WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/ADP/M/41 
22 December 2011 
 (11-6857) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 24 - 25 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Chair:  Mr. Subhas Gujadhur (Mauritius) 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 24 -
 25 October 2011.  2. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3736: 
 
A.  N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) ............................................................................................................ 2  
1.  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.5) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.6-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.6) ................................................... 2  
2.  Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3–G/SCM /N/1/ECU/3–G/SG/N/1/ECU/5) ................................ 2  
3.  Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.7–G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.7).......................................... 2  
4.  Korea (G/ADP/N/1/KOR/6) ..................................................................................................... 2  
5.  Kuwait (G/ADP/N/1/KWT/1-G/SCM/N /1/KWT/1-G/SG/N/1/KWT/1) ............................... 2  
B.  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) ..................................... 3  
C.  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  ............................................................... 17  
D.  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  ............................. 18  
E.  CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  ............................................................................................................. 24  
F.  CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  ............. 24  
G.  OTHER BUSINESS  ...................................................................................................................... 24  
H.  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  .................................................................................. 26  
I.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................ 26  
J.  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)................................ 26  
 G/ADP/M/41 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION 
OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING 
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) 
1. Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.5) and 
(G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.6-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.6) 
3. The written questions concerning the notifications of Brazil  could be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/14–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/14 – Submitted by the United States 
 4. The written answers to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BRA/15–G/SCM/Q1/BRA/15 – Replies to the United States  
 
2. Ecuador (G/ADP/N/1/ECU/3–G/SCM/N/1/ECU/3–G/SG/N/1/ECU/5) 
5. The written questions concerning the notification of Ecuador  could be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/ECU/12–G/SCM/Q1/ECU/12–G/SG/Q1/E CU/5 – Submitted by the United States 
 6. The written answers to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ECU/13–G/SCM/Q1/ECU/13–G/SG/Q1/ECU/6 – Replies to the United States  
 
3. Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.7–G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.7) 
7. No written questions concerning the notification of Japan  were posed by any Member. 
4. Korea (G/ADP/N/1/KOR/6) 
8. No written questions concerning the notification of Korea  were posed by any Member. 
5. Kuwait (G/ADP/N/1/KWT/1-G/SCM/N/1/KWT/1-G/SG/N/1/KWT/1) 
9. The written questions concerning the notification of Kuwait  could be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/KWT/1–G/SCM/Q1/KWT/1–G/SG/Q1/KWT /1 – Submitted by the United States 
 10. The written answers to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/KWT/2–G/SCM/Q1/KWT/2–G/SG/Q1/KWT/2 – Replies to the United States 
 
11. Before concluding this agenda item, the Ch air made a statement regarding previously 
reviewed legislative notifications.  The Chai r reminded Members that, in accordance with the 
procedures agreed upon by the Committee (G/ADP/W /284), Members desiring to place previously-
reviewed legislative notifications on the agenda fo r this meeting for further review were to have 
submitted questions in writing to the notifying Member and to the Secretariat not later than 
12 September 2011.  The Chair recalled the draft annotated agenda circulated to Members on 
16 September 2011, noting that no Member had po sed questions regarding previously reviewed  G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 3 
 
 
  legislative notifications.  As such, no item pertaining to the continued review of previously reviewed 
notifications of legislation or regulations had been placed on the agenda for this meeting. 
12. The Chair reminded Members that for the spri ng regular meeting, in accordance with the 
Committee's agreed procedures, for a new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda it would 
need to be circulated in all three official WTO la nguages not later than six weeks before the meeting, 
i.e. by 12 March 2012.  Shortly thereafter, the Secretariat would circulate a document informing 
Members of all of the legislative notifications to be reviewed at that meeting.  The Chair noted that a 
new legislative notification had been received fro m India on 14 October 2011.  Written questions 
concerning this and any ot her new legislative notifications woul d need to be submitted not less than 
three weeks before the meeting, i.e. by 2 April 2012.  To place previously reviewed legislative 
notifications on the agenda of the October meeting,  questions would need to be submitted in writing 
to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat not less than six weeks before  the meeting, i.e. by 
12 March 2012.  Written responses to such questions  would need to be submitted to the Member 
posing the questions and to the Secretariat not late r than two weeks before the meeting, i.e. by 
10 April 2012.1 
13. The Chair drew Members' attention to the fact that some Members had yet to submit a 
notification on legislation.  This was a matter of concern to all Members.  For many, all that was 
required was a nil notification.  The Chair encouraged  all Members that had not yet made a legislative 
notification to do so as promptly as possible. 
14. The Chair also referred to the list of au thorities competent to initiate and conduct 
investigations within the meaning of Article 16. 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (AD Agreement).  
The latest revision of this list was available in G/ADP/N/14/Add.32.  The Chair invited Members that 
had not done so already to submit notifications in accordance with Article 16.5, and also encouraged 
Members to review and update information where necessary. 
15. The Chair also drew Members atte ntion to the delegations' contact details list consolidated by 
the Secretariat and requested Members that have not yet done so to provide the Secretariat with their 
contact details or any necessary updates as soon as possible. 
16. The Committee took note of the notifications, questions, answers and statements. 
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
- Review of Semi-Annual Reports (G/ADP/N/216) 
 
17. The Chair recalled that a request for semi-a nnual reports for the se cond half of 2010 and a 
reminder in this respect, with a due date of 31 August 2011, had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/216 and G/ADP/N/216/Suppl.1 dated 29 J une and 15 August 2011, respectively.  The 
Chair indicated that it appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping actions during the period in question had submitted a semi-annual report.  He  reminded those Members taking no anti-dumping 
actions that all that was necessary was to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year.  He 
clarified that this would not apply to tho se Members that had already submitted a one-time 
notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the AD Agreement. 
18. The Chair noted that Members that notified taki ng actions were identified in paragraph 1 of 
document G/ADP/N/216/Add.1 dated 19 October 2011, and that the semi-annual reports submitted 
                                                      
1 All deadlines are contained in document G/ADP/W/485–G/SCM/W/556–G/SG/W/218 dated 
2 November 2011. G/ADP/M/41 
Page 4  
 
  were translated to the extent po ssible, but late submission obviously meant that not all such reports 
were yet available in all three languages.   
19. The Chair indicated that in addition to the Me mbers that had submitte d semi-annual reports of 
actions taken, a number of Members, listed in  paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/216/Add.1 had 
notified the Committee that they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in 
question.  He acknowledged that Kuwait had submitte d nil notifications as of 1995.  For the sake of 
efficiency and saving paper, he re quested the Secretariat not to circulate revised versions of all 
previous documents containing the lists of Member s that made such a notification since 1995, and 
proposed to refer to that instead at  the meeting, as such reference woul d eventually be included in the 
minutes of that meeting.  
20. The Chair also drew Members' attention to  paragraph 5 of docum ent G/ADP/N/216/Add.1, 
which reflected the list of Members that had submitte d a one-time notification pursuant to the format 
adopted by the Committee on 21 October 2009 a nd circulated in document G/ADP/19 dated 
3 November 2009, and had indicated that they had ne ither established an investigating authority nor 
taken any anti-dumping actions.  In this context,  the Chair informed Members that following the 
circulation of document G/ADP/N/216 Add. 1, Georgi a had made a one-time notification.  He noted 
that, as mandated by the Committee,  the Secretariat had contacted all Members that fall in this 
category to explain the background of the adopted on e-time notification format and had provided the 
necessary technical assistance on how to use it.  So far, 35 Members listed in paragraph 5 of the document had provided this notification.  All such  notifications were contained in the G/ADP/N/193 
document series.  He added that the Secretariat woul d remain in constant contact with other Members 
that fell into this category to provide any necessary assistance that could facilitate the submission of 
the said notification. 
21. Finally, the Chair pointed out that a consid erable number of Members, as identified in 
paragraphs 3 and 4 of document G/ADP/N/216/Add.1, had not yet responded to the request for semi-
annual reports.  He reiterated that this notification requirement applied to all Members, whether or not 
they had taken anti-dumping actions during the period  in question, except for those Members that had 
already submitted a one-time notification.  He ur ged Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement. 
22. The Committee conducted the review of the se mi-annual reports which were submitted and 
circulated for the second half of 2010.  No Member raised questions or made comments concerning the semi-annual reports of the following Members:  Australia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Ecuador, Egypt, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, 
South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Trin idad and Tobago, Turkey and Ukraine. 
23. On the semi-annual report of Argentina , the representative of the United States indicated that 
in March 2011, Argentina initiated an antidumping i nvestigation against the United States on imports 
of "Photographic X-ray Film".  He requested Argentin a to provide an update as to the present status of 
this investigation and the expected timeline going forward. 
24. The representative of Argentina provided prelimin ary status report relating to this particular 
investigation.  He indicated that he was informed by the investigating authorities that the preliminary 
stage pertaining to the determination of dumping had been concluded and had resulted in a positive 
determination.  He noted that Argentina's Interna tional Trade Commission would be dealing next with 
the determination of injury or threat thereof whic h should also be concluded within the range of one 
week or ten days following the Committee meeting.  He  added that if this particular investigation was 
of a special concern to the United States, he could keep track of its progress and inform the United States of the progress made.   G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 5 
 
 
  25. On the semi-annual report of Canada , the representative of the United States referred at the 
outset to the bilateral discussions of the United St ates with Canada with respect to a number of 
incorrect HS numbers contained in Canada's semi-a nnual report.  He then noted that the revised WTO 
semi-annual reporting requirements (G/ADP/1/Rev.1  dated 3 November 2008) required that Members 
report refund requests in Annex II.  According to th e instructions, "the number of Article 9.3 requests 
for refunds of duties received and completed durin g the reporting period shall be reported for each 
affected measure.  For the purposes of this annex, refund request means a request for re-evaluating the 
basis used to assess anti-dumping duties (e.g. actual margin of dumping, actual normal value)".  
26. The representative of the United States indicated that according to Canada's most recent semi-
annual report for the period January–June 2011, there were 434 refund requests, 326 commenced 
refund reviews, and 354 completed re fund reviews during the period, as listed in Annex II.  He added 
that Note 5 of Canada's semi-annual report stated  that requests for redetermination of the anti-
dumping duties could be made on three grounds:  nor mal value of the imported goods; export price of 
the imported goods;  and whether the imported goods were goods of the same description as goods to 
which the order or finding applies (note:  when an order or finding imposes both the antidumping and 
countervailing duties, a refund request on this group will appear on both reports). 
27. The representative of the United States requested  Canada to clarify certain aspects of its 
redeterminations.  He inquired whether for the 354 refund reviews completed as  reported in Annex II, 
it was possible to give a breakdown by category;  i.e. how many reviews were conducted under each 
category identified in Note 5.    
28. The representative of Canada confirmed that a number of typographical errors pertaining to 
certain HS codes in Canada's semi-annual report we re made.  In particular, she referred to the 
HS codes for the sunset review of "Copper Pipe F ittings" and that such errors also applied to the 
products of China and Korea.  She indicated that Canada would introduce the necessary corrections to 
its semi-annual report rectifyi ng those typographical errors.2   
29. On the United States' request to provide a breakdown by category, the representative of 
Canada indicated that this would not be possible as these were not binary choices.  She explained that 
those were the grounds upon which an importer could request a redetermination, but that there were 
no requirement to only have one type of re-determina tion.  Accordingly, all three, for example, could 
be covered in the same request a nd thus Canada would not be able  to divide that number into 
three distinct categories.   
30. On the semi-annual report of China , the representative of Japan referred to China's answers to 
Japan's previously posed questions cont ained in document G/ADP/Q2/CHN/6, dated 
10 December 2010.  As these answers were received at the beginning of this month, she indicated that 
Japan's officials in Capital were still examining th em and would revisit the issue if they have any 
further questions. 
31. With regard to the anti-dumping investigations , the representative of Japan attached great 
importance to due process and transparency.  She highlighted two separate phases of these 
investigations in order to share Japan's concerns  on due process and the transparency of China's anti-
dumping investigations. 
32. First, the representative of Japan took up the i ssue of the initiation of investigations.  She 
submitted that since the initiation of investigations  itself often caused serious chilling effects on trade, 
the AD Agreement obligated the investigating auth orities to examine the accu racy and adequacy of 
the evidence provided in the application, so as to prevent the initiation of unwarranted and 
                                                      
2 G/ADP/N/216/CAN/Rev.1.   G/ADP/M/41 
Page 6  
 
  unnecessary investigations.  It was also essential to pr ovide sufficient detail regarding the basis for the 
underlying decisions, so that the interested par ties could check and make comments effectively.  
33. The representative of Japan explained that in China's investigations, it was often difficult for 
the interested parties to understand the basis fo r the underlying decisions.  For example, China 
initiated an anti-dumping investigation on "High-pe rformance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes", 
exported from Japan and the European Union on 8 September 2011.  The products from Japan were 
mostly high value-added special steel, used for ultr a-super-critical boilers of coal-fired thermal power 
plants, and thus could hardly compete with the produ cts of the Chinese domestic industries.  In this 
case, the interested parties were also faced w ith difficulties in understanding the cause for data 
discrepancies between the import volumes contained in the application and those in official statistics.  
She was of the view that the disclosure of detaile d information was essential to ensure due process 
and transparency of investigations.  She confirmed that Japan would keep a close eye on this investigation to monitor whether the interests of in terested parties would be appropriately defended.  
34. Second, the representative of Japan turned to the phase of preliminary and final 
determinations.  She indicated that Japan had rep eatedly emphasized the importance of disclosing the 
details of margin calculations so th at the interested parties were able to reproduce the calculations of 
dumping margins by themselves.  Without such detail ed disclosure of margin calculations, they would 
be unable to respond effectively to the investigati ng authorities.  She added that it had been often 
pointed out by various Members that the disclosur e of essential facts by the Chinese authorities were 
far from sufficient to even understand how they cal culated dumping margins with the data provided. 
For example, China made a preliminary determin ation on "Photographic Pa per and Paper Board" 
exported from the European Union, the United States and Japan on 10 August 2011.  In its 
preliminary determination, the details of margin calculations were not disclosed and the interested 
parties had no way but to guess in order to comment on the findings of the authorities.  She urged 
China to fully disclose its margin calculations so th at the interested parties could effectively defend 
their interests. 
35. Finally, the representative of Japan posed a question with regard to the measures on 
"Benzofuranol, 7-Hydroxy", which expired on 12 February 2011.  She stated that the Chinese 
authorities would usually issue a public notice for expired measures.  She inquired whether the 
Chinese authorities had issued a public notice of expi ry for this measure or if there had been any 
changes in its practice in this respect. 
36. The representative of China indicated that this agenda item pertained to the review of semi-
annual reports and that he was not able to id entify the specific cases regarding which Japan had 
expressed concern.  On the last issue mentioned by  Japan, he explained that his delegation had also 
provided some particular information on previous occasions.    
37. The representative of the United States referred to the investigation concerning "Photographic 
Paper and Paper Board" listed in China's semi-a nnual report.  He understood that China had not 
provided adequate disclosure of its dumping margin  calculations in its pre liminary determination, 
which forced responding companies to attempt to  "reverse engineer" China's dumping margin 
calculations.  Such lack of transparency had sev erely hampered the companies' ability to fully 
understand and verify the accuracy of China's calcu lations, and thereby limited their ability to defend 
their interests as provided for by the AD Agreement.  He requested China to explain when its Ministry 
of Commerce (MOFCOM) would begin adhering to its obligation to provide full opportunity to 
parties to defend their interests in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings.   
38. The representative of the United States also stated  that according to that  report, there was an 
affirmative final determination issued in the investigation concerning "Saloon Cars and Cross-
Country Cars" from the United States.  However,  China had not identified saloon cars and cross- G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 7 
 
 
  country cars in the annex listing definitive anti-dum ping measures in force.  He requested China to 
provide an explanation for this discrepancy.   
39. The representative of Japan indicated that with  respect to the two cases she referred to, one 
pertained to the initiation of an investigation in September 2011, so it should be included in the next 
semi-annual report.  She explained that as it re lated to Japan's general concerns regarding 
transparency and due process, she wanted to touch upon it at the meeting.  On the second case, which 
was also touched upon by the United States, it appear ed in China's semi-annual report on page 3 in the 
last column.  She indicated that her question related to the expiry review on page 12 of China's semi-annual report.  She appreciated the information provi ded by China to Japan prior to the meeting on a 
bilateral context.  However, she submitted that as this measure had expired, China should have, 
pursuant to its practice, issued a notice of expiry  separate from the notice of expiry review.  She 
inquired whether China had changed this practice.   
40. The representative of China started by replying to  the last question posed by the United States 
on the product of "Saloon Cars".  He explaine d that on 6 November 2009, China initiated a case 
against "Saloon Cars" originating from the Un ited States and made a final determination on 
18 April 2011.  He further explained that upon the issuance of the public notice of the final 
determination, China mentioned that although a po sitive final determination was reached, China did 
not impose any measure on this product or collect anti-dumping duties.  He noted that after checking the reporting requirements with the Secretariat, Ch ina had decided to place this anti-dumping action in 
the relevant table of its semi-annual report, but not in the measures in force annex of the report, as no 
measures were imposed on that product. 
41. On the product "Photographic Paper and Paper Bo ard", the representative of China explained 
that this investigation was initiated on 23 Dece mber 2010 and the preliminary determination was 
issued on 10 August 2011.  He noted that although this investigation was outside the scope of the 
review at the meeting, he would endeavour to provi de an initial response to the questions posed.  He 
referred to the concerns expressed by Japan and th e United States with respect to disclosure of the 
preliminary determination in this case.  He indicat ed that according to China's law and practice, the 
investigating authority would provide a detailed di sclosure to the interested parties prior to the 
preliminary and final determinations .  He believed that in this case, the investigating authority had 
provided the exporter with detailed disclosure incl uding the basic facts and information on which the 
determination was made, as  well as the calculation method used.  He submitted that China's practice 
was fully consistent with the re quirements of the AD Agreement.  
42. On the sunset review raised by Japan, the re presentative of China noted that one measure was 
imposed for five years and as there were no petitions  to conduct a sunset review, this measure was 
automatically terminated.  He explained that in this case, China would not issue a separate public 
notice indicating the measure was terminated.  He  submitted that as the original public notice 
pertaining to the imposition of the final measure ha d already indicated that this measure would be 
imposed for only five years;  there was no need  to issue another public notice to announce the 
termination of the measure.   
43. On the semi-annual report of the Dominican Republic , the Chair noted that Turkey had 
submitted written questions on 18 October 2011.3  
44. The representative of the Dominican Republic indicated that the questions were noted and 
sent to Capital and that the investigating authorit y would prepare and provide the necessary answers. 
                                                      
3 G/ADP/Q2/DOM/1.   G/ADP/M/41 
Page 8  
 
  45. The representative of Turkey indicated that the Dominican Republic had initiated an anti-
dumping investigation on "Steel R ods and Bars for Concrete Rein forcement" originating in or 
exported from Turkey on 23 July 2010.  The inves tigation was concluded on 6 June 2011 and the duty 
was imposed on a country wide-basis.  He express ed serious concerns regarding this measure.  
46. The representative of Turkey explained that  the Turkish exporters/producers had fully 
cooperated with the investigating authority of  the Dominican Republic and had submitted all 
necessary information and documents in a timely manner.  Anti-dumping margins were calculated for 
two of them, while no anti-dumping margin was calcula ted for one of them as  that exporter/producer 
had no export sales during the investigation period.  He added that the contracts made during the 
investigation period were not taken into account fo r the calculation despite it was requested by the 
cooperating exporter.  He further indicated that  in paragraph 148 of the disclosure, under the 
heading 3.4 "Summary-Dumping", the individual dumping margin calculated for İÇDAŞ was 
indicated as 14% and for KAPTAN as -0.49%.  In other words, one of the Turkish exporters was found to be dumping whereas the other had no dum ped sales during the investigation period.  
47. The representative of Turkey indicated that on 6 June 2011, the Commission published the 
resolution number CDC-RD-AD-107-2011, imposing de finitive anti-dumping duties on imports of the 
subject product from Turkey, in the Official Gazette  of the Dominican Republic.  In that Resolution, 
the dumping margins calculated for İÇDAŞ and KAPTAN, as indicated in the final disclosure, were 
reported as 14% and -0.49%, respectively.  Yet, th e investigating authorities decided to impose one 
country-wide anti-dumping duty at the rate of 14% instead of imposing company-specific duties.  
48. The representative of Turkey submitted that the Resolution attempted to explain the reasons 
for the use of a country-wide duty rate on the b asis of the significant differences between KAPTAN's 
prices and those of the other Turkish exporters; uncer tainties regarding the veracity of the information 
supplied by KAPTAN during the investigation, wh ich had been presented in an incomplete and 
untimely fashion;  and possible circumvention of the duty by other Turkish exporters.  He added that 
it was clear that these so-called reasons were not accep table to justify the imposition of a country wide 
antidumping duty and the imposition of an anti-dum ping duty to a non-dumping exporter/producer, in 
accordance with the provisions of AD Agreement.  He stated that, in this respect, Turkey considered 
that the Dominican Republic had clearly violated the provisions of Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement.  
49. The representative of Turkey reiterated that KAPTAN, that had significant export sales during 
the investigation period and was subject to individua l examination in the investigation at issue, was 
found not to be dumping by the investigating authority.  He indicated that the Dominican Republic 
was thus obliged to exclude imports from this pr oducer/exporter in examining the effects of "dumped 
imports" on the domestic industry.  However, the Dominican Republic had considered all imports 
originating in Turkey as "dumped imports" and made  its injury and causal link determination on that 
basis.   
50. The representative of Turkey furt her submitted that jurisprudence was very clear on this issue. 
The Panel report on "European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or 
Steel Fasteners From China" (DS397)  stated that "We consider that the text of the AD Agreement is 
perfectly clear in this regard, and that the cons ideration of "dumped imports" for purposes of making 
an injury determination consistent  with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement entails the 
consideration of only those imports for which a margin of dumping greater than de minimis  is 
established in the course of the investigation".  This  finding also referred to the previous jurisprudence 
addressing the same issue namely in the Panel Reports of EC – Salmon (
Norway );  Argentina – 
Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties ;  and EC – Bed Linen.   Therefore, Turkey believed that the Dominican 
Republic had also clearly violated Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement.  G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 9 
 
 
  51. In addition to this, the representative of Tu rkey expressed serious concerns regarding 
retroactive implementation of definitive measures pu rsuant to Article 10.6.  The Dominican Republic 
imposed provisional measures on 17 November 2010 and applied definitive measures retroactively as 
of 20 August 2010 pursuant to the provisions of Article  10.6 of the AD Agreement.  However, in the 
Final Disclosure, the Commission had just pr ovided imports data between 19 August and 
16 November 2010 justifying such retroactive applicati on.  In this regard, he reiterated that Turkey 
had serious doubts that the investigating aut hority of the Dominican Republic had met the 
requirements set in Article 10.6.   
52. The representative of Turkey noted that an ti-dumping measures should be imposed against 
unfair trade practices.  It could not be used as an  illegal disguised instrument of protectionism in 
favour of the domestic industry.  Although he ack nowledged that this was the first investigation 
conducted and first measure imposed by the Do minican Republic, he believed that having no 
experience in this field was not an excuse for the investigating authorit y to violate the basic principles 
of the AD Agreement and distort multilateral fair trad e.  He stated that these basic principles were 
firstly, the existence of dumping, injury to the domestic industry and a causal link;  secondly, the 
authorities should, as a rule, determine an individual margin of dumping for each known exporter or 
producer of the product under investigation; and th irdly, the amount of anti-dumping duty should not 
exceed the margin of dumping as calcula ted in accordance with Article 2.  
53. The representative of Turkey urged the Domini can Republic to review this measure as soon 
as possible and stop these clear violations of the principles of the AD Agreement by terminating the measure.  He reserved all Turkey's rights under the WTO Agreements concerning this issue.  
54. The representative of the Dominican Republic re quested Turkey to provide a copy of its 
intervention.   
55. On the semi-annual report of the European Union , the representative of China expressed 
concern with respect to the investigation initiate d on 17 February 2011 on the product "Sodium 
Cyclamate".  He explained that this was a ne w anti-dumping investigation initiated against an 
individual company and that this company had a zero dumping margin in a previous investigation.  He 
submitted that this kind of investigation and this type  of practice were not in line with Article VI of 
the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the AD Agreement. 
56. In this context, the representative of China posed  a number of questions.  First, he inquired as 
to how the European Union had determined the injury  suffered by the relevant  domestic industry in an 
investigation against only one individual exporti ng company, while there was an anti-dumping 
measure in place with respect to this product.  S econd, he requested the European Union to clarify 
how it determined the quantity of imports in its inju ry analysis pursuant to Article 3.3 and 5.8 of the 
AD Agreement.  He finally requested the European  Union to explain how it determined the causal 
link between the dumping and the injury and how it could evaluate the import volume among other factors under consideration.  He was of the view that  such practice had to be cautioned, as it was not 
in line with the WTO rules.   
57. The representative of the United States indicated  that the revised WTO semi-annual reporting 
requirements (G/ADP/1/Rev.1, dated 3 November 2008) required Members to  report refund requests 
in Annex II.  According to the instructions, "the number of Article 9.3 requests for refunds of duties 
received and completed during the reporting period sha ll be reported for each affected measure".  He 
referred to the European Union's most recent se mi-annual report for the period January-June 2011.  
He indicated that this report included 14 refund requests in Annex II, and that its "Reviews/Other 
Subsequent Proceedings" table provided additional information on proceedings such as the initiation 
date and final results.  However, he noted that th e refund reviews were not included in this table and 
inquired as to why such reviews had not appeared in the European Union's semi-annual report.   G/ADP/M/41 
Page 10  
 
  58. On the first comment made by China, the repr esentative of the European  Union indicated that 
the European Union had initiated the new anti-du mping investigation limited to only one company 
instead of initiating an interim review or any othe r kind of review in order to precisely respect its 
obligations under the WTO law and in particul ar the report of the Appellate Body in Mexico – Beef 
and Rice .  With respect to the concrete questions posed by China, she explained that the investigation 
was still on-going and accordingly she would not be in  position to make comments in this regard at 
this time.  She had, however, requested China to pr ovide its questions in writing and stated that the 
European Union would reply in writing after the investigation had been terminated, in case the 
questions posed by China were not addressed in the course of the investigation.   
59. On the questions posed by the United States,  the representative of the European Union 
provided a brief explanation with respect to th e European Union's duty collection system.  She 
explained that the European Union applied a pros pective duty system, whereby every importer had the 
possibility to request a refund of the anti-dumping duties which had already been paid where it was 
shown that the dumping margin on the basis of whic h the duties were paid, had been eliminated or 
reduced to a level below that of the duty enforced.  The importer ought to submit a refund application 
to the Commission via the Member State where the products were rel eased for free circulation.  The 
decision to refund would be addressed to the cust oms authority of the country where the goods were 
imported and that decision would be  individual.  The findings during the refund investigation would 
only be used in order to decide if the refund of  duties was warranted and what would be the amount 
thereof.  In other words, these findings would not be  used for setting a future dumping margin, for the 
concerned company or for any other company.  Thus, the decision would be very limited and specific.  
If the duties' level should be revised, it would be necessary to request another type of review which 
would be a partial review of the duty and this w ould be the main reason that refunds had not been 
reported in the same manner as reviews.   
60. On the semi-annual report of Honduras, the representative of the United States referred to the 
investigation of "Certain Paint" from the United States where Honduras indicated that it had extended 
the investigation for an additional six months, to be completed no later than 3 January 2012.  The 
investigation was initiated on 2 July 2010, and whil e it was the United States' understanding that there 
had been some limited activity in the case, no prelim inary determination had been issued.  He added 
that it was also the United States' understanding that the investigating authority had recently reissued 
initial questionnaires more than a year after the inves tigation began.  Given that this was unusual at 
such a late point in the investigation, he requ ested Honduras to clarify its timeline going forward and 
explain the specific remaining steps for completion of this investigation. 
61. The representative of Honduras explained that the investigation had been extended by 
six months and would be expected to be conclude d on 3 January 2012.  He hoped that during this 
period, the investigating authority would be able to  submit its report whether the results were positive 
or negative.  He added that the deadline was extende d in order to ensure that the companies which had 
not yet submitted any documentation would have en ough time to defend their interests, and that the 
investigator had been as prudent as possible before  reaching a final disposition in this case.    
62. On the semi-annual report of India , the representative of Japan acknowledged India's answers 
to Japan's questions contained in document G/ADP/Q2/ IND/4.  She indicated that Japan's officials in 
Capital were still examining them and would revis it the issue if they have any further questions. 
63. On India's semi-annual for the period January-J une 2011, the representative of Japan referred 
to two specific investigations in that report.  The fi rst pertained to the investigation on "Digital Offset 
Printing Plates", initiated on 13 June 2011.  She indicat ed that Japan would keep a close eye on this 
investigation to monitor whether it had been undertaken in a manner consistent with the 
AD Agreement.  This investigation included some Japanese products which were not manufactured in  G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 11 
 
 
  India, and consequently would not compete with Indian domestic products.  She added that Japan 
expected that the Indian authorities would seriously listen to the explanations by the interested parties.    
64. The second investigation appeared on page 7 of  the report and related to the case of "PVC 
Paste Resin" originating in or exported from Japan  as well as China, Korea,  Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, 
Thailand and Russia.  The representative of Japan th anked India for its prompt responses to Japan's 
follow up clarifications, but made two comments on this issue.  
65. First, the representative of Japan explained that  in this case, the Embassy of Japan in India 
received a disclosure statement on 27 April, the ve ry day of the deadline to submit comments.  In 
response to Japan's question, India wrote:  "suffi cient opportunities, from time to time, were provided 
to all stakeholders, including to the Government of  Japan, during the course of one and a half years 
long investigation process".  I ndia continued:  "The investiga tion process in any case had to be 
completed within a span of one and a half years which was to expire on 2 May 2011".   
66. The representative of Japan indicated that th is would not answer Japan's question as to 
whether this was consistent with Article 6.9 of  the AD agreement which ensured sufficient time for 
interested parties to defend their interests after the di sclosure of essential facts.  She was of the view 
that it was not permissible to sacrifice the interested  parties' rights in or der for the investigating 
authorities to meet the requirement of finishing the investigation within 18 months.  She added that 
investigating authorities should carefully schedule thei r investigations without sacrificing the rights of 
interested parties.  Moreover, she expressed serious concerns with India's investigations in terms of 
due process and transparency.  She urged India to improve its investigation procedures to be more 
respectful of due process and transparency. 
67. Second, the representative of Japan submitted that in this case, the exporters of the 
investigated Members, i.e. Japan, China, Korea, Malaysia, Chinese Ta ipei and Thailand, had faced the 
problem that Indian Customs had kept collecting the provisional duties after the expiry of the 
provisional measure on 25 January 2011.  She welcomed  India's clarification that if there was any 
specific instance of collection of any excess anti- dumping duty beyond 25 January 2011 in respect of 
exports from any Japanese exporter, the same might be liable for refund. 
68. The representative of Norway noted that in May 2010, India opened an anti-dumping 
investigation concerning "Caustic Soda" from Norway  and two other Members.  He was of the view 
that there was no sufficient basis for the intr oduction of any anti-dumping measures against the 
Norwegian companies and that the reasoning behind this view had already been communicated to 
India.  He added that on page 8 of India's semi-a nnual report, India had reported that the final findings 
in this case were issued on 30 June 2011.  Howeve r, as Norway had not been yet informed of the 
details of these findings, he indicated that Norway had requested, through its Embassy in New Delhi, 
to obtain such information.   
69. The representative of the United States acknowledged India's filing of a revised version of its 
previous semi-annual report to correct certain omissi ons.  He indicated that in the report pertaining to 
the period January-June 2011, with regard to the mi d-term review, limited to  scope of "Cold-Rolled 
Flat Products of Stainless Steel", it was the United States' understanding that India's Directorate General of Antidumping and Allied Duties (DGAD)  had issued its final determination on 
8 June 2011.  However, the final determination was not reflected in  India's semi-annual report.  He 
requested India to clarify this omission. 
70. Regarding India's sunset review of "Certain  Rubber Chemicals", the representative of the 
United States submitted that India's DGAD had i ssued its final determination in the review, 
terminating the measure with regard  to products from the United States, on 11 May 2011.  This final 
determination and termination of the measure with regard to the United States were not included in G/ADP/M/41 
Page 12  
 
  India's semi-annual report.  He requested India to clarify this omission and asked India to submit a 
revised semi-annual report including these corrections. 
71. The representative of India requested Japan to provide its follow-up questions in writing so 
that India could accordingly revert to the issue as  soon as possible.  On the "Digital Offset Printing 
Plates" investigation and Japan's keeping a close ey e on how the investigation would be conducted, he 
noted that the anti-dumping investigations conducte d by India were totally in accordance with the 
provisions and the rules of the AD Agreement, and th at there would not be any inconsistency in this 
respect.  With respect to Japan's  question on the "PVC Paste Resin", he indicated that India had 
already provided the necessary responses in this regard and that he would communicate Japan's 
concerns to Capital.   
72. On the "Caustic Soda" investigation referre d to by Norway, the representative of India 
indicated that the final findings' document had alrea dy been on the website of the Department and that 
he would share that with Norway after the meeting.  
73. On the question raised by the United States pe rtaining to the "Cold-Rolled Flat Products of 
Stainless Steel" and certain rubber chemicals, th e representative of India indicated that he would 
check the facts with Capital and get back to the United States.  
74. On the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the Chair noted that Turkey had submitted written 
questions on 18 October 2011.4 
75. The representative of Indonesia noted the concer n raised by Turkey and explained that the 
latest information received from the competent aut hority was that the process was still on-going at the 
level of the decision making authority.  
76. The representative of Turkey indicated that th is was the third Committee meeting at which 
Turkey had raised this same issue.  He submitted that the third anniversary of the initiation of the anti-
dumping investigation on "Wheat Flour" originating in  Turkey, Sri Lanka and Australia would be in 
the month of November 2011, as the investigation was initiated on 17 November 2008.  However, the 
investigation had not been concluded yet.  Acco rding to the semi-annual report and the statement 
made by Indonesia at the previous Committee meetings , he understood that the Ministry of Finance of 
Indonesia had not yet made a decision to impose anti-dumping duties since the Indonesian Investigating Authority issued its final disclosure in December 2009. 
77. The representative of Turkey stated that pursuan t to the provisions of Article 5.10 of the 
AD Agreement "investigations shall, except in speci al circumstances, be concluded within one year 
and in no case more than 18 months, after the initiati on".  He requested Indonesia to explain how it 
was justifiable, in the context of the AD Agreement, not to conclude an investigation for three years.  
In addition to this, Article 12.2 of the AD Agreemen t stated that the public notice shall be given of 
any preliminary or final determination, whether a ffirmative or negative.  Although nearly three years 
had lapsed since the initiation of the investigation,  no public notice affirmative or negative had been 
published by the Indonesian investigating authority and the investigation had not yet been concluded. 
78. The representative of Turkey submitted that  it was clear that the suspension of the 
investigation for the long period of three years, since the initiation of the investigation, and the 
uncertainty related to the imposition of the measure s, would not only have its chilling effects on the 
Turkish wheat flour exporters, but would also adversel y affect the Turkish exporters' interests in this 
market.  
                                                      
4 G/ADP/Q2/IDN/2.  G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 13 
 
 
  79. In addition to this, the representative of Turk ey informed the delegation of Indonesia that 
Turkey had serious numerous c oncerns regarding technical and procedural aspects of this 
investigation.  He indicated that he would not el aborate on such concerns at this stage, but would 
point out that Turkey's concerns were crucial and rela ted to the essential aspects of the investigation;  
such as meeting the standing requirement, the lik e product, calculation of anti-dumping margins, 
injury analysis and determination of the cau sal link between dumped imports and injury.  
80. Furthermore, the representative of Turkey reiterate d Turkey's substantial trade interests in this 
case and requested the delegation of Indonesia to ma ke clarification as to when the decision would be 
made by the Ministry of Finance.  He urged Ind onesia to end this uncertainty and make its final 
determination be it affirmative or  negative or terminate the inves tigation without the imposition of 
measures, as soon as possible. 
81. The representative of the United Arab Emirat es expressed concern regarding the "Wheat 
Flour" investigation.  He indicated that on 19 June 2006, the Indonesian Anti-Dumping Committee 
(the "KADI") imposed anti-dumping duties of 14.85% on imports of "Wheat Flour" originating from the United Arab Emirates.  Recently, after excha nge of communications between the United Arab 
Emirates' Ministry of Economy and the KADI, there was a confirmation that this measure would be 
terminated by 19 June 2011.  However, the semi -annual report of Indonesia for the period January-
June 2011 still referred to this measure as a measu re in force and not as a revoked measure.  He 
requested Indonesia to clarify this matter.    
82. The representative of Indonesia re quested the United Arab Emirat es to submit its question in 
writing5. 
83. On the semi-annual report of Mexico , the representative of the United States indicated that 
with regard to the anti-dumping measure on imports  of bovine meat and edible offal, it was the 
United States' understanding that the measure invol ving all bovine meat products (including Meat of 
bovine animals, boneless, fresh, chilled or frozen as  well as bovine meat) was terminated with the 
10 August 2010 announcement in Mexico's official  gazette, and as noted in Mexico's semi-annual 
report for the second half of 2010 (G/ADP/N/209/MEX/ Rev.1).  However, the United States had also 
noted that apparently this measure had reappeared in the annex of Mexico's most recent semi-annual 
report for the first-half of 2011 (G/ADP/N/216/ME X) as a definitive antidumping duty measure in 
force.  He requested Mexico to clarify whether or  not this measure had been terminated and if so, 
whether Mexico would submit a revised semi-annual report. 
84. The representative of Mexico confirmed that ther e was an inadvertent error in preparing the 
semi-annual report of Mexico.  He indicated that  Mexico had terminated the anti-dumping action 
applied to all bovine meat produc ts (including Meat of bovine animals, boneless, fresh, chilled or 
frozen, as well as bovine meat) classified under tari ff headings 02012099;  02013001;  02022099;  
and 02023001.  He also confirmed that this me asure was terminated with the 10 August 2010 
announcement in Mexico's Official Gazette.  Fina lly, he indicated that he would request the 
Secretariat to issue the necessar y corrigendum in this respect.6 
85. With respect to the semi-annual report of Pakistan , the Chair noted that Turkey had 
submitted written questions on 18 October 2011.7  
                                                      
5 G/ADP/Q2/IDN/3. 
6 G/ADP/N/216/MEX/Corr.2. 
7 G/ADP/Q2/PAK/2. G/ADP/M/41 
Page 14  
 
  86. The representative of Turkey referred to a typogra phical error in its questions posed Turkey in 
document G/ADP/Q2/PAK/2.  He indicated that he ha d requested the Secretariat to circulate a revised 
version of this document.8 
87. The representative of Pakistan stated that the questions posed by Turkey pertained to the 
delay in making the final determination in case of  "Hydrogen Peroxide" imported from Turkey.  He 
also drew attention to the other questions which had a common denominator.  He explained that the 
National Tariff Commission (the "NTC") had been carrying out investigations since 2001.  The NTC 
consisted of three Members and according to the NTC's Act of 1990, it had been initiating 
investigations and reaching preliminary and final dete rminations in a manner that even if one of the 
three Members was absent, the two remaining Members could make the determination.  However, that 
practice had been challenged in the local courts an d in October 2009, the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
had ruled that for such determinations to be lega l, all three members had to be present to sign the 
determination.  He explained that since that date, there had been qu estions raised regarding deadlines' 
gaps.  He confirmed that this was also the situ ation in case of another anti-dumping investigation 
which was initiated on 31 August 2009 and the final determination was only reached on 6 July 2011;  
i.e. about twenty two months later.  
88. The representative of Pakistan indicated that  the Commission had to respect the Supreme 
Court's decision and any other decisions reached by  other local courts approached by different 
petitioners.  He added that the NTC would not be able to proceed in case a court decision was 
pending, and that this had led the NTC to miss the deadlines.  
89. The representative of Turkey indicated that it was clear that the decision was not made on 
time due to internal procedural issues which were al so identified in the disclosure.  However, it was 
not clear whether this would be repeated in future  investigations for the same reasons identified by 
Pakistan.  He added that Turkey still had serious technical and procedural concerns regarding the 
measure on "Hydrogen Peroxide" originating in or exported from Belgium, China, Indonesia, Korea, 
Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Turkey.  He indicated th at Turkey's concerns pertained not only to the 
lengthy duration of the investigation, but also to the duration of the application of the provisional 
measures and retroactive application of final duties.  
90. With respect to the provisional measures, the re presentative of Turkey confirmed that these 
measures were kept in force for more than nine  months, although neither a request by exporters 
representing a significant percentage of the trade involved nor an examination was conducted by the 
investigating authorities as to whether a duty lower th an the margin of dumping would be sufficient to 
remove the alleged injury pursuant to the provisions of Article 7.4.  In this context, he requested 
Pakistan to clarify the legal basis for the a pplication period of the provisional measures.  
91. On the issue of the retroactive application of final duties, the representative of Turkey noted 
that on 21 September 2010, the NTC issued its prelimin ary determination.  The official notice of this 
preliminary determination was published on 27 September 2010 and the provisional duties were 
imposed.  On 2 July 2011, the NTC issued its final determination and the official notice of the final 
determination was published on 6 July 2011.  Ho wever, the NTC imposed those definitive anti-
dumping duties not only prospectively, but also retr oactively to the date of the imposition of the 
provisional anti-dumping duties, that is, as of 27 Sept ember 2010.  In paragraph 47 of the preliminary 
determination and paragr aphs 45 and 50 of the final determination, it was stated that the NTC 
determined, among other things, that during the period  of investigation, the investigated product had 
been exported to Pakistan at prices below its norma l value;  that the Pakistani domestic industry was 
experiencing "material retardation"  during the period of investigation; and that a causal link existed 
between dumped imports and the material retardation. 
                                                      
8 G/ADP/Q2/PAK/2/Rev.1.    G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 15 
 
 
  92. The representative of Turkey added that pursuan t to Article 10.2 of the AD Agreement, the 
retroactive application of definitive anti-dumping dut ies was permissible, for the period during which 
the provisional measures were applied, where a final determination of only injury was made.  
However, the NTC had not made an injury determina tion.  Furthermore, Article 10.4 stipulated that 
"Except as provided in paragraph 2, where a determinati on of threat of injury or material retardation is 
made (but no injury has yet occurred) a defi nitive anti-dumping duty may be imposed only from the 
date of the determination of threat of injury or material retardation, and any cash deposit made during 
the period of the application of provisional measu res shall be refunded and any bonds released in an 
expeditious manner".  Pursuant to this Article, where a finding of threat of injury or of material 
retardation was made, anti-dumping duties could be  imposed only from the date of the definitive 
determination and any cash depos it or bond made during the appli cation of provisional measures 
should be refunded or released.  
93. The representative of Turkey went on to explain that in this case, the NTC made a finding of 
material retardation.  He believed that the retro active application of the definitive duties pursuant to 
Article 10.2 was not permissible, and the applica tion of anti-dumping duties was legally justified only 
as of the date of the final determination, pursuant to Article 10.4.  In this re gard, he inquired as to how 
Pakistan justified the retroactive application of th e final duties;  questioned the legal basis of this 
implementation;  asked whether Pakistan ref unded any cash deposits or released bonds collected 
during the application of provisional measures in an  expeditious manner pursu ant to Article 10.4 and 
whether Pakistan was planning to do so. 
94. The representative of Turkey urged Pakistan to re view this measure and bring it to conformity 
with the rules and procedures of the AD Agreement.  He also reserved Turkey's rights under the WTO 
Agreements concerning this issue.   
95. The representative of Malaysia indicated th at on 30 May 2011, Malaysia had submitted a 
question9 to Pakistan regarding the initiation of the sunset review on the imports of "Polyester 
Filament Yarn".  Although he noted that Pakistan had briefly touched on this issue in its response to 
the questions from Turkey, he requested to recei ve a written response in this respect.      
96. The representative of Pakistan informed Turkey th at in order to really solve this problem on a 
long-term basis, the Government of Pakistan had ta ken certain steps to resolv e these issues.  On the 
NTC's Act which was used by the Supreme Court as a pretext to bar the NTC from making determinations with respect to two Members, the Government had already submitted an amended 
NTC Act to the Ministry of Law and it was forwarde d to the Parliament for approval.  On the period 
of preliminary determination, the provisional measures had always been imposed for only four 
months.  As far as the final determination was concer ned and due to the twenty two months delay, the 
final determination date mi ght have indicated some kind of retroac tivity.  However, he confirmed that 
according to the law, the Customs Authorities had imposed the duties as of the date of the final 
determination and thus th ere would be no back-up duties claimed by these authorities in this case.  He 
added that Pakistan would be providing de tailed written responses at a later stage. 
97. On the Malaysia question, the representative of Pakistan promised to provide a written 
response and offered to discuss the issue bila terally, if Malaysia so wished.       
98. With respect to the semi-annual report of the United States , the representative of Japan made 
general comments on the United States' semi-annual re port. She indicated that the United States had 
fifteen measures in force against Japanese produc ts.  Following the last Committee meeting in 
May 2011, one measure on "Hot-Rolled Carbon St eel Flat Products" was revoked and thus the 
number of measures was reduced to fifteen. She welc omed this revocation.  However, she indicated 
                                                      
9 G/ADP/Q2/PAK/1. G/ADP/M/41 
Page 16  
 
  that the existing oldest measure had become thirty two years old and would soon become thirty three 
as it was imposed in 1978.  Including this oldest m easure, four measures were already in force when 
the WTO was established, which would mean that  the measures entered into force before the 
conclusion of Uruguay Round.  This would bring the average duration of the measures to about 
fifteen years.  She continued to urge the Un ited States to swiftly revoke these unjustifiably long 
measures. 
99. The representative of China indicated that he  had some comments pertaining to the zeroing 
methodology used by the United States.  He su bmitted that the WTO panels had found that the 
zeroing calculations' methodology used by the United States Department of Commerce (the 
"USDOC") violated Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.  However, he noted that not 
only hadn't the United States implemented the DSB rulings, but it had also adopted a targeted 
dumping method in order to expand the zeroing methodology which was not in line with the 
DSB rulings.  
100. The representative of China referred to the investigation on "Multi- layered Wood Flooring" 
from China.  He explained that in this case, the United States had found targeted dumping to exist and 
used the zeroing methodology which led to a problem  in the determination reached.  He submitted 
that the test used by the USDOC  for targeted dumping was questionable and that the price gap test 
was seriously problematic.  He explained that the USDOC submitted that the purpose of the price gap 
test was to determine whether the price gap between  targeted dumping sales and the next higher sales 
was greater than the price gap among non-targeted dum ping customers.  He added that after analysing 
this case, China found that the computer program coul d not run in the way explained.  In fact, it was 
designed so that the USDOC could easily reach the affirmative finding of targeted dumping.  He 
requested the United States to correct this practice.     
101. The representative of China was also of the view that the United States should not use the 
zeroing methodology in case of all export sales.  In case of "Multi-layered Wood Flooring", the transactions which were found by the USDOC as targeted dumping constituted less than 3% of all 
transactions.  However, the USDO C used the comparison method of weighted average to individual 
transactions with respect to all the transactions  and then applied the zeroing methodology.  He 
believed that in order to make a fair comparis on, the United States should have compared those non-
targeted dumping sales using weighted average to we ighted average methodology.  He hoped that the 
United States would completely discard this zeroing met hodology in all future investigations.        
102. In response to the questions po sed by Japan, the representative of  the United States noted that 
as indicated many times in the past, the measures refe rred to by Japan were very often continued due 
to a lack of participation by the Japanese interest ed parties.  He submitted that the United States had 
provided ample opportunities for companies to dem onstrate that they were no longer dumping and 
that it was up to those interested parties to come forward and participate in the review.  He explained 
that ten measures were reported as terminated in the United States' semi-annual report for the period 
January-June 2011, two of which i nvolved exports from Japan.  He added that the anti-dumping order 
involving "Ball Bearings" from Japan was revoked s ubsequent to the current reporting period.  
Overall, in the past five years, there had been tw elve revocations, six within the last twelve months 
and three this year alone.  He was of the view  that the United States' sunset procedures were 
consistent with the AD Agreement and had been working as intended. 
103. On China's questions, the representative of the Un ited States stated that the United States had 
implemented the zeroing decisions with respect to  investigations and that it was in the phase of 
implementing it with respect to reviews.  He e xplained that the AD Agreement contained a provision 
on targeted dumping that was employed by other Members as well.  He requested China to provide 
any specific questions pertaining to the "Multi-layere d Wood Flooring" investigation in writing and 
indicated that the United States would provi de its answers by the next meeting.   G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 17 
 
 
  104. The representative of Japan acknowledged that the measure on "Ball Bearings" was no longer 
in force.  However, she added that this measure was revoked due to a court decision, not as a result of 
a sunset review.  On the participation of Japanese companies, she explained that it would be hard for 
such companies to pay additional costs for sunset  reviews after the imposition of measures for more 
than twenty or thirty years.  Sh e indicated that she would convey th is message to Capital.      
105. Finally, the Chair opened the floor for comments or questions to be posed by Members with 
respect to any other semi-annual reports which we re not previously reviewed by the Committee 
because they arrived after the meeting at which th e reports for a given period were reviewed.  No 
Member took the floor in this regard. 
106. The Committee took note of the semi-annual repor ts, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided. 
C. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  
107. The Chair referred to the lists of the notifi cations of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions, submitted by Members since the Committ ee's last meeting, contained in documents 
G/ADP/N/214 & G/ADP/N/215 and G/ADP/N/217–220.  He indicated that during this period, 
Argentina;  Brazil;  Canada;  China; the Dominican Republic;  Egypt;  the European Union;  India;  
Korea;  Mexico;  Morocco;  New Zealand;  Pakistan;  Panama;  Peru;  South Africa;  Chinese Taipei;  
Turkey;  Ukraine and the United States had notifie d preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions.  
He noted that since document G/ADP/N/220 had been ci rculated, Argentina;  Brazil;  Chile;  India;  
Mexico;  South Africa and the United States had s ubmitted notifications, whic h would appear in the 
next list circulated by the Secretariat. 
108. The Chair drew Members' attention to the con tinued apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  The Chair emphasized that these reports had always been a key element 
of the required transparency concerning Members' anti-dumping actions, and that the Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their 
obligations in this regard.  Th e Chair, like all his predecessors, strongly urged all Members taking 
anti-dumping actions to provide such notification of preliminary and final actio ns, consistently and in 
a timely fashion.  In this regard, he noted that the minimum information format for these notifications, 
which was adopted by the Committee in October 2006 and revised in October 2009
10, contained 
important guidance as to the kinds of actions that sh ould be notified and the information which should 
be provided. 
109. The representative of South Africa referred to  the ad hoc notifications submitted by 
South Africa with respect to "Frozen Chicken Pi eces" from Brazil and Frozen Chicken Cut in Pieces" 
from the United States contained in document G/ADP/N/218 and "Picks, Shovels and Spades" from China and "PVC Rigid" from China and Chinese Ta ipei contained in document G/ADP/N/219.  She 
indicated that as these notifications were not preliminary or final actions, she would discuss with the Secretariat to have the reference to tho se notifications removed from those documents.
11 
110. The representative of Australia indicated that  Australia should have notified anti-dumping 
actions taken during the review period for inclusion in  the lists of the ad hoc notifications circulated 
                                                      
10 G/ADP/2/Rev.2.   
11 On 24 October 2011, South Africa provided the Secr etariat with a request to issue a revised version 
of document G/ADP/N/219 with respect to Picks, Shovels and Spades and PVC Rigid.  This document was 
circulated as G/ADP/N/219/Rev.1.  G/ADP/M/41 
Page 18  
 
  by the Secretariat.  He indicated that he would be sending such notifications to the Secretariat before 
the end of the meeting.
12  
111. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
D. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
112. The Chair recalled that pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization,  all subsidiary bodies, including the Committee, 
"which have a mandate covering China's commitme nts under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol 
shall, within one year after accession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by China of the WTO Agreement and of the related provis ions of [the] Protocol".  China was to provide 
relevant information in advance of the review, in cluding information specified in Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  China could 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 had a 
relevant mandate.  The Committee was required promp tly to report the results of the review to the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  The review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an ea rlier date decided by the General Council.   
 113. There were no procedures set out for the conduct of the transitional review in the Protocol, 
except that China was to provide relevant informati on in advance of the review.  In this regard the 
Chair noted that there was no information sp ecified for submission to the Committee under 
Annex 1A.   
 
114. The Chair noted that the no delegation had s ubmitted written questions or comments in the 
context of the transitional review.  The Chair invite d Members wishing to pose oral questions or make 
any general statements at the meeting, to proceed.    
115. The representative of the United States stated that when China signed its protocol of 
Accession to the WTO ten years ago, it agreed  to an annual TRM to be conducted before 
sixteen committees and councils each fall for eight years, with a final review by year ten.  He indicated that as this was the year ten, the United St ates would like, for this final review, to share its 
observations on China's first ten years of the WTO Membership. 
116. The representative of the United States acknowledge d that over the past ten years, China had 
made significant progress in developing a legal framework for its anti-dumping regime and had 
professed its commitment to pursuing the principles of  transparency and fair procedures set forth in 
the AD Agreement.  While there had been numer ous improvements in China's anti-dumping practice 
since the first TRM in 2002, China had more to  do to make its anti-dumping investigative and 
decision-making processes fully transparent and procedur ally fair for all parties, as envisioned by the 
AD Agreement. 
117. In recent years, China had also initiated cer tain anti-dumping investigations under troubling 
circumstances.  Some of these investigations had generated WTO disput es in which multiple WTO 
violations had been alleged, including claims of inconsistency not only with fundamental obligations 
relating to transparency and proce dural fairness, but also key aspects of the injury determinations.  
The United States had initiated two of those disputes, one involving grain-oriented electrical steel 
(DS414) and the other involvi ng broiler products (DS427).  
                                                      
12 Australia submitted the information referred to on 25 October 2011.  This information was also 
reflected in document G/ADP/N/221.     G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 19 
 
 
  118. The representative of the United States enumerated  the main areas of concern, the first of 
which was the issue of transparency.  The representa tive of the United States indicated that China's 
Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) had devoted cons iderable effort to recruit staff for its anti-
dumping investigations branches, the Bureau of Fa ir Trade for Imports and Exports (BOFT) and the 
Investigation Bureau for Industry Injury (IBII).  The Staff of these two agencies was talented and 
experienced in the skills required to conduct anti- dumping proceedings. BOFT and IBII also appeared 
to be proactive in training their staff and seeki ng to learn best practices from other Members through 
technical exchanges.  Furthermore, BOFT and IBII had worked to put in place procedures and 
mechanisms, such as their public reading room to disse minate case documents to interested parties.  
He added that given all of these efforts to improve its anti-dumping practice, it was disconcerting that 
MOFCOM continued to exhibit substantial systemic lapses in transparency in all of its anti-dumping 
proceedings.  The principal concerns that the Un ited States had noted in past TRMs involved non-
confidential summaries, explanations of determinati ons and the disclosure of margin calculations and 
essential facts.       
119. Regarding inadequate non-conf idential summaries, the representative of the United States 
explained that it was the United States' understandi ng that, in many instances, Chinese petitioning 
companies did not provide MOFCOM with adequa te non-confidential summaries of its submissions, 
and that MOFCOM in turn failed to require that  reasonable non-confidential summaries be provided.  
As a result, interested parties – particularly respondent companies – had complained about being unable to adequately defend their interests, wh ile MOFCOM had been deprived of key rebuttal 
information needed to render the fair and objectiv e determination envisioned by the AD Agreement.  
He submitted that according to Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement, it was the investigating authority's 
responsibility to ensure that adequate non-confiden tial summaries were provided for any information 
considered to be proprietary in nature.  This ob ligation was particularly important given that in 
China's anti-dumping practice, non-confidential summari es were the only means by which interested 
parties might examine and evaluate submissions ma de by other parties a nd documents generated by 
the investigating authority.     
120. The representative of the United States also re ferred to the insufficient explanation of 
disposition of parties' evidence and arguments.  He  noted that both BOFT and IBII often would not 
adequately address critical arguments or evidence  put forward by interested parties in their 
preliminary and final determinations .  Article 12.2.1 of the AD Agreement required that a notice of a 
preliminary determination "shall refer to the matter s of fact and law which have led to arguments 
being accepted and rejected".  He stated that Artic le 12.2.2 obligated an in vestigating authority to 
include in its notice of final determination "the reasons for acceptance or rejection of relevant 
arguments or claims made by the exporters and im porters".  He submitted that failure to address 
issues and arguments raised by the parties impe ded a full understanding of how the investigating 
authority reached its determination. 
121. With respect to the issue of inadequate discl osure of margin calculations and essential facts, 
the representative of the United States indicated that China still needed to improve the level of detail 
provided by MOFCOM in its disclosure of dumpi ng margin calculations and its disclosure of the 
essential facts supporting the positions taken in its pr eliminary and final determinations.  Lack of 
sufficient disclosure of dumping calculations ha d been a concern in every Chinese anti-dumping 
proceeding conducted to date.  Similarly, in additio n to MOFCOM's failure to provide detailed margin 
calculations to responding companies, MOFCOM repeatedly neglected to provide parties with a 
sufficient understanding of its basis for and calculation of all-others rate assigned to companies which 
had not participated in the investigation.  More over, the all-others rates - typically assigned to 
United States' companies - appeared to be based on a dverse facts available, even in the absence of any 
evidence of non-cooperation.  The all-others ra tes were frequently many times higher than the 
margins assigned to participating companies, thereb y, effectively, prohibiting entry to the Chinese 
market of any new United States' shi ppers of subject merchandise.    G/ADP/M/41 
Page 20  
 
  122. The second area of concern pertained to the need fo r fair consideration of hearing requests.  In 
this context, the representative of the United States submitted that China needed to improve 
MOFCOM's use of fair procedures for all parties involved in an anti-dumping proceeding.  This included, but was not limited to, timely access to ad ministrators and favourable consideration of 
hearing requests, rather than resorting to private me etings with selected parties as a principal means to 
obtain views of parties.  He recalled that the Unite d States had repeatedly urged China to provide all 
interested parties with the opportunity to raise issues in an open and transparent setting and at an early 
stage of every proceeding, rather than relying on  private meetings with selected parties as the 
principal means of listening to concerns and arguments of all the parties.  He reiterated that interested parties not present for private meetings should be quickly informed of the matters discussed at those 
meetings, and should be given an opportunity to present their rebuttals in accordance with Article 6.2 
of the AD Agreement.          
123. The third area referred to by the United Stat es related to the need for expiry review 
regulations.  The representative of the United States submitted that China had yet to issue regulations 
and procedures governing the conduct and requireme nts for expiry reviews, thereby depriving 
Members of the ability to confirm that China's e xpiry reviews were being conducted according to the 
standards of the AD Agreement.  As China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many of its measures 
had reached the five-year mark, and had been the subject of expiry reviews.  Despite repeated 
assurances that it was preparing regulations governi ng the conduct of expiry reviews, however, to 
date, no such regulations had been comple ted or notified to the Committee.     
124. The fourth issue raised was the issue of defi ciencies in affirmative injury and causal link 
decisions.  The representative of the United States expressed a continued concern regarding what he 
described as the apparent fundamental deficiencies  in China's affirmative injury and causal link 
decisions, which often cited either no evidence at all or evidence that had not adequately addressed 
the arguments made.  He explained that the United States had often expressed its concerns that conclusory statements without evidentiary support would not constitute positive evidence within the 
meaning of Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement.  In  particular, the WTO's anti-dumping rules required 
the investigating authority to make available to all interested parties details of the factual basis and 
reasoning supporting the investigating authority's decisions, as well as complete accounts of the 
petitioners' allegations and briefs.  He reiterated that deficiencies in the apparent bases for China's 
injury determinations had been an on-going con cern throughout the history of China's anti-dumping 
investigations.      
125. On the topic of inadequate communica tion between MOFCOM and Chinese customs 
authorities, which was the fifth area of concern referred to, the representative of the United States recalled that the United States had repeatedly urged Ch ina to refine and make available to the public 
the process by which MOFCOM and the Chinese custom s officials at China's ports confirmed the 
precise merchandise subject to each anti-demoing measure and the anti-dumping duty rates to each 
importer, as well as the process by which parties might address associated problems.  He called to 
China's attention Article 5.9 of the AD Agreemen t, which provided that anti-dumping proceedings 
were not to hinder customs clearance.  He adde d that the United States has noted reports from 
responding parties regarding Chinese customs authorities either assessing anti-dumping duties on merchandise not subject to a measure or imposi ng seemingly unreasonable burdens of proof before 
allowing entry of non-subject merchandise.  Situa tions continued to arise in which the lack of 
uniform, published procedures needlessly hindered the resolution of disputes.    
126. Finally, the representative of the United States t ook up the issue of incomplete notification of 
legislation and regulations.  He stated that in p ast TRMs, the United States had noted that China had 
not appeared to have notified all relevant legi slation to the Committee.  For example, certain 
regulations addressing anti-dumping tax rebate, review of new exporters, and price commitments, 
were made available for public comment in 2009, bu t had yet to be notified to the Committee.  In  G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 21 
 
 
  addition, the United States believed that there have been certain updates, revisions, or supplements to 
China's regulations relating to anti-dumping inv estigations, for example, provisions regarding 
procedures for filing requests for ad ministrative reconsideration, that had not been notified to the 
Committee.   
127. In conclusion, the representative of the United St ates thanked China for the efforts that it had 
made over the last ten years to conform its anti-dumping practice to its obligations under the 
AD Agreement.  Going forward, he urged China to consider carefully the outstanding concerns that 
other Members had raised about MOFCOM's anti-dum ping practice and take steps to address them.  
He indicated that the United States would continue to engage China, both at the WTO and bilaterally, 
until these outstanding issues were satisfactorily resolved.  
128. The representative of Japan welcomed this oppor tunity to review Chin a's implementation of 
the WTO Agreement.  She indicated that China had a longer history as a user of anti-dumping 
measures than as a Member of the WTO.  In recent y ears, China had become one of the top five users 
of the anti-dumping measures.  She explained that in  spite of its extensive experience as a user of anti-
dumping measures, there still remained some concerns with respect to the investigations and decisions 
undertaken by China's investigating authority,  MOFCOM, from the viewpoint of due process and 
transparency.  She indicated that  it was essential to ensure due process and transparency in order to 
avoid unwarranted and unnecessary use of anti-dump ing measures.  She urged China to further 
improve its anti-dumping inves tigations in this regard. 
129. The representative of Japan highlighted two specifi c points. First, she indicated that Japan had 
serious concerns with regard to the injury determinations by MOFCOM.  In making injury 
determinations, it was essential to separate and dis tinguish the injurious effects of dumping from those 
of other factors, and to provide full explanation of their analysis.  Second, she had also strong 
concerns with regard to the disclosure of essentia l facts, especially the disclosure of margin 
calculations by MOFCOM.  There was no question that disclosure of how the margins were 
calculated, including the calculation methodology and th e data, especially the source of facts available 
used, was indispensable for the inte rested parties to effectively defend their interests.  She explained 
that in some investigations pertaining to Japanese products, MOFCOM had not used the data provided 
by the interested parties without any compelling reason to disregard it.  Moreover, the calculation 
methodology and the source of facts available were not  disclosed at all which left interested parties 
unable to fully defend their interests or to understand the basis for the decisions made.  
130. In conclusion, the representative of Japan reite rated the necessity to further improve China's 
anti-dumping investigations in the areas of due pr ocess and transparency, especially in the disclosure 
of essential facts to the interested parties;  acc ountability of both dumping and injury determinations;  
and providing sufficient time and opportunity to the inte rested parties to present their comments.      
131. The representative of the European Union noted that China had significantly stepped up its 
anti-dumping activity over the last three years in gene ral, but had also targeted the European Union's 
imports.  She explained that the European Union did not contest the right of China to make use of the 
anti-dumping instrument, but was specifically concer ned by the nature and the standards applied in 
the Chinese proceedings.  She noted that China ha d joined the WTO for a number of years, had 
become a regular user of the anti-dumping instrument , and it was expected to be in a position to apply 
high and strict standards for its trade remedies investigations.  She was of the view that some areas had witnessed significant improvements, but, as other WTO Members had observed, a number of 
shortcomings still existed.   
132. In particular, the representative of the European  Union considered that investigations were 
often initiated on weak grounds and th at they had frequently followed the imposition of anti-dumping 
measures against Chinese exports of similar or comparable products, or on a comparable basis G/ADP/M/41 
Page 22  
 
  (e.g. measures imposed against China on grounds of threat of injury would be followed by Chinese 
measures on the same grounds).  She believed that this  could not be a coincidence.  In addition, the 
lack of transparency remained a serious concern.  As a result,  exporters very often could not 
adequately exercise their rights of defence.  More specifically, the level and quality of disclosure must 
be substantially improved with regard to the essen tial dumping and injury elements, and China should 
refrain from all too often label information as c onfidential with an absence or an inadequate 
meaningful summary of the confidential information.  
133. Moreover, the representative of the Europ ean Union had also expressed concern over the 
standards of the injury analysis ca rried out by the Chinese investigating authority.  In this context, she 
submitted that the price analysis was often simplis tic (no price undercutting analysis, amongst others), 
all of the injury factors were not always analysed  in sufficient details, and that there should be a 
consistent and objective assessment of all such factors. 
134. To sum up, the representative of the European  Union reiterated the importance of improving 
all of the above aspects in anti-dumping investiga tions.  In particular, anti-dumping proceedings 
should be initiated only if all the WTO conditions we re met - regardless of any retaliatory motive and 
that the analysis and final decisions should be st rict and objective by safeguarding all the parties' 
rights of defence and substantially improving transp arency and substantive analysis of injury and 
causal link.  
135. The representative of Canada appreciated China' s continued participation in the TRM as well 
as the issues brought to the attention of the Committee by Members.  He indicated that without 
commenting on the specifics of the statements made  by Members, he shared the overall message of 
those statements.  He acknowledged China's conti nued efforts to conform to its commitments under 
the AD Agreement and supported and encouraged futu re actions to be taken by China in order to 
further improve transparency and due process in conducting anti-dumping investigations.    
136. The representative of Mexico acknowledged the headway which China had made in 
developing a legal framework for its anti-dumping regi me as well as the efforts it made in order to 
comply with the principles of transparency and rul es set out in the AD Agreement.  However, he was 
of the view that China's trade re medies measures should be fully tran sparent.  In this respect, he 
indicated that the Mexican authorities had encounter ed some difficulties in clearly identifying the 
Chinese legislation.  He specifically referred to MOFCOM's website which contained very limited 
information with respect to anti-dumping law and regulations as well as limited information on the 
procedures carried out by the investigating authorities.   He shared the concerns other Members raised 
and submitted that although there was a vacuum, su ch vacuum could become an opportunity to move 
on to greater transparency in information pertaining  to China's trade remedies.  He hoped that China 
would undertake the necessary actions to notify all its legislations to the Committee and to make it 
available to the public at large.      
137. The representative of Korea reiterated what ot her Members had said regarding China's anti-
dumping system.  He appreciated China's efforts to improve its systems, its law and regulations as 
well as its practice.  He encouraged China to impr ove its anti-dumping system, especially with respect 
to transparency.  
138. The representative of China thanked all delega tions that made comments regarding China's 
anti-dumping regime and practices and appreciated Me mbers' constant attention and interest in 
China's anti-dumping practices during the past ten years throughout the TRM discussions conducted 
in the Committee.  She indicated th at China had made continued and persistent efforts to fulfil its 
commitments made upon its accession to the WTO, a nd that the past ten years' discussion in the 
Committee had witnessed the great progress achieved by  China in developing a mature legal anti-
dumping framework consistent with the AD Agreemen t.  She explained that the regulations on anti- G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 23 
 
 
  dumping revised on 31 March 2004, together with all the departmental rules on anti-dumping 
measures that China notified to the WTO Secretariat, provided a very clear and comprehensive picture of China's anti-dumping legal framework. 
139. The representative of China submitted that the p ast ten years' discussion in the Committee had 
also witnessed China's commitment to pursue the principle of transparency and fair procedures set 
forth in the AD Agreement.  Also, as might have b een noted by Members, China had been seriously 
fulfilling its notification obligation pursuant to th e AD Agreement, mainly legislative notifications, 
semi-annual reports and preliminary and final anti-dump ing actions notifications.  In this respect, she 
confirmed that all decisions pertaining to initiati ons, preliminary and final determinations were all 
posted on the Chinese Government's official website and that interested parties as well as the WTO 
were informed about such decisions without delay. 
140. The representative of China explained that Mexi co could get all the information concerning 
China's anti-dumping-related law and regulations on that website.  On what was indicated by the 
United States regarding China's non-notification of  certain regulations addressing anti-dumping tax 
rebate, new exporter review and price commitments, she confirmed that, according to her information, 
China had notified all the related departmental ru les early in 2002, soon after its accession to the 
WTO, including provisional rules on refund of an ti-dumping duties, provisional rules on new shipper 
reviews pertaining to anti-dumping investigations and provisional rules on price undertakings in anti-
dumping investigations.  She added that the three me ntioned departmental rules were still in force and 
there had been no revisions adopted since.       
141. The representative of China noted that as indi cated by the European Union and Japan, China 
had recently become a regular user of anti-dumping measures.  However, according to the statistics 
issued by the WTO, China had also been the numb er one target of anti-dumping investigations for 
fourteen years; i.e. for more than China's years as a WTO Member.  Even under such circumstances, 
China had always been taking a serious, prudent and responsible attitude towards the use of anti-
dumping measures and that China's practice of anti-dum ping investigations would remain transparent, 
objective, fair and rules-based in compliance with  China's antidumping regulations and rules, as well 
as the AD Agreement. 
142. The representative of China confirmed that follo wing this final transitional review of China 
by the Committee, China would continue to actively engage in the activities of this Committee, with 
the most open and cooperative spirit.  She stated that anti-dumping would remain an area where not 
only China, but also other Members had more to do and that China would look forward to exchanging 
views in the future with other Members, under the regular mechanis m of the Committee, in order to 
improve each other's anti-dumping practices and try to make such practices transparent and procedurally fair as required by the AD Agreement.               
143. The Chair thanked the delegations for their pa rticipation in the exchange.  He especially 
thanked the delegation of China for its preparati on and for the information and answers that it had 
provided.  He equally thanked those Members that  had undertaken to submit written questions and 
had taken part in the discussion.   
144. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods in respect of this ninth and 
final transitional review13, the Chair noted that the Protocol contained no guidelines for these reports.  
He recalled that in the past, the Chair of the Comm ittee, 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 meeting which related to this transitional review.  The Chair suggested 
proceeding again on that basis.   
                                                      
13 G/ADP/21. G/ADP/M/41 
Page 24  
 
  145. The Committee so decided.
   
 
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
146. The Chair indicated that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention met on 24 October 2011 
and that there were no new papers  submitted for discussion at the meeting.  Members agreed that 
work in this Informal Group should continue al ong the same lines as had been the case to date. 
147. Concerning the date of the next meeting of the Informal Group, this had been set for the week 
of 23 April 2012 with the exact date to be confirme d in due course.  The deadline for submissions for 
that meeting would be 12 March 2012. 
148. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
149. The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
150. The Chair indicated that the Working Group on Implementation met on 24 October 2011 and 
that there were six papers on the agenda of th e meeting of the Group.  The first was submitted by 
South Africa on Article 2.3 - cons tructed export price;  the second had been submitted by Colombia 
on Article 3.5 - other known causes of injury;  the third and the fourth pertained to Article 5.3 - 
accuracy and adequacy test and were submitted by South Africa and Colombia, respectively;  while 
the fifth and sixth related to Article 11.3 - sun set reviews and were submitted by Pakistan and 
Colombia, respectively.  The Chair noted that with  respect to each paper, the Member submitting the 
paper made detailed introductory re marks.  This was followed by a questions and answers session that 
addressed wide range of issues pertaining to each paper.  Some Members also took the opportunity to 
explain their practices on similar issues.    
151. In concluding the meeting, the Chair encour aged other Members to submit papers on the 
nine topics currently under discussion in the Group. 
152. The Group agreed to schedule its next meeting fo r the week of 23 April 2012, with the exact 
date to be confirmed later. 
153. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
154. The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
155. The Chair made a brief statement encouraging Members that had issues to raise with other 
Members under other business to provide sufficient heads-up to the Member concerned prior to the 
meeting in order to ensure that an answ er could be provided at the meeting. 
156. No Member raised any issue under this item of the agenda. 
157. The Chair made a statement pertaining to th e semi-annual reports submitted by Members to 
the Committee. 
158.  The Chair indicated that Me mbers would agree that the se mi-annual reports submitted by 
Members form a very important part of the agreed transparency of this Committee.  He recalled that 
in order to streamline the reporting obligation, Members agreed in 2008 on a revised reporting format.    G/ADP/M/41 
 Page 25 
 
 
  159. Having said that, the Chair stated that he was in formed by the Secretariat that implementation 
of this new format would leave much to be desired.  In fact, to such an extent that it could affect the 
proper review of Members' semi-annual reports.  Furthermore, he reminded Members that the 
Secretariat maintained a data base of all anti-dumping action, and that the input of any inaccurate data 
would seriously compromise the reliability of that data base.  
160. The Chair referred to three interconnected chronic problems which would require the 
attention of Members.  Firstly, the late submis sion of semi-annual reports;  secondly, a large number 
of inaccuracies in some of these reports as submitted;  and, thirdly, sometimes significant delays in 
responding to the Secretariat's requests for correcti ons.  The cumulative effect of these problems had 
been a major reduction in transparency due to delays  in the availability of accurate information, and 
an undue burden on the Secretariat.   
161. Firstly, concerning late submission, unfortunately  this had become the norm rather than the 
exception.  For example, in the most recent reporting period, covering the first half of 2011, not only had a number of semi-annual reports arrived afte r the deadline of 31 August 2011, twenty four 
Members that notified competent authorities and twenty two Members that did not notify competent 
authorities had not yet provided their semi-annual reports.  
162. Secondly, a high percentage of submitted semi -annual reports contained significant numbers 
of non-trivial errors and that w ith each round of semi-annual report s the Secretariat team would end 
up spending an inordinate amount of time, including working at night and on weekends, struggling to 
decipher information received from Members.  Indeed, nearly half of the reports submitted in the most 
recent round contained errors that required follow-up from the Secretariat to resolve.  In the worst 
recent case, the Secretariat had to contact a Member  ten times in order to resolve all the errors.  
163.  In this regard, the Chair reminded Members th at the reporting format, which had been subject 
to extensive discussions by Members prior to its adoption in 2008, contained very detailed 
instructions covering all of the data elements to  be reported, and that the document containing the 
adopted format had always been referred to in th e requests and reminders circulated for each reporting 
period.  In order to assist Members, the Chair indicat ed that he had requested the Secretariat to attach 
the "reporting instructions" in future to these reque sts and reminders.  He also confirmed that the 
Secretariat had been and would always be at Member s' disposal to answer any questions or provide 
any needed assistance.     
164. Finally and closely related to the problem of re porting errors, were the delays in responding to 
the Secretariat's requests for clarifications and correc tions of the errors it detected.  Unfortunately, it 
was not uncommon for weeks or even months to el apse between when the Secretariat would bring a 
reporting anomaly to the attention of the submitti ng Member and when that Member would finally 
provide a response.  The Secretariat often had to contact the Member repeatedly before receiving the reply which had put the Secretariat in a difficult position as it was not in a position to unilaterally make corrections to a notification.  
165. The Chair, therefore, urged all Members to care fully review all of the information in their 
semi-annual reports before submitti ng them and respect the announced submission deadlines.  Then, 
where in spite of a Member's best efforts the Secret ariat would detect an error in a report, the Member 
concerned should endeavour to provide the necessary correction or clarification as soon as possible.  
One way to minimize this time-frame c ould be to put the Secretariat in direct contact with the officials 
preparing these reports in capitals, while s till keeping the Geneva Missions informed.   
166. The Chair emphasized that all Members should work diligently on these issues in order to 
ensure that their reports are properly reflected in the circulated lists of the reports received and 
thoroughly reviewed by the Committee.  He was of  the view that Members submitting such reports G/ADP/M/41 
Page 26  
 
  would wish for the reports submitted to be circulated  in time to be considered by other Members at 
the meeting.  He indicated that he w ould count on Members' cooperation.   
H. D
ATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
167. The Committee's spring 2012 regular meeting was scheduled for the week of 23 April 2012, 
with the exact date to be communicated to Members in due course. 
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
168. The Chair took up the issue of the election of the Committee's Vice-Chair.  He recalled that 
Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedures for the Anti- Dumping Committee meetings indicated that "The 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices shall elect a Chairperson and may elect a Vice-Chairperson 
from among the representatives of Members".  He r ecalled that at the last Committee meeting in 
May 2011, his predecessor had informed the Committee of the results of his informal consultations in 
this regard.  He mentioned at the time that due to  limited availability of candidates from a developed 
country Member who could perform this task, the election of the new Vice-Chair would be postponed 
until the autumn regular meeting of the Committee pe nding the results of the Chair's consultations.  
169. The Chair informed the Committee that he had b een consulting with Members in order to find 
a candidate from a developed country Member who could accept to take over that position, but 
unfortunately all candidates contacted have declined to  serve.  Given this situation, he suggested that 
the election of the new Vice-Chair be postponed until  the next regular meeting of the Committee on 
the basis of further consultations.     
J. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)      
170. The annual report for the year 2011 was adopted.14   
171. The meeting was closed.   
___________ 
 
                                                      
14 Circulated in document G/L/966.