. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/W/468 
7 October 2008 
 (08-4752) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 18 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION 
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions from JAPAN to 
 
the PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA  
   The following communication, dated 6 October 2008, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Japan.   
 
_______________ 
 
  For the seventh Transitional Re view Mechanism for the People's Republic of China (China), 
Japan hereby submits following questions in adva nce of the regular meeting of the Committee of 
Anti-Dumping Practices.  Japan looks forward to  having clear and full responses from China.   
 
1. Application of the facts available 
 The Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) applies the "facts available" in the calculation of a 
margin of dumping for all other exporters or produ cers that have been unknown to the investigating 
authority and that have not been provided the noti ce of initiation or full text of the petitioner's written 
application.  In the previous transitional reviews, Japan voiced concern that this application of facts 
available might run counter to Article 6.8 an d paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement (ADA).  An explanation given by China last year was following:    
"The investigating authority informed all in terested parties of the information required 
and, throughout an investigation, interest ed parties were given ample opportunity to 
submit evidence and materials and to make rel evant comments.  As had been indicated 
in previous transitional reviews, the Chinese anti-dumping practices were not inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t.  All interested parties, including the 
unregistered parties could, through their governments or from the Chinese official 
website or other means, gain access to th e questionnaire and then submit it."   
 
 In many cases, however, parties who can ga in access to the questionnaire from China's 
official website or other means are limited to t hose exporters or producers that have already been 
known to the investigating authority and that ha ve been provided the notice of initiation in the 
respondent-registration procedure in China's anti-dumpi ng investigation.  Therefore other exporters or 
producers that have been unknown to the investigati ng authority and that have not been provided the 
notice of initiation therefore can exist, and for such exporters or producers, it is difficult to obtain information on the investigation.  In this case the inve stigating authority fails to  ensure that any such 
unknown exporters or producers are aware that if th e required information is not supplied within a 
reasonable time, the investigating authority will be free to make determinations on the basis of the G/ADP/W/468 
Page 2  
 
  facts available.  Could China please explain how the MOFCOM's practice of applying the facts 
available to the exporters and producers that ar e unknown to the investigating authority can be 
justified, in the light of Article 6.8 and paragra ph 1 of Annex II of the ADA and related practices of 
other WTO members.    2. Injury Determinations 
 Regarding injury determinations, MOFCOM fa ils to assess the injurious effects of other 
known factors appropriately and did not separate and distinguish the injurious effects of those other 
factors from the injurious effects of the dumped imports.  Last year Japan voiced a concern that 
MOFCOM's injury determination in the investiga tion on electrolytic capacitor paper originating in 
Japan might run counter to Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of  the ADA.  China responded that as could be found 
in the final determination, MOFCOM had analyzed  the causality between dumped imports and injury 
and had addressed all other factors that might have had caused injury.     However, in MOFCOM's final determination in that case (issued on 17 April 2007) and 
MOFCOM's response to the related concern that Japan  had raised in the course of the procedure, it 
can only be found that MOFCOM merely compared the volume of imports from Japan with the volume of imports from Germany and the United Stat es.  The final determination simply concluded 
that those imports from Germany and the United St ates had little effect on injury, without sufficient 
and reasonable explanations as to how the investig ating authority had separated and distinguished the 
injurious effects of those imports from Japan fro m the injurious effects of those imports from 
countries and areas other than Japan.   
  Could China please explain the details of the analytical methodology for injury determinations that MOFCOM uses, taking in to account the Appellate Body's ruling in US – Anti-
Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184/AB/R). 
 
  
__________