. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/W/463 
15 October 2007 
 (07-4421) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 18 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION 
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions from the JAPAN to CHINA
 
 
  The following communication, dated 4 October 2007, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Japan.  
_______________ 
  
 For the sixth Transitional Review Mech anism (TRM) for the People's Republic of 
China (China), Japan hereby submits following ques tions in advance of the regular meeting of the 
Committee of Anti-Dumping Practices.  Japan looks  forward to having clear and full responses from 
China.   
 
1. Registration Procedure 
 MOFCOM uniformly applies high all-ot her's-margin based on the adverse facts 
available (AFA) to those exporters or produ cers who do not fulfill "appearance notice" ("non-
registered parties") at the initial stage of investig ation.  Japan is concerned that, as far as those non-
registered parties are exporters and producers unknown  to the authority, applying the AFA in this case 
runs counter to paragraph 1 of Annex II an d Articles 6.1 and 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement (ADA).  See Mexico –  Anti-Dumping Measures on  Rice (WT/DS295/AB/R, para. 259).   
 
 In this regard, Japan notes the explanation gi ven by China during the regular meeting of the 
Committee in 2006:    
"The anti-dumping regulation of China allows for a procedure of setting aside an 
extra 20 days for potential respondents to exp ress their intention to co-operate to a 
given investigation.  This 20-day registr ation procedure does not count against 
the 37-day time-limit for answering the questionnaire.  MOFCOM makes the 
questionnaires available on its official website for all the interested parties, including those that do not express interest in a 20-day registration procedure, to 
have easy access to them and to participat e in a given investigation by answering 
and submitting their questionnaire replies.  If a company does not respond to the 
questionnaire, MOFCOM bases its determination on the best information available."   
 
 Japan would like to ask China to clarify following points.   
  (1) Does the Chinese authority no tify all those firms eventually to be applied the AFA of 
the information required by the authority?   G/ADP/W/463 
Page 2  
 
   (2) Does the authority notify those firms of  a possibility that the authority will make 
determinations on the basis of the facts available, should they fail to supply the 
required information?  To put it in other words, in what way does the authority ensure that a party is aware of such potential application of the facts available if it fails to supply the required information, as provided for in paragraph 1 of Annex II of the 
ADA?   
  Japan expects that China clarifies above points in view of the consistency with the ADA and, 
in particular, in view of the ruling of the Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Rice.    
 
2. Final anti-dumping determination against electrolytic capacitor paper from Japan 
 MOFCOM made its final determination to im pose an anti-dumping duty against electrolytic 
capacitor paper originating in Japan (issued on 17 April 2007).    
 Japan is especially concerned about MOFCOM's injury determination in this case.  With 
regard to imports to China of electrolytic capac itor paper, those imports from countries and areas 
other than Japan showed a rapid increase.  Ho wever, MOFCOM's final determination merely 
concluded that such imports had little effect on in jury, without detailed expl anations as to how the 
authority conducted its analysis on the injurious effect of those imports from Japan by properly 
separating and distinguishing the injurious effects of those imports from countries and areas other 
than Japan.  Japan considers that the analysis and explanations by MOFCOM were not adequate in 
this case, and its injury determination might run counter to Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the ADA.   
 
 Japan asks China to explain how  its injury determination in this case is consistent with 
the ADA, especially in view of the Appellate Body's ruling in US – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (WT/DS184/AB/R, para. 223).   
  
__________