WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/ADP/M/40 
4 July 2011 
 (11-3277) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 4 MAY 2011 
 
Chair:  Mr. Adrián Serra (Argentina) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
4 May 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 ) ............................................................................................................ 1  
1.  Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.4 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.4) ..................................... 1  
2.  Gabon (G/ADP/N/1/GAB/2 – G/SCM/N/1/GAB/2 – G/SG/N/1/GAB/2) .............................. 2  
3.  Oman (G/ADP/N/1/OMN/2 – G/SCM/ N/1/OMN/2 – G/SG/N/1/OMN/2) ............................ 2  
B.  SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) ..................................... 3  
C.  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  ............................................................... 14  
D.  CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON 
ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  ............................................................................................................. 15  
E.  CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  ............. 15  
F.  OTHER BUSINESS  ...................................................................................................................... 15  
G.  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  .................................................................................. 16  
H.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................ 16  
 
A. NATIONAL 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.4 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.4) 
3. The oral question posed by Korea at th e meeting was circulated in document 
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/12/Rev.1 – G/SCM/Q1/BRA/12/Rev.1. 
4. The written answer to this question could be found in document G/ADP/Q1/BRA/13 & 
Corr.1 - G/SCM/Q1/BRA/13 & Corr.1. G/ADP/M/40 
Page 2  
 
  2. Gabon (G/ADP/N/1/GAB/2 – G/SC M/N/1/GAB/2 – G/SG/N/1/GAB/2) 
5. No written questions concerning the notification of Gabon  were posed by any Member. 
3. Oman (G/ADP/N/1/OMN/2 – G/SCM/N/1/OMN/2 – G/SG/N/1/OMN/2) 
6. No written questions concerning the notification of Oman  were posed by any Member. 
7. 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 ag enda for this meeting for further review were to 
have submitted questions in writing to the notifying  Member and to the Secretariat not later than 
21 March 2011.  The Chair recalled the draft a nnotated agenda circulated to Members on 
25 March 2011, noting that no Member had posed ques tions regarding previously  reviewed legislative 
notifications.  As such, no item pertaining to th e continued review of previously reviewed 
notifications of legislation or regulations had been placed on the agenda for this meeting. 
8. The Chair reminded Members that for the autu mn 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 September 2011.  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 
new legislative notifications had been recei ved from Brazil and Korea on 11 April 2011 and 
18 March 2011, respectively.  As such, they could not be circulated in the three languages by the 
deadline of 21 March 2011.  They would, therefore,  appear on the agenda for the October meeting.  
Written questions concerning these a nd any other new legislative notif ications would need to be 
submitted not less than three weeks before the meeting, i.e. by 3 October 2011.  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 September 2011.  Written respon ses to such questions would need to be submitted 
to the Member posing the questions and to the S ecretariat not later than two weeks before the 
meeting, i.e. by 10 October 2011.
1 
9. 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. 
10. 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.  The latest 
revision of this list was available in G/ADP/N/14/ Add.31.  The Chair invited Members that had not 
done so already to submit notifications in acco rdance with Article 16.5, and also encouraged 
Members to review and update information where necessary. 
11. 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. 
12. The Committee took note of the notifications, question, answer and statements. 
                                                      
1 All deadlines are contained in document G/ADP/W/484–G/SCM/W/554–G/SG/W/216 dated 
13 May 2011.  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 3 
 
 
  B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
 - Review of Semi-Annual Reports (G/ADP/N/209) 
 
13. 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 11 March 2011, had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/209 and G/ADP/N/209/Suppl.1 dated 5 January  2011 and 25 February 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 Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
14. For those Members reporting anti-dumping actions, the Chair emphasized the importance of 
submitting these notifications in a timely manner.  He  added that many of the reports for this period 
arrived after the deadline, some significantly so .  He explained that although circulating and 
translating late reports had always been problem atic in the past, it had become more so since 
Members started using the revised semi-annual reports  format.  He clarified that certain technical 
problems pertaining to the data provided or lack thereof arose, and Members - even those providing their reports by the deadline - had to be requested to revise their reports and resubmit them once more.  
Needless to say, if the reports were already arriving  long after the set deadline, this would certainly 
have a negative impact on the translation and circ ulation of such documents.  He emphasized that 
circulating the semi-annual reports in all three la nguages in sufficient time before the meeting at 
which such reports were to be reviewed would allow Members to study them, and to formulate any 
questions to contribute to the Committee's discussion.  It would also constitute an important part of the transparency function that these reports were inte nded to fulfil.  The Chair, therefore, encouraged 
all Members to make an effort to submit their semi -annual reports on time.  The Chair noted that any 
Member could, if it so wished, raise any issue re garding a semi-annual report for a past period that 
had not yet been reviewed by the Committee due to late submission. 
15. The Chair noted that Members that notified taki ng actions were identified in paragraph 1 of 
document G/ADP/N/209/Add.1, dated 21 April 2011 an d that the semi-annual reports submitted were 
translated to the extent possible, but late submissi on obviously meant that not all such reports were yet 
available in all three languages.  He added that following the circulation of document 
G/ADP/N/209/Add.1, China and Peru had submitted se mi-annual reports.  He indicated that China's 
report, circulated on 29 April 2011, had been circulat ed in English and that it would be reviewed at 
the meeting.  An advance copy of Peru's report, in  Spanish, had been placed at the back of the room 
and would also be reviewed at the meeting.  In addition to the Members that had submitted 
semi-annual reports of actions take n, a number of Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document 
G/ADP/N/209/Add.1 had notified the Committee that  they had not taken any anti-dumping actions 
during the period in question.  Since the document had been circulated, Armenia, Fiji, Oman and 
Viet Nam had submitted nil notifications. 
16. The Chair also drew Members' attention to  paragraph 5 of docum ent G/ADP/N/209/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, as mandated by 
the Committee, the Secretariat had contacted all Me mbers that fall in this category to explain the 
background of the adopted one-time notification format and had provided the necessary technical 
assistance on how to use it.  So far, 32 Members lis ted 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 would re main in constant contact with other Members that fell into this G/ADP/M/40 
Page 4  
 
  category to provide any necessary assistance that could facilitate the submission of the said 
notification. 
17. The Chair pointed out that a considerable number of Members, as identified in paragraphs 3 
and 4 of document G/ADP/N/209/Add.1, had not yet responded to the request for semi-annual reports.  
He reiterated that this notificati on requirement applied to all Member s, whether or not they had taken 
anti-dumping actions during the period in questio n, except for those Members that had already 
submitted a one-time notification.  He urged Member s to comply with this important notification 
requirement. 
18. 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:  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecua dor, Egypt, Honduras, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, 
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the Philippine s, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, 
and Ukraine. 
19. On the semi-annual report of China , the representative of the United States noted that the 
United States had provided written questions to Chin a on 17 November 2010.  Given that no written 
responses had been received, he reminded China th at the United States was still awaiting responses to 
its questions.  Furthermore, due to the late submi ssion of China's semi-annual report, the United States 
reserved its right to return to it at the next meeting. 
20. The representative of the United States recalled that on numerous prior occasions before this 
Committee, the United States had raised serious conc erns regarding China's conduct of trade remedy 
investigations.  He explained that China's actions  regarding investigations concerning United States' 
exports of optical fibre and automobiles had only in creased those concerns and that the United States 
was particularly concerned with the numerous and recurring transparency and due process issues which had arisen in several trade remedy cases conducted by China against the United States' 
products.  He added that China's affirmative inju ry findings based on what appeared to be an 
extremely weak factual basis in the records of those investigations was an example of this. 
21. The representative of the United States recalled that a principal objective of the procedural 
requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement was to  ensure the transparen cy of proceedings and 
provide a full opportunity for the parties involved to defend their interests.  He indicated that the United States had experienced a lack of pr ocedural consistency,  and frequently opaque 
decision-making by the Chinese investigating authority.  This left interested parties unable to defend 
their interests fully or to understand the basis for the decisions made.  He provided specific examples 
in this respect. 
22. First, China's notices to inter ested parties and the public often failed to provide sufficient 
detail to allow for an understanding of the basis for the underlying decisions. 
23. Second, China's investigating authority did not  release, even to the parties involved, the 
specific methodology and calculations used to determine the dumping margins.  In both the optical 
fibre and autos investigations, the respondents had been forced to reverse engineer the dumping 
margin calculations in an attempt to unde rstand how the calculations were performed. 
24. Third, by not providing participating countries with full disclosure of the calculation 
methodologies used in an investigation, the resp ondent companies were not able to effectively 
comment on the authority's findings in order to de fend their interests.  In many instances, the 
respondent companies could not confirm whether the calculations were mathematically accurate.  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 5 
 
 
  25. Fourth, the United States had also observed seri ous problems with respect to the "all others" 
rate set by China's investigating authorities for thos e companies not selected for participation.  There 
was often no explanation for how the "all others" rate was determined.  In several instances, the 
investigating authority had assigned rates to the United States' companies not selected for 
participation which far exceeded the rate assigne d to any participating United States' company 
without any explanation or justification for the use of adverse inferences. 
26. The representative of the United States also expressed concerns regarding the lack of 
procedural due process afforded to respondent co mpanies and the responding foreign government.  He 
referred to China's anti-dumping and countervai ling duty investigations on autos from the 
United States as the most recent example.  He further expanded on this to explain that at no time 
during these investigations had China's investigati ng authority even provided a simple schedule for 
the most significant steps in the investigations.  Following the submission of the initial responses to 
the questionnaires, there was a period of complete in activity for a year.  Then, without warning, China 
issued a supplemental questionnaire with a required r esponse deadline of four days.  A request for an 
extension was denied.  Three days after the respon se was filed, another questionnaire was issued with 
a response deadline due two days later.  Following a request for an extension,  four additional days 
were granted.  Within days of the last questi onnaire responses, China's investigating authority 
announced its preliminary determinations.  Two we eks after the preliminary determinations, China 
issued its final disclosures in the proceeding.  No verification was conducted.  The representative of 
the United States added that it was only at the ti me of the preliminary determinations – with 
one month remaining in an 18 month investigation – that the United States' respondent companies and 
the United States government were made aware that the product scope of the investigation had been 
changed, seemingly based on the request of the pe titioner, and without any notice or opportunity for 
the United States' exporters to comment.  In add ition, repeated requests by the United States 
government for oral hearings among all the parties we re summarily denied without any explanation.  
He noted that China's sudden rush to complete th ese investigations following inactivity for a year, 
coupled with a last minute change to the product sc ope of the investigations without any notice that 
such a change was even being considered, had effect ively prevented the interested parties from being 
able to defend their interests and to respond to findings of China's investigating authorities. 
27. The representative of the United States next e xpressed concerns regarding China's injury and 
causation determinations.  He recalled that the basic requirement for a determination of injury was an 
objective examination based on positive evidence of th e volume and price effects of dumped imports 
on the domestic industry.  He was of the view that in many of China's recent trade remedy 
determinations involving the United States, injury determinations were inadequately explained and 
did not appear to be sufficiently supported by positiv e evidence on the records of  those investigations.  
He explained that trade remedies were intended to provide relief from the injurious effects of unfairly 
traded imports.  However, it appeared that China ha d applied trade remedies in instances where there 
was no reasonable basis to conclude that unfairly trad ed imports had caused material injury or threat 
of material injury to a Chinese domestic industry. 
28. As an example, the representative of the Un ited States noted that in the anti-dumping 
investigation pertaining to the United States' exports of optical fibre, there appeared to be no evidence 
that China's domestic industry was even remotely vulne rable to material injury.  Data cited by China's 
investigating authority showed that consumpti on, production capacity, output, capacity utilisation, 
sales volume, sales revenue, profit, rate of retu rn on investment, employment, productivity and cash 
flow, all rose sharply during the period of investig ation.  He considered that the final threat 
determination made by China's investigating auth ority not only lacked evidence that a change in 
circumstance was imminent , but that it was almost entirely devoid of current data.  Even though the 
preliminary determination was not made until Februa ry 2011, the Chinese investigating authority did 
not collect or fully consider import volume or do mestic financial performance data from 2010 when 
imports declined sharply, domestic demand continue d to grow and the Chinese industry continued to G/ADP/M/40 
Page 6  
 
  prosper.  He was of the view that the final dete rmination principally relied instead on extrapolations 
from data that was more than a year old during  a period of unparalleled prosperity for China's 
domestic industry. 
29. The representative of the United States concl uded that although the United States recognized 
that since China's accession to the WTO it had ma de some progress in developing its procedures and 
practices for conducting trade remedy investigations, ser ious issues remained, particularly in the areas 
of transparency, procedural due process and determinations of injury. 
30. The representative of Japan welcomed China's revocation of its oldest measure against 
"Cold-rolled Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip" from Japan on 8 April 2011, as indicated on page 9 of 
China's semi-annual report, without going through the second sunset review.  She explained that this 
measure had been in force for approximately ten years and the decision to terminate it had rightly 
reflected the changes in industrial conditions, to gether with China's economic development during 
this period. 
31. The representative of Japan referred to the qu estion Japan posed in writing to China on 
10 December 20102, and indicated that Japan looked forwar d to receiving China's written response as 
soon as possible.  She added that the question relate d to due process and transparency, an issue to 
which Japan, like the United States, attached signi ficant importance.  She considered it was very 
important for foreign producers to be able to reproduce the calculations for dumping margins with sufficiently detailed disclosure of essential facts, so as to enable them to respond to the authorities in 
sufficient time prior to the final determination.  A lack of transparency or setting timeframes that were 
too short to comment effectively, would prevent in terested parties from defending their interests and 
would in particular invite Members to question th e proceedings.  Japan urged Members to be mindful 
of due process and transparency in  their investigation procedures. 
32. The representative of the European  Union shared the concerns of the United States and Japan 
regarding China's compliance with the WTO re quirements on due process and transparency, in 
particular.  In addition, she indicated that the Eu ropean Union was deeply concerned with the sharp 
increase in investigations targeting the European Union's exports over the last period, not least 
because of the questionable practices in applying WTO rules by the Chinese authorities.  She noted a 
persistent lack of transparency in trade remedy pr oceedings conducted by China.  She also considered 
that China had consistently failed to disclose releva nt elements justifying the initiation of proceedings, 
and the evidence and data upon which the impositi on of provisional and definitive measures were 
based.  This was coupled with China's failure to provide the required meaningful and non-confidential 
summaries and justifications thereof.  She added th at as a result of this lack of adherence to WTO 
procedures, interested parties and exporters found it impossible to properly defend their interests and 
possibly rebut allegations of the petitioners and/or the findings of the investigating authority.  She 
submitted that this would represent a violation of the right of defense for the parties to such 
proceedings accorded to them by the WTO Agreements. 
33. The representative of the European Union further indicated that another structural deficiency 
in China's investigation procedures appeared to be  a very low injury standard, which allowed the 
Chinese authorities to reach a finding of injury very easily.  More recently, threat of injury was found 
in situations where a proper price analysis was almost entirely missing and the relevant injury indicators were positive or demonstrated positive trends.  She hoped that the Chinese authorities would remedy these flaws in the future so th at the relevant WTO trade remedy rules and 
jurisprudence would be fully complied with. 
                                                      
2 G/ADP/Q2/CHN/6.  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 7 
 
 
  34. The representative of Turkey supported the statem ents made by the United States, Japan and 
the European Union.  He too considered that th e effective implementation of WTO rules regarding 
due process and transparency were essential for exporte rs, producers and other stake holders to defend 
their interests. 
35. The representative of China noted that the c oncerns expressed by Japan, the European Union 
and Turkey were similar to those of the United St ates.  She added that if China was provided with 
specific written questions, it would respond in due course.  She also appreciated the exchange of 
views in the Committee. 
36. On the autos and optical fibre cases referred to  by the United States, the representative of 
China indicated that the autos case had been initiated in Novemb er 2009, with the preliminary 
determination issued in April 2011.  On the optical  fibre case, she stated that the investigation had 
been initiated in April 2010, but no determination had been issued in the second half of 2010.  
Therefore, both of these cases were outside the scope of review of this meeting.  However, she indicated that she was prepared to  try and provide initial responses. 
37. First, regarding the "all others" rate as menti oned in the specific context by the United States, 
the representative of China emphasized that this was the rate assigned for the companies that either 
had not, or refused to respond to the investigating authority and not a residual rate for companies not 
selected for sampling.  Normally, "all others" rates would be determined on a reasonable basis, such as the best information available basis,  which was common practice among Members. 
38. Second, regarding the question posed by the United States on disclosure, the representative of 
China indicated that for both the preliminary and definitive determinations, the Chinese investigating 
authority would disclose details to the respondent in order to ensure their right to defend their 
interests.  Therefore, the authority would provide, fo r each step, the calculation method used to arrive 
at an anti-dumping duty.  This would allow the respo ndent to trace back every step of the calculation's 
result.  She noted that the respondent would s till need to do some calculations on its own. 
39. Third, regarding autos and the change of the scope of the product under investigation, the 
representative of China noted that during an investig ation the investigating au thority could alter the 
scope of the product under investigation in accordan ce with new information collected.  In the autos 
case, the scope of the product under investigation was narrowed and that such a narrowing of the 
scope of the product would normally be in the inter est of the respondent.  She also referred to the 
United States' anti-dumping and countervailing case against coated paper from China, where the 
scope of the product under investigation ha d been subject to a series of changes. 
40. Fourth, regarding the one year timeframe of the investigation, the representative of China 
stated that China had complied with the timeframes fo r the investigation period;  i.e. the one year, or, 
with an official extension, 18 months. 
41. Fifth, regarding the supplemental questionnaire,  the representative of China noted that this 
was issued in order to ask the respondent to confir m the information already provided in the responses 
to the original questionnaire.  Given that it was a "y es" or a "no" situation, and as no new information 
or evidence was to be provided, China cons idered a 4 day deadline to be reasonable. 
42. Finally, regarding injury in th e optical fibre case, the representa tive of China indicated that 
given the technical nature of the issue, China w ould respond in a timely and appropriate manner to 
any specific questions posed in writing. 
43. The representative of the United States thanked Chin a for its response.  He agreed that useful 
exchange of views had taken place in the Committee and hoped that such exchanges would continue.  G/ADP/M/40 
Page 8  
 
  Regarding disclosure of the calculation methodolog y, the United States continued to see a problem 
with this.  He referred to Chin a's statement indicating that it woul d disclose every step and mentioned 
that it seemed that not every step was made ava ilable and that respondents had to do some reverse 
engineering to determine exactly how the margins were calculated.  With respect to the year of 
inactivity, he encouraged China to think about developing a case sch edule at the beginning of an 
investigation to provide the respondents with at le ast some general idea of the timing for the major 
steps that would be taken in the investigation.   He recognized that schedules would sometimes 
change, but in such a case, all the parties should be notified about the new schedule. 
44. On the semi-annual report of the European Union , the representative of China expressed his 
concern that Chinese exports were the largest target of the European Union's investigations.  In the 
last period, there had been thirteen new initiations  notified against products from China.  He hoped 
that the European Union was not using trade remedy  measures against China unreasonably, and that it 
was applying its practice in accordance with WTO rules. 
45. The representative of China specifically refe rred to the European Union's investigation 
against Chinese ironing boards.  On 2 October 2009, the European Union initiated a new investigation 
against an individual company.  In the prelimin ary determination, that company was assigned a zero 
dumping margin.  On 22 December 2010, the Europ ean Union made a final determination to impose 
an anti-dumping duty on that company.  Anti-dumpi ng investigations conducted in this way were 
inventive and were not compliant with WTO rules. 
46. First, the representative of China noted th at anti-dumping duties imposed against an 
individual company where there was a zero margin of dumping in the preliminary determination, was 
in breach of GATT 1994 Article VI, and Article 2 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  This approach 
also changed the meaning of a product in accordance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  Instead of 
being a product from a country, it would be the product of a company. 
47. Second, the representative of China indicated that  neither an injury nor a causal link analysis 
had been conducted.  This was in breach of GATT 1994 Article VI and Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  The European Union had only referre d to the full injury analysis of the original 
investigation which China considered to be unreasonable. 
48. Third, the representative of China contended th at a sharp and sudden change in practice was 
inconsistent with the principles of due process and tr ansparency.  In this case, the interested party did 
not know how to defend itself given that there were no rules to rely upon nor was there a sense of how 
the European Union would conduct the investigation.   He worried that the European Union's new 
practice would erode the basis of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  He called upon the European Union, 
as a major and influential player, to rectify the determination in this case and to conduct its 
investigations in a more prudent way in the future. 
49. The representative of the United States commented  on an anti-circumvention proceeding with 
respect to bio-diesel from the United States.  He explained that the European Union was seeking to 
expand the product scope to include products that were specifically excluded from the original 
investigation, although the investigation was comi ng up on a final determination.  This was done 
without considering how it might, first, impact on the standing or the domestic support for the initial 
measure and, second, impact on injury to the domestic  industry.  He requested the European Union to 
clarify how it could provide full consideration of  the standing and injury issues in light of the 
expanded scope. 
50. The representative of the European Union made initial comments on China's statement 
regarding the ironing board case.  She explained th at the Commission initiated a new investigation 
instead of an interim review in order to respect its obligations under WTO law as formulated in the  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Appellate Body report on Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice (DS295).   She confirmed that the 
investigation was conducted fully in accordance with  its basic regulation and with WTO rules and 
jurisprudence.  She invited China to submit its qu estions in writing if it wished to receive more 
detailed replies. 
51. Regarding the concerns raised by the United St ates, the representative of the European Union 
noted that the case on bio-diesel was still on-going and the final determina tion had not yet been 
published.  At least some of the concerns raised by the United States would be addressed in the final 
determination.  If that was not the case, she expr essed the European Union' s readiness to continue 
discussions in the Committee or on a bilateral basis, and to respond, in due c ourse, to concrete written 
questions. 
52. On the semi-annual report of India, the representative of Japan had several questions.  She 
referred to two cases. 
53. First, with regard to "1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane  or R-134a of all types" on page 7 of India's 
semi-annual report, the representative of Japan not ed that this investigation was initiated on 
19 August 2009 and the preliminary determination was made on 19 February 2010.  On 30 July 2010, 
the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry issu ed a public notice to extend the investigation for 
another 6 months until 18 February 2011.  It had b een more than 18 months since the initiation of the 
original investigation and no final decision had be en made.  She inquired whether the investigation 
had been terminated, and, if so, when the public  notice regarding termination would be issued. 
54. Second, the representative of Japan referred to the "PVC Paste Resin" investigation, which 
was against exports from Japan as well as exports from China, Korea, Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, 
Thailand and Russia.  She recalled that the inves tigation had been initiated on 3 November 2009.  The 
preliminary determination had b een made on 11 June 2010.  Since then, there had been no 
announcement from the Indian authorities until the Japanese Embassy in India received a disclosure 
statement on 27 April 2011, indicating that the Indian authorities intended to issue the final determination on 2 May 2011.  This was two workin g days after the disclosure of essential facts and 
the last day before the 18 month deadline for the i nvestigation.  She posed three questions and one 
comment regarding the proceedi ngs for the investigation. 
55. Firstly, in accordance with Article 5.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,  an anti-dumping 
investigation shall be concluded w ithin one year except in special circumstances.  The representative 
of Japan requested India to explai n the special circumstances in this  case that lead to an extension 
beyond the one year timeframe.  She also asked why th ere had been no public notice of the extension, 
as that issued by the Indian aut horities in case of "1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane or R-134a of all types". 
56. Secondly, in accordance with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the disclosure of 
essential facts had to take place in sufficient time for the interested parties to defend their interests.  
India's disclosure of essential facts was made on 27 April 2011 which left two working days for 
comments.  The representative of Japan considered that  to be far from sufficient time for the parties to 
defend their interests and requested India to improve  its practice so as to allow sufficient time for 
parties to effectively defend their interests. 
57. Thirdly, it appeared that the disclosure of essen tial facts was not made simultaneously to all 
interested parties.  The representative of Japan requested India to explain how the disclosure was 
made and the reason it was not made to all parties simultaneously.  Finally, the representative of Japan 
noted that according to the public notice of the imposition of provisional measures, "The 
anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective up to and inclusive of 
25 January 2011."  Nevertheless, the Indian custom s continued to collect provisional anti-dumping 
duties.  She requested confirmation that duties paid after 26 January would be reimbursed.  She G/ADP/M/40 
Page 10  
 
  considered that since the second case involved ma ny developing Members and had consequently 
affected their exporters and producers, she was of th e view that it would be useful to discuss this issue 
thoroughly. 
58. The representative of the United States th anked India for providing written responses
3 to its 
written questions provided in 2010.4  He indicated that it might have follow-up questions, or may ask 
to meet with India bilaterally.  With respect to th e semi-annual report for this meeting, he noted that 
the annex to this report had liste d the termination of the measure involving "Mica Pearl Pigment" 
from the United States.  However, in the section entitled "reviews/other subsequent proceedings", 
there was no corresponding termination date listed. 
59. The representative of the United States also not ed that India had published a notice in its 
official gazette on 11 November 2010 announcing the term ination of the expiry review of "Mica Pearl 
Pigment" from the United States due to the withdraw al of the application for review by the domestic 
industry.  Since the final measure was imposed  on 21 March 2005, it seemed that given the 
subsequent withdrawal of the expiry review, any anti-dumping duties should have lapsed as of 
20 March 2010.  He requested India to provide an explanation as to whether duties had been collected 
between 21 March 2010 and 11 November  2010, and, if so, whether those duties would be refunded.  
He also inquired whether India would cons ider submitting a revised semi-annual report. 
60. The representative of India indicated that he would consult with Capital on the questions 
raised and get back with specific responses.  In th e meantime, he wished to note some corrections in 
the semi-annual report.  Regarding New Zealand,  measures had been included regarding "Medium 
Density Fibre Board".  For the final findings, no duty had been imposed on exports from 
New Zealand and therefore it had been wrongly included in the report. 
61. In the case of "Styrene Butadiene Rubber", meas ures were indicated as being in force against 
Japan, the United States and Korea.  However, in all of those cases the duty had lapsed on 
27 June 2010.  No notification had been issued for further imposition of the duty.  This would also call for a correction in the report. 
62. Regarding Japan's questions, the representative of  India sought clarification on whether the 
five questions he received two days prior to the meeting still required an answer, or whether the only 
two questions that had been asked orally at th e meeting superseded those received in writing. 
63. The representative of Japan noted that in bila teral discussions with India questions had been 
posed regarding five specific cases, and that Japan expected responses to all of these questions.  She 
explained that she had focused, at the meeting, on the two cases she thought would be useful to share 
with other Members. 
64. The Chair asked if India could confirm whet her it would be submitting a revised semi-annual 
report.  The representative of India confirmed that it would submit a revised version following 
responses to the questions posed by the United States. 
65. On the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the representative of Turkey noted that it was 
raising, for the third time, the issue pertaining to the anti-dumping investigation on "Wheat Flour" 
originating in Turkey, Sri Lanka and Australia, initiated on 17 Novemb er 2008.  He noted that more 
than two years had passed since the initiation of th is investigation, but Tu rkey had not received any 
information regarding its outcome.  At the last Committee meeting Indonesia had indicated that the 
Indonesian investigating authority had issued its final disclosure in December 2009, and that it was 
                                                      
3 G/ADP/Q2/IND/3. 
4 G/ADP/Q2/IND/2.  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 11 
 
 
  awaiting a decision from the Ministry of Finance on whether or not to impose anti-dumping duties.  
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 5.10 of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement:  "Investigations shall, 
except in special circumstances, be concluded with in one year, and in no case more than 18 months, 
after their initiation".  In addition to this, Article 12.2 of the Agreement stated:  "Public notice shall be 
given of any preliminary or final determination, whether affirmative or negative".  He emphasized 
that although more than two years had passed si nce the initiation of the investigation, no public 
notice, affirmative or negative, ha d been published by the Indonesian investigating authority, nor had 
the investigation been concluded. 
66. The representative of Turkey explained that more than 18 months had passed since the 
initiation of the investigation.  The uncertainty re garding the imposition of the measures had created a 
chilling effect on the "Wheat Flour" Turkish exporters and their interests in the Indonesian markets.  
In addition, he informed Indonesia that Turkey had numerous concerns regarding the technical and 
procedural aspects of this investigation.  These re lated to the essential aspects of the investigation, 
mainly the standing requirement, the like product, calculation of the anti-dumping margin, the injury 
analysis, and the determination of the casual link between dumped imports and injury.  According to 
the statement made by Indonesia at the last Comm ittee meeting, as well as its semi-annual report, it 
was Turkey's understanding that the Indonesian Minister of Finance had not made a decision to impose anti-dumping duties since the Indonesian investig ating authority had issued its final disclosure 
in December 2009.  He added that Turkey had substantial trade interests in this case and was 
wondering when the decision would be made by the Minister of Finance.  He urged Indonesia to end this uncertainty and make its final determination,  be it affirmative or negative, or terminate the 
investigation without the imposition of a measure as soon as possible. 
67. The representative of Indonesia explained that  the Indonesian investigating authority had 
completed this investigation and had submitte d the outcome to impose anti-dumping measures 
through the proper channels, but, the authority was sti ll waiting for the decision.  He indicated that he 
would renew the concerns of Turkey to his Capita l regarding the delay in the implementation of the 
recommendation. 
68. The representative of Turkey reiterated that more than 29 months had passed since the 
initiation of the investigation.  He added that Turk ey had repeatedly heard Indonesia stating that the 
investigating authority had completed its work, but that the decision by the Minister of Finance on whether to impose a duty or not was still pending.  He noted that anti-dumping procedures required 
certainty and transparency.  There was a clear violation of Article 5.10 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  in this procedure.  He explained that Turk ey wanted to see a concrete conclusion to the 
investigation without any measure being imposed as soon as possible.  He hoped that this issue would 
not need to be raised at the next committee meeting. 
69. The representative of Indonesia noted that th e system in Indonesia to impose anti-dumping 
measures was probably not the same as in other WT O Members, and that it was beyond the capacity 
of Indonesian delegation to respond to Turkey's questions at the meeting.  She indicated that Turkey's 
concerns would be forwarded to Capital. 
70. With respect to the semi-annual report of Pakistan , the representative of Japan welcomed the 
termination of the investigation on  "Hot Rolled" Products on 25 February 2011.  The investigation 
was initiated in September 2009 and had taken 17 months and three w eeks before it was terminated.  
She seized the opportunity to remind Members that anti-dumping investigations had to be concluded 
within one year except in special circumstances. 
71. With respect to the semi-annual report of Chinese Taipei, the representative of Japan 
welcomed the revocation of the measure on "Art  Paper" on 3 March 2011 as a result of the second 
sunset review. G/ADP/M/40 
Page 12  
 
  72. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked Japan  for its comments.  Sh e indicated that the 
information regarding the termination of th e measure was communicated to the WTO in 
February 2011 and that the measure was terminat ed on 3 March 2011.  She thus confirmed that 
relevant information would be included in  Chinese Taipei's next semi-annual report. 
73. On the semi-annual report of Turkey, the representative of Indonesia noted that Turkey had 
initiated an anti-circumvention investigation on ai r conditioners against Indonesia, Viet Nam, the 
Philippines, Pakistan and Egypt on 25 July 2009.  The Indonesian producer replied to the questionnaire in September 2009, but due to limited time was not able to complete the questionnaire 
fully.  On 4 December 2009, the Turkish authority responded to the Indonesian producer by indicating 
that the questionnaire needed to be completed and returned by 18 December 2009.  Given the late 
receipt of that response, the Indonesian produ cer did not have enough time to complete the 
questionnaire.  Following that, neither the Indon esian producer nor the Government of Indonesia 
received any information concerning this proceeding. 
74. The representative of Indonesia added that after more than 18 months, Turkey imposed 
anti-circumvention duties of 25 per cent on a numbe r of exporters of air conditioners, including 
Indonesia (communiqué no. 2011/3 and official gazette  2780).  In this connection, he raised a number 
of concerns. 
75. First, the affected party should have full right of defence and thus must have access to all 
documents and information which could lead to the initiation of the investigation.  However, Indonesia had never received any documents pertaini ng to the proceeding and the final disclosure.  
Second, the Turkish authority should have verified  the capacity of the interested party prior to 
initiation of the investigation and s hould have made results of such verification available to any party 
affected by the investigation.  Third, the anti- circumvention investigation should have targeted 
specific companies and not all imports from a spec ific country.  In addition, non-circumventing 
companies should be excluded from the measure.  Fourth, the representative of Indonesia inquired whether the investigation that had taken longer than the 18 months  was in line with the WTO rules 
and constitutional law.   Finally, Indonesia requested a clarifi cation as to how the amount of duty was 
calculated. 
76. The representative of Turkey noted that Turkey followed the same rules for an 
anti-circumvention investigation as it did for an anti-dumping investigation.  Therefore, for every 
investigation Turkey provided 37 days, including mailing time, to every exporter.  An additional 
request for additional time to complete the questionna ire in this case was gran ted.  Therefore, the 
Turkish authorities had provided sufficient time for a ll exporting countries.  He requested Indonesia to 
supply its questions in a written form, to  which Turkey would reply in writing. 
77. The representative of Indonesia thanked Turkey  for the explanations provided and hoped to 
receive detailed answers as soon as possible. 
78. With respect to the semi-annual report of the United States , the representative of China noted 
that China had many concerns regarding the United States' anti-dumping measures.  He indicated that 
China had become the biggest target of the Unite d States' trade remedy investigations.  Out of 
eighteen new investigations initiated by the United St ates, fourteen were against exports from China.  
He added that China had only initiated four cases against the United States. 
79. The representative of China indicated that he would only focus on one investigation.  He 
stated that on 14 October 2009, the United States launched a concurrent inv estigation on exports of 
"coated fine paper" from China.  The preliminar y ruling was issued on 21 September 2010, while the 
final determination was issued on 29 March 2011.  He outlined specific concerns regarding this 
proceeding.  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 13 
 
 
  80. First, the United States Department of Co mmerce (USDOC) had not provided sufficient 
opportunity for the Chinese industry to present evid ence demonstrating that it was a market-oriented 
industry.  The representative of China recalled that  in the preliminary determination, the USODC had 
rejected the market-oriented industry application on  the basis that the Chinese industry's ownership 
document was not comprehensive enough to demonstrat e that all input prices were decided by the 
market.  However, the USDOC had not sent suppl emental questionnaires be fore the preliminary 
determination, nor had it asked the Chinese industry to provide further evidence on the issue.  He 
believed this failure to seek more information was contrary to Article 6.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
81. Second, the representative of China considered th at there had been an arbitrary expansion of 
the scope of the investigated product.  The product scope had been limited at the point the standing 
test was applied, but then during the investigation process it was expanded several times.  He considered that as a result, the product scope used to define the domestic industry was inconsistent 
with the product under investigation.  He added that  China had raised this with the USDOC, but the 
USDOC had refused to consider the issue.  He believed the United States' action was inconsistent 
with those articles pertaining to product under in vestigation, like product, injury and domestic 
industry. 
82. Third, the representative of Chin a criticised the United States' zeroing methodology.  He did 
not think using targeted dumping for some transacti ons for one company justified using the targeted 
dumping method to calculate the dumping margin for all transactions of all parties in the case.  He stated that the United States had also used zeroi ng in the calculation of the margin of dumping and 
had therefore arbitrarily raised the dumping margins on Chinese products.  He considered that 
carrying out an investigation in this manner had sever ely impaired the rights of interested parties and 
was inconsistent with WTO rules.  He recalled th at the practice of zeroing had been ruled on many 
times by the Appellate Body and had been found to be  WTO inconsistent.  He urged the United States 
to correct the ruling in this case and to conduct futu re investigations in accordance with WTO rules. 
83. The representative of Japan noted that the Un ited States had 16 measures in force against 
Japanese products, the longest of which had been in force for more than 32 years.  This measure had 
been imposed in 1978, a year before the conclusi on of the Tokyo Round.  She explained that at the 
time one dollar was around 200 yen, while it had curre ntly reached 80 yen which demonstrated how 
the world had changed since then.  Three measures had been in force for more than 20 years, with an 
average duration of approximately 15 years.  She con tinued to urge the United States to revoke what it 
considered to be unjustifiably long measures. 
84. Regarding some specific measures, the represen tative of Japan noted that the second sunset 
review on "Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products " had begun in April 2010.  Japanese companies 
were cooperating with the investigation and Japan was still awaiting news on this measure. 
85. The representative of Japan added that a sunset review would be initiated by the 
United States' investigating authority on "Ball Bearings  and Parts Thereof" at the end of 2011.  This 
measure had been in place against Japanese exports fo r 22 years.  She indicated that Japan would be 
taking a keen interest in the outcome of this review. 
86. The representative of Japan welcomed the revoca tion of three measures in the latter half of 
2010, including the measure on "Polycholroprene Rubber"  which had been in place for 37 years.  She 
also hoped that a number of other measures would soon be revoked. 
87. Finally, Japan noted that the 22 year measur e on "Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin" 
had been revoked on 22 December 2010, but had not b een reflected in the Un ited States semi-annual 
report.  Japan requested the United States to correct its notification. G/ADP/M/40 
Page 14  
 
  88. On China's questions, the representative of th e United States noted that in 2010 China had 
initiated eight investigations and the United States ha d initiated three investigations.  With respect to 
the issues raised, he acknowledged that a supplemen tal questionnaire had not been issued in the 
investigation on "coated fine paper".  It was the first time the United States had heard a respondent 
complain that they did not receive another questio nnaire.  He reminded China that the records of 
investigations were open throughout  the proceedings and that information could be provided at any 
point in the investigation.  Regarding the zeroing issue, China had stated that the USDOC had used 
zeroing in the calculation of the margin of dumpi ng.  The representative from the United States noted 
that this methodology was no longer used in investig ations.  Regarding the targeted methodology, this 
was specifically provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and was used by several Members. 
89. More generally, the representative of the Unite d States noted that the investigation on "coated 
fine paper" had been conducted by the USDOC in its usual fair and transparent manner in which the 
respondent companies had been able to raise issues throughout the investigation, all of which had 
been addressed in full in the final determination.  He offered to reply in writing to written questions. 
90. The representative of the United States noted Japan 's comments regarding sunset reviews.  He 
explained that often cases were continued due to a lack  of participation by the respondent companies.  
He, therefore, urged the companies involved to part icipate and demonstrate that they were no longer 
dumping.  This would result in the revocation of an or der.  Finally, he stated that the publication of 
the revocation of the measure on "Granular Polyte trafluoroethylene Resin" had occurred in early 
2011, and therefore would appear in the next  semi-annual report of the United States. 
91. 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. 
92. 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  
93. 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/207 & G/ADP/N/208 and G/ADP/N/210 – 213.  He indicated that during this period, Argentina;  Brazil;  Canada;  the Dominican Republic;  Ecuador;  Egypt;  the European Union;  India;  
Jamaica;  Korea;  Mexico;  Peru;  South Africa;   Chinese Taipei;  Turkey and the United States had 
notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping acti ons.  He noted that since document G/ADP/N/213 
had been circulated, Argentina;  China;  Egypt;  the European Union;  India;  Korea and the 
United States had submitted notifications, which woul d appear in the next list circulated by the 
Secretariat. 
94. The Chair drew Members' attention to the con tinued apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  In particular, co mparing the semi-annual reports with these lists of 
actions taken, it appeared that some Members had reported anti-dumping actions in progress in their semi-annual reports, but had not subm itted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  The Chair 
emphasized that these reports had always been a key element of the required transparency concerning 
Members' anti-dumping actions, and that the Committ ee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard.  The Chair, like all 
his predecessors, strongly urged all Members taking anti-dumping actions to provide such notification 
of preliminary and final actions, cons istently and in a timely fashion.  In this regard, he noted that the 
minimum information format for these notifica tions, which was adopted by the Committee in  G/ADP/M/40 
 Page 15 
 
 
  October 2006 and revised in October 20095, contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions 
that should be notified and the information which should be provided. 
95. No Member addressed any of the notifications under review at the meeting. 
96. The Committee took note of the Chair's statement. 
D. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
97. The Chair indicated that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention met on 4 May 2011 and 
that there were no new papers submitted for discussion at the meeting.  Member s agreed that work in 
this Informal Group should continue along the same lines as had been the case to date. 
98. Concerning the date of the next meeting of the Informal Group, this had been set for the week 
of 24 October 2011 with the exact date to be conf irmed in due course.  The deadline for submissions 
for that meeting would be 12 September 2011. 
99. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
100. The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
101. The Chair indicated that the Working Group on Implementation met on 4 May 2011 and that 
there were three papers on the agenda of the mee ting of the Group.  The first two papers had been 
submitted by Egypt, one on construc ted export price and the other on the accuracy and adequacy test.  
The Chair noted that these papers had previ ously been discussed at the Group's October 2010 
Meeting.  One delegation had asked a question on Eg ypt's paper on the adequacy and accuracy test to 
which the Egyptian delegation had replied on the spot. 
102. The third paper discussed was submitted by Turk ey, also on the adequacy and accuracy test.  
Following a detailed introduction by the delegate fro m Turkey, several Members posed questions with 
respect to the practice of the Turkish investigating authorities.  The delegate from Turkey replied to 
these questions.  Some Members also took the opportunity to explain their practices on similar issues. 
103. In concluding the meeting, the Chair encouraged  other Members to submit papers on the nine 
topics currently under discussion in the Group. 
104. The Group agreed to schedule its next meeting for the week of 24 October 2011, with the 
exact date to be confirmed later. 
105. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
106. The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
107. The Chair made a brief statement encouraging Members who 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. 
                                                      
5 G/ADP/2/Rev.2. G/ADP/M/40 
Page 16  
 
  108. No Member raised any issue under this item of the agenda. 
G. D
ATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
109. The Committee's autumn 2011 regular meeting was scheduled for the week of 
24 October 2011, with the exact date to be  communicated to Members in due course. 
H. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
110. The Chair recalled that the Chairperson of  the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) had 
completed informal consultations on the nomination of Chairpersons for the different bodies operating 
under the auspices of the CTG.  The CTG had accordingly agreed on 21 March 2011 on a slate of Chairpersons of its subsidiary bodies.  Mr. S ubhas Gujadhur of Mauritius had been proposed as the 
Chairman for this Committee.  The Chair asked if  the Committee could agree to the nomination of 
Mr. Gujadhur.  The Committee elected Mr. Gujadhur as Chairperson by acclamation. 
111. Regarding the position of Vice-Chair, the Chair recalled his communication faxed to 
delegations on 13 April 2011 where he had informed  delegations of the results of the informal 
consultations conducted in th is regard.  The Chair noted that he ha d, in keeping with current practice, 
tried to identify a candidate from a developed country given that the Chair was from a developing 
country.  Due to the limited availability of candida tes who could perform the task in light of the 
imminent departure of the majority of those candi dates, and the unavailability of other candidates to 
serve, the election of the new Vice-Chairperson woul d be postponed until the next special or regular 
meeting of the Committee on the basis of consulta tions to be conducted by the incoming Chair. 
112. The incoming Chair, Mr. Gujadhur, expressed his a ppreciation to the Chair for his work in the 
Committee and thanked the Membership for its c onfidence in electing him as Chair for the next 
period.  He noted that one of his first tasks would be to conduct consultations regarding the position of 
the Vice-Chair.  He looked forward to working with  Members on that as well as the other work of the 
Committee. 
113. The Chair expressed his thanks to Members for th eir support and positive participation in this 
Committee, as well as the Informal Group on Circumvention and the Working Group on 
Implementation.  The Chair also express ed his thanks to the Secretariat. 
114. The meeting was closed. 
__________