. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/Q2/CHN/5 
17 November 2010 
 (10-6128) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES
 
Regarding the Semi Annual Report from CHINA1 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 15 November 2010, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States.  
_______________ 
 
 
Question 1 
 
 In the investigation of polyamide-6 from the United States, China's semi-annual report 
identifies the range of provisional dumping margin s as 29.3 to 36.2 percent and the provisional all-
others rate as 96.5 per cent.  The preliminary determination, issued on 19 October 2009, announced 
provisional dumping margins ranging from 30.4 to 36. 2 per cent and an all-ot hers rate of 36.2 per 
cent.  The United States raised this discrep ancy at the Spring Committee meeting and China 
subsequently submitted a corrected semi-annual re port (G/ADP/N/195/CHN/Corr.1).  The correction 
is also included in China's recently submitte d revised report for the period July through 
December 2009 (G/ADP/N/195/CHN/Rev.1), but the e rror appears in China's semi-annual report for 
the period January through June 2010.    
• Does China intend to revise its current semi-a nnual report to reflect the correct provisional 
dumping margins and all-others rate in the antidumping investigation involving polyamide-6? 
 Question 2 
 
 In June 2010, China announced the initiation of an expiry review of antidumping duties on 
hydrazine hydrate from the United States, Japan, Korea and France;  however, China's semi-annual 
report does not reflect this initiation.    
• Can China please confirm that the initiation of  this expiry review occurred during the 
reporting period?  If so, does China intend to revise its semi-annual report to reflect the 
initiation of the expiry review of hydrazine hydrate? 
 
Question 3 
  With regard to the antidumping investigation of imports of optical fiber from the 
United States, we note that, on 1 January 2010, Chin a terminated an anti-dumping order on imports of 
optical fiber from the United States.  However, less than four months later, on 22 April 2010, China 
initiated a new anti-dumping investigation of the same optical fiber imports from the United States.  
                                                     
 
1 G/ADP/N/202/CHN.   G/ADP/Q2/CHN/5 
Page 2  
 
  This initiation occurred even though the petition it self acknowledges that, between 2006 and 2009, the 
domestic industry's performance dramatically im proved in terms of capacity, output, capacity 
utilization, sales volume, market share, sales revenue,  before-tax profit, rate of return, cash flow, 
employment, and labor productivity.  In an atte mpt to overcome this evidence of the domestic 
industry's robust performance, the petition vaguely refe rs to certain unspecified "hidden troubles" and 
speculates that "[s]ubject imports will flow into China at an extremely low price in the near future".  
Yet, there is no evidence in the petition that subject imports had any significant adverse impact on the domestic industry during the 2006-2009 period.  Petitioners also provided no evidence that a 
continuation of the trends exhibited by subject  imports over the 2006-2009 period would impact the 
domestic industry any differently in the imminent futu re, or that these trends are likely to change in 
the imminent future so as to create a threat of mate rial injury.  In light of the compelling evidence 
contradicting the petitioners' injury allegations, the United States urges China to terminate this 
investigation at the preliminary determination stage.     The United States is also concerned by the lack of transparency of China's procedures thus far 
in the pending anti-dumping investigation of imports of optical fiber from the United States.  Many of 
the petitioners' injury allegations appear to rely la rgely on information presented in a report "issued by 
a prestigious domestic fiber industry association", but neither the petitioners nor MOFCOM disclosed 
sufficient details of the report to enable responde nts to understand the data or the methodologies used 
in the compilation of the report.  Indeed, they do not even identify the associ ation that authored the 
report.  As China is aware, US respondents are en titled to "a full opportunity for the defense of their 
interests", under Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and "timely opportunities to see all 
information that is relevant to the presentation of their cases", under Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  The United States also would remind Ch ina of its obligation, under Article 6.6 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, that is, "to satisfy [itself]  as to the accuracy of the information supplied by 
interested parties upon which their findings are based".   
 
• Please explain how MOFCOM will adhere to  its transparency obligations under the 
Antidumping Agreement, particularly with rega rd to the report relied on by petitioners to 
support their injury allegations.   
  
__________