. /.  RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/AHG/R/26 
23 December 2009 
 (09-6706) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE 
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES 
21 OCTOBER 2009 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  1. The Working Group on Implementation ("the Group") met in informal session on 
21 October 2009 and held substantive discussions on two topics referred to it by the Committee on 
Anti-Dumping Practices.  It also discussed two papers proposing new topics for discussion in the 
Group.  The Group adopted the agenda for the meeti ng, which was previously circulated as document 
WTO/AIR/3451, dated 9 October 2009.   
2. The Chairperson, Mr. Pasquale De Micco (Ital y), noted that the Group would first discuss the 
papers on the issues that were before the Group, followed by the new topics proposed for discussion 
in the Group.   
3. The first paper submitted by Egypt, circul ated in document G/ADP/AHG/W/180, contained 
Egypt's views on Article 2.2 - export prices to third countries or constructed normal value.  Following 
Egypt's explanations, some Members indicated that their investigating authorities ("IA") had similar 
systems to Egypt's with regard to the determina tion of normal value.  During the ensuing discussions, 
questions were raised, mainly on:  the applicati on of the 10 per cent test for representativeness;  
circumstances under which the IA determined th at respondents were uncoo perative and still used 
export price to a third country for the determination of normal value;  how the IA determined that 
exports to a third country were dumped;  how the IA assessed the similarity of the third country;  and 
why the IA would rely on export price to a third count ry, instead of using facts available, in situations 
where the exporters did not cooperate.  Egypt replied these questions.   
4. Egypt's second paper, circulated in doc ument G/ADP/AHG/W/181, contained Egypt's views 
on the determination of significant price underc utting under Article 3.2.  Following Egypt's 
presentation, Members asked questions, mainly on:  the participation of interested parties in the 
process of choosing product types;  the constructi on of import prices where there was no cooperation;  
and the relevance of profitability in the context of the price undercutting analysis.  Egypt replied these 
questions.   
5. The Chairperson recalled that, as contained in paragraph 53 of document G/ADP/M/7, the 
mandate of the Group was:  1) to prepare recommendations on issues where agreement seemed 
possible, and report to the Committee, and 2) to consider other issues regarding implementation on 
which Members believed discussion would be helpful.   Although discussions could sometimes lead to 
the development of a draft recommendation, that did not necessarily have to be the case.   
6. The Chairperson then turned to the paper submitted by Egypt, circulated in document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/182, which proposed four new topics fo r discussion:  a) Article 2.3 – constructed G/ADP/AHG/R/26 
Page 2  
 
  export price, b) Article 3.5 – other known causes of injury, c) Article 3.7 – threat of material injury, 
and d) Article 5.3 – accuracy and adequacy test.  Following Egypt's presentation, some Members stated that it would be useful to discuss these topi cs in the Group.  Others underlined the importance 
of continuing discussions on the topics already before the Group, but stated that adding the topics proposed by Egypt would also be useful.   
 
7. Through document G/ADP/AHG/W/183, Korea pro posed "Article 11.3-sunset reviews" for 
discussion in the Group.  After the introduction by  Korea, one Member expressed the view that 
sunsets constituted a sensitive issue and were part of the rules negotiations but that, if there was 
consensus, it would be ready to discuss this topic.   Others stated that rules negotiations and the 
discussions in the Group represented different functions and supported the inclusion of the new topic.  
The delegate of Korea recognized the fact that sun sets were being negotiated and stated that, in its 
submissions to the Group on this issue, his delegatio n would not discuss aspects of sunsets that were 
before the Negotiating Group on Rules.    
8. Noting that there was no objection in the Group to the new topics proposed by Egypt and 
Korea, the Chairperson stated that, in his re port to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, he 
would propose that the Committee discuss whether th ese topics should be added to the list of topics 
already before the Group.
1   
  
 
__________  
                                                     
 
1 The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, at its regular meeting held on 21 October 2009, agreed to 
refer to the Group the topics proposed by Egypt and Korea.  See, G/ADP/M/37, paras. 126-130.