 
available to parties on a timely basis.   
87. The delegate of Japan  appreciated China's having provided informative answers to Japan's 
questions, and wished to raise some pr eliminary comments on the answers.   
88. Regarding the answer to question one, as far as Japan had read in the final or preliminary 
determinations of the recent AD investigations such as TDI and optical fibre, there were no 
disclosures in those determinations regarding how the authority made analysis of the condition of 
competition between imported goods an d domestic products, and why the authority concluded that the 
cumulative assessment was appropriate in light of th e conditions of competition.  If China truly made 
this analysis in detail as answered in the meeting,  Japan requested China to make adequate disclosure 
of this analysis in the preliminary and final determinations.   
89. Regarding the answer to Japan's question four, Japan appreciated China's efforts to resolve 
this problem.  Japan had heard that China had made  a public notice to resolve the problem but also 
had heard that Japanese respondents were still facing the problem of the implementation of the public  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 15 
 
 
 notice because the public notice so far has not be en implemented by Chinese customs and other 
relevant authorities.  Japan hoped that China w ould quickly resolve this remaining problem. 
90. Finally, all of the questions raised were very technical, so to correctly inform other personnel 
in the capital of China's answers, Japan would hi ghly appreciate China's providing a written copy of 
its oral statement.   
91. The delegate of the European Communities  thanked China for the answers given and its 
efforts made to reply to the questions and comme nts.  That being said, the EC found itself in a 
particularly difficult situation for two reasons:  first,  the replies to the questions had not been provided 
in writing which made it difficult to note the answers and to see to what extent the questions had been 
replied to.  The EC had submitted its  questions more than one month be fore and considered this to be 
sufficiently in advance to allow China to provide written replies to the questions.  The second problem 
was that China had replied to four sets of questions in one general reply.  This also made it difficult 
not only for the EC but also for other Members to identify which answer corresponded to which 
question and whether ultimately all the questions had been replied to.  The EC thus requested, as had 
Japan, that China provide written answers.  China had made considerable efforts in preparing the 
replies so it would be beneficial to all to receive them in written form.  If this could not be done for 
the four sets of questions, the common reply whic h had been presented orally could perhaps be 
circulated in writing.   
92. The delegate of China thanked the three dele gations that had made follow-up questions.  
Regarding the questions from the United States, in the detailed oral responses China had provided the 
answer that its investigating authority had enacted th e two rules with regard to information disclosure.  
Before coming from Beijing for the meeting the delegate  had been told by the investigating authority 
that China's practices with regard to the info rmation disclosure were conducted in line with the 
provisions of the two rules and also that the aut hority believed that this was consistent with the 
requirements of the WTO ADA.  The delegate took note of the comments, which he certainly would transfer back to the inves tigating authority of China. 
93. With regard to the comment from Japan, the de legate could certainly transfer the comment 
back, but on the last point, which also was echoed by the delegation of the EC, regarding the written 
copy of the responses, the delegate did not want to waste the time of the Members, but thought that it 
had been made very clear that it was the position of Ch ina that with regard to the TRM, as said in the 
Chairman's opening statement, there was no procedur e.  It had been clear that the Chinese delegation 
had always been not in the position to provide a written paper.  In that regard, he encouraged 
Members to have exchanges with China's dele gation through the other agenda items of the 
Committee.  China believed that that already pr ovided enough possibilitie s or opportunities for 
bilateral exchanges of views under which China be lieved it could also provide all the answers in 
written form.   
94. Turning to the Committee's report on transitional review, the Chairman
 recalled that there are 
no guidelines for this in China's Protocol of Accession,  and that in the past, the Chair acting on his or 
her own responsibility had prepared a brief factual report with references to the documents concerned 
and attaching the portion of the minutes of the me eting which related to the transitional review.11  The 
Chairman asked Members whether the same proce dure could be followed for this review.   
95. The Committee so decided .  
                                                      
11 The Chairman's report to the Council for Trade in Goods was ci rculated in document G/ADP/13. G/ADP/M/27 
Page 16  
 
 L. C
HAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION .   
96. The Chairman  reported that the Working Group on Implementation had met on 
27 October 2004.  He reported that the Group had ha d a useful further round of discussions on three 
of the four topics that were referred to it by the Committee at its Spring 2003 meeting.  Although only 
four Members had submitted papers, and only on three of the four new topics, the discussion 
nonetheless had been interesting and useful in enabling Members to better understand the issues 
involved and the practices of various Member s.  Several Members had noted as a welcome 
development that three of the four papers pr esented at the meeting had come from developing 
Members that were relatively new users of an ti-dumping measures.  Other developing Members, 
particularly those who had active anti-dumping mech anisms, had been strongly encouraged to submit 
additional papers for future meetings of the Group, and to participate actively in the discussions at the 
meetings.  The Chairman encouraged all Members, and in particular those Members that had not previously submitted papers on the topics before the Working Group, to do so.  The Working Group's 
meetings, attended by technical experts in the an ti-dumping area, provided a congenial forum for the 
exchange of information about national practices in anti-dumping.  Members were urged to take 
advantage of the opportunities offered by these meetings. 
97. Concerning the further work of the Group, in light of the small number of papers submitted 
for recent meetings the Chairman had suggested th at Members might consider whether it would be 
appropriate to start discussions on the possibility of  adding additional topics to the Group's agenda.  
Several Members had indicated that they were  open to this proposal, depending on the topics 
proposed for discussion.  Several Members had noted that broader participation by Members in the 
discussions was also important, and that this might be  more useful than the addition of new topics to 
the agenda.   
98. Following the discussion, the Group had agreed th at the Chairman should conduct informal 
consultations on options to ensure a broader participation in the discussions.  The Secretariat had been 
requested to compile a document containing a list of  all of the topics referred to the Group by the 
Committee, and of the papers submitted on each of t hose topics, and also listing the topics that had 
been proposed for discussion but not agreed to, an d which therefore had not been referred to the 
Group for discussion.   
99. The next meeting of the Informal Group was sc heduled for the period 5-8 April 2005, and the 
deadline for submissions for that meeting was 22 Febr uary 2005.  Members were urged to respect this 
deadline, to allow the Secretariat to translate and circulate the submissions before the meetings.  
Delegations and capital-based expe rts thus would have time to study the submissions in their 
preferred WTO language and to prepare consider ed responses, which would enhance the Working 
Group's discussions. 
100. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement. 
M. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
101. The Chairman  reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met on 
27 October 2004.  At its meeting, the Group had considered one new paper, which described one 
Member's experience in a case involving the imposition of an anti-dumping measure on paint brushes, and subsequent events, and proposed a possible appro ach to deal with such situations.  The ensuing 
discussion had been very lively and insightful.  The Chairman had stated that as the paper was 
submitted only shortly before the meeting, it would be  included on the agenda of the next meeting for 
further consideration.  It also had been suggested th at Members consider the specific facts of the paint 
brushes case, with reference to the questions set out in the agreed-upon framework for the Group's 
discussions (G/ADP/M/110, paragraph 110).  Members ha d been urged to address the matter either in  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 17 
 
 
 written submissions, or orally at the next meeting of the Group.  Finally, one Member had raised the 
question whether, and if so how, Members notifie d the initiation of anti-circumvention enquiries, 
without prejudice to the form of any such enquiri es.  Several Members had responded to the question, 
and had addressed the issue of notifications in general.   
102. Regarding the future work of the Group, the Chairman had stated that it was clear from the 
discussions that Members continued to find the Group a useful forum, and that the work in the Group 
thus would continue as in the past. 
103. The next meeting of the Informal Group would be  held during the period 5-8 April 2005.  The 
deadline for submissions for that  meeting was 23 February 2005.12  Members were urged to make 
maximum efforts to respect this deadline, so that  the Secretariat could translate and circulate the 
submissions in time for delegations and capital-b ased experts to study in their preferred WTO 
language and prepare considered responses,  which would enhance the discussions.  
104. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's statement.    
N. OTHER BUSINESS  
(i) United States – Proper understanding of Annex D of the Committee's Annual Report – 
Avoiding a Misunderstanding of the Number of Preliminary and Final Actions Notified 
105. The delegate of the United States  drew Members' attention to the table contained in Annex D 
of the Committee's draft report.  This table compar ed the number of provision al and final measures 
reported in semi-annual reports with the number of  preliminary and final actions which had been 
provided to the Secretariat under Article 16.4.  The number reported for the United States under "Action Notified" should not be misinterpreted.  Th e United States made it a practice of providing the 
Secretariat with all public notices relating to anti-dumping proceedings.  Thus, the high number of 
notices reported for the United States included not only  notices of what were normally considered to 
be preliminary and fina l determinations but also notices of initiations, deadline extensions, 
amendments of determinations, and many other actions taking place in the course of anti-dumping 
investigations and reviews.  The United States und erstood that in putting this table together the 
Secretariat counted all of these notices together ra ther than attempting to make the potentially 
controversial decision of whic h notices constituted preliminary and final actions.  Under no 
circumstances should Members misinterpret this table to mean that the United States actually 
undertook the number of measures listed in the last co lumn of this table.  Looking over the table, it 
appeared that several other Members were in the same position.  For example, the United States noted 
the high number of notices from the EC recorded in  Annex D; however, upon review of these notices 
it was apparent that the EC also followed a policy of reporting all significant notices so that Members 
could be fully informed of the progress of its proc eedings.  The United States found this to be an 
admirable policy which should be emulated by all Me mbers.  On the other hand, the news contained 
in Annex D was not all good.  For example, although Korea had become a significant user of this trade remedy instrument, as revealed by its own semi-annual reports, Annex D showed that Korea had 
only provided under Article 16.4 one-third of thei r preliminary and final determinations.  For 
example, a determination had been made in the cas e of Choline Chloride from the United States but it 
appeared that notice of the determination ha d not yet been provided under Article 16.4.   
106. On another matter, it appeared that notifications  of China's determina tions under Art. 16.4 had 
not been picked up by the Secretariat's summari es since May 2004.  The United States requested the 
Secretariat to review this matter and, if necessary,  issue a corrigendum to reflect any determinations 
notified by China.   
                                                     
 
12 See G/ADP/W/444. G/ADP/M/27 
Page 18  
 
 107. Finally, while there were no rules in this re gard, some Members had adopted a practice of 
notifying a large number of notices once or twice each year.  The United States believed it would allow Members to better follow the progress of procee dings if those Members made such notifications 
on a regular basis. 
108. Regarding the US comment about the difference in  the figures in Korea's report, the delegate 
of Korea
 indicated preliminarily that in his view the United States had misunderstood the figures.  The 
figure in column three consisted of all of the measures country-by-country.  Usually, one measure 
included several importing countries.  Under the fo urth column – the preliminary and final actions 
notified under Article 16.4 – Korea notified acti ons based on products.  An action on one product 
could affect several importi ng countries.  That explained the differe nce in the numbers in the report.  
Unlike the United States' and European Communiti es' notification practice, Korea notified only 
preliminary and final actions under Article 16.4.  T hus, Korea did not provide any other decisions, for 
example, review decisions, initiation decisions. 
109. The delegate of China  stated that he had taken note of the US concern.  Like the United 
States, China felt that statistics were an important tool for Members to examine the current situation 
of anti-dumping measures.  Concerning the question posed by the United States regarding preliminary 
and final actions, China had notified them to the WTO in October. 
110. The delegate of the European Communities  shared the view expressed by the United States 
that the figure reported in the column on the right of Annex D might be misunderstood.  The EC was 
also concerned that data as reported were not so meaningful because they were not comparable.  The 
EC was not suggesting that Members should become l ess transparent, nor that they should not report 
all of these other actions.  The EC rather encour aged other Members to follow a harmonised practice 
with all Members reporting the same things, so  that the data would become comparable. 
111. With regard to Korea's comments, the delegate of the United States  asserted that his 
delegation did not know how multiple country cases were counted.  The United States also had 
multiple country cases and from looking at the statistic s, the US understanding was that each of those 
countries had been counted as a separate notice of  preliminary and final determination.  The 
delegation referred to Korea's semi-annual report to the effect that on 20 May 2004, Korea had issued 
a preliminary determination on Choline Chloride  from the United States.  Turning to the WTO 
Secretariat reports of information provided under Art.  16.4, that is to say reports in G/ADP/N/117, 
118, 120, 121, 121/Corr.1, 122 and 123, that partic ular provisional measure had never been reported 
to the Secretariat under Article 16.4. 
112. The Chairman  requested the Secretariat to explain how information contained in Annex D 
was collected and reported. 
113. The Secretariat  explained that information in the first two columns, that is provisional 
measures and final measures as reported in the semi- annual reports, was simply a count from the 
semi-annual reports of new provisi onal measures imposed and new final measures imposed during the 
period.  That count did not include review proceed ings.  The third column simply summed that up.  
Regarding the third column, the Secretariat counted the exporting country or customs territory and the 
product as one each time. 
114. The delegate of Korea  asserted that there was a missing report in the Secretariat's summary 
and that he would check this point and get back to the United States.   
115. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/ADP/M/27 
 Page 19 
 
 
 O. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
116. The Chairman  noted that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that 
regular meetings normally would be held in the last week of April and the last week of October.  The 
SCM Committee had the same schedule, as did the Safeguards Committee.  The Committee agreed to 
dates for the spring 2005 meetings of the Committee and its subsidiary bodies.   
117. Subsequent to the meeting, the meeting dat es were changed, to 5-8 April 2005.  This 
rescheduling was necessitated by a change in the availability of meeting rooms because of a public 
symposium to be held from 20-22 April 2005.  As  a result of the change in the dates of the 
Committee's meetings, the deadlines for submission of  documentation also were adjusted, as reflected 
in the relevant sections of the minutes, above.13   
P. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
118. The Chairman  recalled that, pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 
Committee was required to review annually the im plementation and operation of the Agreement, 
taking into account the objectives thereof, and to in form annually the Council for Trade in Goods of 
developments during the period covered by the review .  Copies of a draft report had previously been 
made available to Members for comment. 
119. The Committee adopted  the annual report.14 
120. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
13 See G/ADP/W/444. 
14 This report was circulated as document G/L/707.