. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/ADP/AHG/R/31 
21 May 2012 
 (12-2653) 
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 
23 APRIL 2012 
 
Note by the Secretariat 
  1. The Working Group on Implementation ("the Group") met in an informal session on 
23 April 2012 and held substantive discussions on th ree of the topics referred to it by the Committee 
on Anti-Dumping Practices, namely "other known cau ses of injury", "accuracy and adequacy test" 
and "sunset reviews".  The Group adopted the agenda for the meeting, which had been circulated as 
document WTO/AIR/3923 dated 12 April 2012.   
2. The Chairperson, Mr Subhas Gujadhur (Maur itius), stated that the Group would discuss 
three papers:  One on "Article 3.5-other known causes of injury" submitted by Colombia; one on 
"Article 5.3 - accuracy and adequacy test" subm itted by New Zealand; and one on "Article 11.3 -
sunset reviews" also submitted by Colombia.  He noted that the Group had started discussing 
Colombia's papers on "other known causes of injury" a nd "sunset reviews" at the last meeting and that 
it would continue such discussions at this meeting. 
3. The first paper discussed was Colombia's paper on other known causes of injury, circulated in 
document G/ADP/AHG/W/194, which explained Colombia 's legislation and practice with respect to 
the treatment of other known causes of injury in th e context of causation determinations.  Following 
the presentation by the delegate of Colombia, a Memb er asked whether or not the consideration of the 
existence of anti-dumping measures by third countr ies was limited to determining whether such 
measures existed or whether it went into further de tails.  The delegate of Colombia replied to the 
question. 
4. The second paper had been submitted by New Zealand in relation to the accuracy and 
adequacy test.  Circulated in document G/ ADP/AHG/W/195, the paper explained New Zealand's 
approach to the assessment of an application, includ ing in particular with respect to the accuracy and 
adequacy of the information provided therein.  Following the presentation by the delegate of 
New Zealand, Members asked questions, focussing mainly  on:  nature of assistance to applicants prior 
to and following the initiation of an investigation;  threshold for determining whether imports were 
negligible; average time between application a nd initiation; the point at which Acceptance and 
Initiation Reports prepared by New Zealand's investig ating authority were made available to public; 
time-period on which injury information submitted in  the application was based; whether there was a 
procedure to hear the views of other interested par ties about an application; and checking the accuracy 
of information regarding the names of foreign pr oducers.  The delegate of New Zealand provided 
replies to these questions.  Several Members explained their own practice on the specific points for discussion identified in New Zealand's paper. G/ADP/AHG/R/31 
Page 2  
 
  5. The third paper discussed was the one submitted by Colombia on sunset reviews which had 
been circulated in document G/ADP/AHG/W/193 a nd which explained Colombia's law and practice 
with respect to sunset reviews.  The delegate of Colombia presented their paper.  Following the 
presentation by the delegate of Colombia, Me mbers asked questions, focussing mainly on: 
identification of respondents in sunset reviews; whether the duty rate could change as a result of 
sunset determinations; the period for and adequacy of projected economic and financial data collected 
in sunset reviews; whether the sets of informati on collected on dumping margins, injury and causality 
were mutually exclusive; whether duties collect ed during a sunset review were subsequently 
refunded; ex officio initiation of sunset reviews; ma rgin calculations in sunset reviews; deadline for 
the initiation and completion of a sunset review; frequency of requests for the calculation of new 
margins; time period for the determination of likel y injury; assessment of causa lity in sunset reviews; 
and consideration of public interest in sunset revi ews.  The delegate of Colombia replied to the 
questions. 
6. The Chairman encouraged other Members to submit papers on any of the nine topics that 
were before the Group for discussion:   (1) Article 2.2 - export prices to third countries or constructed 
normal value; (2) Article 2.4.1 - foreign exchange fl uctuations; (3) Article 13 - judicial, arbitral or 
administrative review; (4) "How do Members determine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped imports?  – Article 3.2"; (5) Article 2.3 – constructed export price; (6) 
Article 3.5 – other known causes of injury; (7) Article 3.7 – threat of material injury; (8) Article 5.3 – 
accuracy and adequacy test; and (9) Article 11.3 – sunset reviews. 
 
__________