RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/37 
4 January 2010 
 (10-0004) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD 
ON 21 OCTOBER 2009 
 
Chair:  Mr. Pasquale Di Micco (Italy
) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
21 October 2009.   
2. The Chair requested all Members to provide th e Secretary of the Committee with the names 
and contact details of their representatives who a ttended the Committee meetings.  He indicated that 
this information would be consolidated by the Se cretariat in one contact details' list and made 
available to all Members at the back of the room at future Committee meetings.   
3. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3452:   
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 ) ............................................................................................................2  
2. Bahrain (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/2-G/SCM /N/1/BHR/1-G/SG/N/1/BHR/2) .................................2  
3. Belize (G/ADP/N/1/BLZ/1) (ADP only)...................................................................................2  
4. Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/2-G/SCM/N/1/KEN/2) ...................................................................2  
5. Norway (G/ADP/N/1/NOR/4-G/SCM/N /1/NOR/4-G/SG/N/1/NOR/4) .................................3  
6. Peru (G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.1) ...........................................3  
7. Suriname (G/ADP/N/1/SUR/2) (ADP only) ............................................................................3  
8. United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/ Suppl.8-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.8).............................3  
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE ............................................................................3  
1. Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.9-G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.8) ................................3  
2. Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/DOM /3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1) ......................................................................................................3  
3. Honduras (G/ADP/N/1/HND/3-G/SCM/N/1/HND/3).............................................................4  
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ..............................................................5  
1. Review of semi-annual reports ................................................................................................5  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS :  NOTIFICATIONS ...................................11  
E. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ...........................12  G/ADP/M/37 
Page 2  
 
  F.
 CONSULTATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF 
NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES ............................16  
G. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION ...................18  
H. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION ...........................18  
I. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................20  
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING .........................................................................................20  
K. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE  18.6) ............................20  
 
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 ) 
4. The Chair  noted that items A (i) through (vii) of the agenda concerned the review of new 
legislative notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee, and that as always, the reviews would be conducted in accordance with the pertin ent procedures adopted by the Committee, found in 
document G/ADP/W/284.   
5. The Chair informed Members th at the deadlines for the subm ission of documents for the 
spring 2009 regular meetings of the Committee,  the Working Group on Implementation, and the 
Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had been est ablished, and would be circulated by the 
Secretariat in a reminder document indicating tho se deadlines, as well as the analogous deadlines for 
the spring meetings of the SCM and Safeguards Committees.
1   
6. Concerning the review of the legislative notif ications on the agenda, any written questions 
were to have been submitted to the Member con cerned, and to the Secretariat, not later than 
28 September 2009.  Oral questions could be asked  at the meeting, and any Member desiring to 
receive a written answer to any such questio n had to submit it in writing not later than 
9 November 2009.  Written answers to all written qu estions were to be submitted to the Member 
posing the question, and to the Secretaria t, not later than 30 November 2009.   
7. The Chair also noted that, as had been indicated  in the annotated draft agenda, most of the 
legislative notifications to be reviewed were multip le-symbolled.  He indicated that he was informed 
that, as per usual practice, those documents relati ng to topics other than anti-dumping were discussed 
in the relevant bodies when they met on 19 and 20 October 2009.   
2. Bahrain (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/2-G/SCM/N/1/BHR/1-G/SG/N/1/BHR/2) 
8. No written questions concerning the notification of Bahrain  were posed by any Member.   
3. Belize (G/ADP/N/1/BLZ/1) (ADP only) 
9. No written questions concerning the notification of Belize  were posed by any Member.   
4. Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN /2-G/SCM/N/1/KEN/2) 
10. No written questions concerning the notification of Kenya  were posed by any Member.   
                                                      
1 Now circulated in document G/ADP/W/476-G/SCM/W/551-G/SG/W/213 dated 3 November 2009.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 3 
 
 
  5. Norway (G/ADP/N/1/NOR/4-G/SCM/N/1/NOR/4-G/SG/N/1/NOR/4) 
11. The written questions concerning the notification of Norway  could be found in the following 
documents:   
 G/ADP/Q1/NOR/4-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/4 – submitted by the United States 
 G/ADP/Q1/NOR/5-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/5 – submitted by the European Communities2 
 
12. The written answers to these questions could be found in the following document:   
G/ADP/Q1/NOR/6-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/6 – repli es to the European Communities and the 
United States 
 6. Peru (G/ADP/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.1) 
13. No written questions concerning the notification of Peru  were posed by any Member.   
7. Suriname (G/ADP/N/1/SUR/2) (ADP only) 
14. No written questions concerning the notification of the  Suriname were posed by any 
Member.   
8. United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.8-G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.8) 
15. No written questions concerning the notification of the  United States  were posed by any 
Member.   
16. The Committee took note
 of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.   
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
1. Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.9-G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.8) 
17. The written questions concerning the notification of Argentina  could be found in the 
following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/25-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/25 – submitted by the United States 
 
18. The written answers to these questions could be found in the following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/26-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/26 – replies to the United States 
 
2. Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/DOM /3/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1) 
19. The written questions concerning the notification of the Dominican Republic  could be found 
in the following document:   
                                                      
2 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 4  
 
   G/ADP/Q1/DOM/5-G/SCM/Q1/DOM/5 – submitted by the United States 
 20. The written answers to these questions could be found in the following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/DOM/6-G/SCM/Q1/DOM/6 – replies to the United States 
 3. Honduras (G/ADP/N/1/HND/3-G/SCM/N/1/HND/3) 
21. The written questions concerning the notification of Honduras  could be found in the 
following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/HND/3-G/SCM/Q1/HND/1 – submitted by the United States 
 
22. The written answers to these questions could be found in the following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/HND/2-G/SCM/Q1/HND/2 – replies to the United States  
 23. The Chair
 reminded Members that any questions c oncerning the reviewed legislation for 
which a written answer was desired had to be subm itted in writing to the Member concerned with a 
copy to the Secretariat not later than close of  business on 9 November 2009.  Written answers to all 
questions submitted in writing had to be s ubmitted not later than close of business on 
30 November 2009.   
24. For the spring 2010 meeting, in accordance with the Committee's agreed procedures, all new 
legislative notifications which would be circulated in all three languages at least six weeks before the 
meeting, i.e., by 15 March 2010, w ould be placed on the agenda for re view.  Shortly after this date, 
the Secretariat would circulate a document informing Me mbers of all of the legislative notifications to 
be reviewed at the spring meeting.   
25. The Chair noted that two new legislative notifications were submitted by Japan and Vietnam 
and circulated in documents G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.6-G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.6-G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.2 and G/ADP/N/1/VNM/1, respec tively.  As these notification could not be 
translated into French and Spanish  in time to be reviewed at the autumn 2009 meeting, they would be 
placed on the agenda of the spring 2010 Committ ee meeting for review.  Written questions 
concerning those and any other new
 legislative notifications would need to be submitted not less than 
three weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 6 April 2010.   
26. The Chair further noted that Members wishing to place any previously-reviewed legislative 
notification on the agenda would need to submit ques tions in writing to the Member in question, with 
a copy to the Secretariat, not later than six weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 15 March 2010.  Written 
answers should also be submitted in ad vance, i.e. by 12 April 2010.   
27. Finally, the Chair drew attention to the fact that some Members had yet to submit any 
notification concerning legislation.  This was a matt er of concern to all Members, from the point of 
view of transparency and better understanding.  Fo r many Members all that would be required was a 
single nil notification.  For Members that conduc ted anti-dumping investigations, but had not yet 
notified their legislation, it was all the more im portant for the Committee to have the opportunity to 
review and ask questions about that legislation.  Thus, the Chair encouraged all Members that had not 
yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.   
28. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 5 
 
 
  C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of semi-annual reports 
29. The Chair  recalled that a request for semi-annual re ports for the first half of 2009 and a 
reminder in this respect had been circulated in documents G/ADP/N/188,  dated 24 June 2009 and 
G/ADP/N/188/Suppl.1, respectively, with a due date of 31 August 2009.  He indicated that these two 
documents had explicitly indicated that Members should use the new format for semi-annual reports 
contained in document G/ADP/1/Rev.1, dated 3 November 2008, in preparing their semi-annual 
reports.  It appeared that most Members taking an ti-dumping actions during th e period in question had 
submitted a semi-annual report.  He reminded tho se Members taking no anti-dumping actions that all 
that was necessary was to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year.   
30. For those Members reporting anti-dumping actions, the Chair emphasized the importance of 
submitting these notifications on a timely basis.  He added that many of the reports for this period 
arrived after the deadline, some significantly so .  He explained that although circulating and 
translating such late reports were always problematic in the past, it was certainly so this time around.  
As Members used the new semi-annual format for this reporting cycle, certain technical problems 
pertaining to the data provided or lack thereof aro se, and Members - even those providing their reports 
by the deadline - had to be request ed to revise their reports and resubmit them once more.  Needless to 
say if the reports were already arriving way after the set deadline, this would have certainly had a negative impact on the translation and circulation of such documents.  He stated that circulating the 
semi-annual reports in all three languages - sufficientl y before the meeting at which such reports were 
to be reviewed - would allow Members to study th em, and to formulate any questions which would in 
turn contribute to the quality of the Committee's di scussion and would constitute an important part of 
the transparency function that these reports were  intended to fulfil.  The Chair had therefore 
encouraged all Members to make an effort to submit their semi-annual reports on time.  He also noted 
that Members were free to raise qu estions about any semi-annual reports for past periods that were not 
already reviewed by the Committee.   
31. The Chair stated that Members that had submitte d such reports were identified in paragraph 1 
of document G/ADP/N/188/Add.1, dated 15 October 20 09 and that the reports were translated to the 
extent possible, but late submission obviously meant that some might not yet be available in all three 
languages.  In addition to the Members that submitte d semi-annual reports of ac tions taken, a number 
of Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/188/Add.1, had notified the Committee that 
they did not take any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.   
32. Having said that, the Chair noted that due to tr ansitional technical difficulties associated with 
using the new format for semi-annual reports, some Members that have submitted such reports were 
still in the process of introducing the technical co rrections needed to such reports and as a 
consequence such reports were not circulated to date.  These Members were referred to in footnote 1 
of document G/ADP/N/188/Add.1.
3  As this was an exceptional situ ation, the Chair proposed that the 
Committee would postpone the consideration of su ch semi-annual reports until the next regular 
meeting of the Committee in the spring of 2010.   
33. The Chair pointed out that there was a significan t number of Members that had not responded 
to the request for semi-annual reports, which applied to all Members, whether or not they had taken 
anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  These Members were identified in paragraphs 3 
and 4 of that document.  He urged all Member s to comply with this important notification 
requirement.   
                                                      
3 The European Communities, India, and Pakistan.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 6  
 
  34. The Chair noted that he would revert to th is matter upon discussing the proposed "one time 
notification" under item F of the agenda where the Chair would be reporting to the Committee on the 
results of his informal consultations held on 25 June 2009 to explore ways to improve timeliness, 
completeness of notifications and other information flows on trade measures.   
35. The Committee conducted the review  of the semi-annual reports that had been submitted and 
circulated for the first half of 2009.  No Member raised questions or made  comments concerning the 
semi-annual reports of the following Members:  Au stralia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, 
Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Paragua y, Peru, Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, 
Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine.   
36. Concerning the semi-annual report of Argentina , the representative of Peru
 stressed the 
importance of the Committee as the forum at which Members' could consult on any questions related 
to the functioning of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or the achievement of its objectives, including 
semi-annual reports presented by Members.  In this respect, he stated that in the Committee's regular 
meeting held in October 2008, qu estions were raised in document G/ADP/Q2/ARG/1 in relation to the 
anti-dumping investigation initiated against imports of  "zip fasteners" and which had not yet been 
responded to in writing by Argentina to date.  He ad ded that with respect to Members with exports 
under investigation, it would be very  important to get replies to the questions raised in this Committee 
as soon as possible.  He explained that this would he lp those Members to obtain clarity with regard to 
aspects of fact and legal ramifications in relation to  the procedures of the investigation and to express 
concerns pertaining to the strict compliance with th e multilateral rules, particularly in relation to the 
accuracy and relevance of evidence and information which would be sufficient to justify the initiation 
of an investigation.   
37. The representative of Peru added that with r espect to Argentina's semi-annual report, dated 
7 October 2009, Peru took note of the investigati on on "zip fastener chains and slides" with the 
imposition of anti-dumping duties of 23.61 per cent for bronze and 77.24 per cent for plastic.  In this respect, he expressed concern with respect to the serious irregularities in this procedure which the 
Government of Peru had pointed out  on various opportunities to Argentina, and which were counter to 
the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In order to monitor the compliance with the 
multilateral commitments, he indicated that Peru was currently analyzing this case in depth and 
reserved the right to bring this issue to the Co mmittee's attention or if necessary to the Dispute 
Settlement Body.   
38. The representative of Argentina
 pointed out that Argentina had, on the margin of the last 
Committee meeting, held a bilateral meeting with th e delegation of Peru at which Argentina provided 
some explanations.  He added that certainly the quest ions were not yet replied to in writing, but many 
of the issues of interest to Peru were already dea lt with.  He stated that obviously the delegation of 
Argentina would remain ready to continue discussi ng these issues with Peru.  With respect to the 
consistency of the measure adopted by Argentina, he indicated that Argentina had strictly complied 
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and that Peru could raise any question of irregularity in the 
appropriate forum.   
39. On the semi annual-report of Brazil , the representative of the United States  posed two 
questions.  The first pertained to the measure on im ports of "butyl acrylate" from the United States.  
She noted that in column three of its semi-annual report, Brazil had indicated that the period of investigation for injury was October 2002 through Ju ne 2007, but in the preliminary and final notices 
pertaining to this investigation, which were publishe d in the Diario Oficial, it was stated that the 
period of the investigation for injury was actu ally October 2002 through September 2007.  She 
requested Brazil to clarify the actual period of inv estigation for injury in this investigation.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 7 
 
 
  40. The second question pertained to the measure on "polyvinyl chloride".  The representative of 
the United States indicated that with respect to th e date in the extension column of the annex of 
measures in force to Brazil's semi-annual report, Br azil reported the date the measure was reinstated 
and that a quarterly reference price system was imposed.  According to the notice in the Diario 
Oficial, the reinstatement of this measure woul d expire on 14 December 2009.  She requested Brazil 
to confirm whether the measure on imports of "polyvinyl chloride" would in fact expire on that date 
as scheduled.   
41. In relation to the semi-annual report of Brazil as well, the representative of Peru  welcomed 
the decision of 3 October 2009 to close the investig ation of "polypropylene films" and acknowledged 
the high technical quality of these films in Braz il.  He welcomed the manner in which the 
investigation was conducted, due process was observe d, and the allegations presented by interested 
parties were taken into account.  Likewise, he stre ssed that this investigation had set an important 
precedent on the relevance of international anti-dump ing investigations to preferential as well as 
regional and bilateral trade agreem ents and how to ensure that dom estic industries would not suffer 
from injurious dumping effects.  He added that strengthening the anti-dumping disciplines would be 
in the interest of greater trade liberalization with in the Doha Development Agenda and would benefit 
the multilateral and bilateral trading.   
42. On the first question posed by the United States pertaining to the investigation of "butyl 
acrylate", the representative of Brazil  confirmed that the United States was right and that the period 
contained in the semi-annual report was not correct and that instead it should state:  "from October 2002 until September 2007".  He requested the Secretariat to prepare a corrigendum in that 
respect.
4   
43. On the second question regarding the termina tion of the measure imposed on "polyvinyl 
chloride", the representative of Brazil indicated that although he recognized that this was scheduled to 
be terminated on 14 December 2009, he indicated that he would not be able to confirm that at this 
stage, as there might be an initiation of a sunset re view, so this date would remain as scheduled, but 
not as confirmed.   
44. The representative of Brazil also thanked Peru  for its comments and indicated that Brazil 
shared Peru's assessment regarding the importance of the Rules negotiations.   
45. On the semi-annual report of Costa Rica , the representative of El Salvador  referred to the 
initiation of an investigation on "canned tuna".  He indicated that bilateral consultations were 
conducted between the authorities in both capitals and th at El Salvador would continue to be ready to 
find a solution among interested Members.  However, he noted that Cost Rica had continued to move 
ahead with the investigation despite  the fact that El Salvador had communicated its observations as far 
as the initiation of this investigation was concerne d.  He added that El Salvador recognized the 
importance of the functioning of the WTO agreements, and that, with respect to this particular case, 
he was of the view that the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t had always been a guarantor of objectivity and 
respect of due process which ought to be observed in anti-dumping measures.   
46. The representative of El Salvador expressed concern regarding the manner in which the 
Ministry of Economy, Industry and Trade of Costa Rica had initiated this investigation.  In this 
respect, he referred to the lack of compliance with th e deadlines, lack of notification, late notification 
and inappropriate handling of the briefs through the investigating authority of Costa Rica, which were 
all brought up during the bilateral consultations  held between both Members and which would go 
counter to the principle of due process and the defence of interested parties' rights.   
                                                      
4 Now circulated as document G/ADP/N/188/BRA/Corr.1.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 8  
 
  47. The representative of El Salvador observed that  the request of the Cost Rican industry was 
presented on 3 June 2009.  On 9 June 2009, this  request was admitted a nd on 12 June 2009, the 
resolution to initiate the investig ation was decreed.  However, it was not until 8 July 2009 that the 
Salvadoran industry was notified of this resolution.  Due to this, El Salvador was thus concerned that 
there was a precipitation on the part of the Costa Rican investigating authority.  He added that 
El Salvador maintained serious doubts as to whether the initiation of that investigation was carried out 
under an objective analysis of all the economic factors justifying such initiation.  Among the 
observations to this resolution, the representative of El Salvador referred to the lack of legitimacy of 
the national production branch and the degree of suppor t referred to in Articles 5.2.(i) and 5.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  There was a lack of data  which could objectively reflect the behaviour of 
the indicators used to measure in jury and the causal relationship.  Furthermore, very important 
information such as the data on prices of the prod uct in the exporting country, as referred to in 
Article 5.2.(iii), was also missing.   
48. The representative of El Salvador added that another aspect which was observed to be 
unsatisfactory in this investigation was the lack of compliance with the terms established by the rules, 
lack of notification to interested parties includi ng the lack of notification to the Government of 
El Salvador according to Article 6.1.3 in relation to Article 6.11 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  He 
added that inconsistencies were also found in this investigation when evaluating other external factors 
which might have had some effect on the domestic tuna industry of Costa Rica.  Thus, there was no 
minimum consideration given to an evaluation of the economy within the framework of the global 
economic crisis or the temporary suspension of tuna fishing in the eastern pacific ocean on the part of 
the Inter-American Tuna Commission to which both Costa Rica and El Salvador were Members and 
which had forced the temporary closure of production plants in various countries.  He noted that the 
investigating authority of Costa Rica had failed to corporate facts with evidence and figures, giving credit to what was said by the domestic tuna industr y.  He mentioned that evidence indicated that the 
investigating authority of Costa Rica had accepted the argument that the domestic tuna industry had 
suffered a displacement in its market, while in fact  the figures demonstrated that the Costa Rican tuna 
industry had maintained 62 per cent of the Central American market during the last three years.  
Meanwhile, the Salvadorian industry had not ev en reached 10 per cent of this market.   
49. On the treatment of confidential information,  the representative of El Salvador expressed 
concern over the fact that in the briefs, non confid ential summaries of very important annexes which 
would have provided a better unde rstanding of its contents, were  not submitted pursuant to the 
obligation under Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  To conclude and in light of the 
above, he hoped that Costa Rica would terminate th e initiation of this investigation on canned tuna, 
thus guaranteeing the full recognition of the rights of El  Salvador and the application of the principles 
of due process in anti-dumping measures in accord ance with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.   
50. The representative of Costa Rica
 thanked El Salvador for the comments made and indicated 
that as there were no questions directed to his dele gation, he would simply take note of the comments 
made and send them to capital.  He also noted that the process was continuing forward and that 
El Salvador, i.e. the Government and the industry involved,  had had an opportunity to express their 
interests and positions during the course of this investigation.   
51. On the semi-annual report of Indonesia,  the representative of Turkey  stated that although it 
was indicated in the previous semi-annual report of Indonesia, contained in document 
G/ADP/N/180/IDN, dated 4 March 2009 that Indonesi a initiated an anti-dumping investigation on 
"wheat floor" originating in, inter alia , Turkey on 17 November 2008, there was no information with 
respect to this investigation in the semi-a nnual report of Indonesia contained in document 
G/ADP/N/188/IDN/Rev.1, dated 23 October 2009.  She noted that Turkey had certain concerns with 
respect to the technical aspects of the investigati on as well, but indicated that she would refrain from  G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 9 
 
 
  raising such concerns at the meeting.  She requ ested Indonesia to provide information concerning the 
current situation of this investigation.   
52. Before turning the floor to Indonesia, the Chair  indicated that Indonesia had submitted on 
20 October 2009, a revised version of its semi-annua l report and that advance copies of that revised 
version were available at the back of the meeting room.   
53. As the representative of Indonesia  was not present at the meeting, the Chair  requested Turkey 
to pose its question to Indonesia in writing.5   
54. With respect to the semi-annual report of Japan , the representative of Japan  referred to the 
two documents submitted by Japan in this regard.  The first was the semi-annual report pertaining to 
the first half of 2009 contained in document G/ADP/N/188/JPN, while the second was a supplement 
to that report contained in document G/ADP/N/ 188/JPN/Suppl.1.  He explained that the first 
document contained the required notification in whic h Japan indicated that it had no actions to report 
during that reporting period, but had certain measures in  force.  On the supple ment to that document, 
he indicated that it contained additional inform ation which Japan provided voluntarily and without 
prejudice to Members' obligations in this regard.  This supplement contained information pertaining to 
existing measures in force where Japan also  used the new semi-annual report format, i.e. a retroactive 
voluntary application of the new semi-annual report fo rmat.  He added that the six measures reported 
in annex 1 of Japan's semi-annual report, contai ned in G/ADP/N/188/JPN, as existing measures, had 
also appeared in more detail in the supplem ent (G/ADP/N/188/JPN/Suppl.1) which contained 
information reported pursuant to the new semi-annual reports format pertaining to the initiations of 
the original investigations and the revi ews which resulted in these measures.   
55. The representative of Japan indicated that th e objective of this exercise was to provide 
additional transparency.  He also stated that he  understood that the Secretariat would accumulate the 
information in a database and then have it posted on the WTO website in an appropriate format.  He 
thus urged Members to provide the maximum inform ation possible in this regard.  He added that 
internal discussions were conducted in Japan on how  to complete columns 9, 10 and 11 of the new 
semi-annual report format as improved elements of  the new format.  Another element was the 
identification numbers ("ID numbers") required by th e new format as well.  He requested Members to 
take a look at Japan's voluntary contribution to this  Committee in this respect as Japan's investigating 
authority exerted a big effort to prov ide as much information as possible.   
56. The representative of Japan also referred to th e slide presentation made by the Secretariat at 
the spring meeting of the Committee and to the techni cal assistance provided by the Secretariat in this 
respect, and indicated that it was quite helpful in clar ifying how to complete the data.  He added that it 
was understandable that some of the missing semi-a nnual reports, due to these technical difficulties, 
would be examined in the spring of next year.  He  hoped that reporting Members would try to use the 
existing examples which used the new format, including that of Japan.  He noted that although it was 
not an obligation, it might be useful for all Memb ers to follow Japan's example and provide similar 
supplements, if they had the time to do so.  This would help the WTO Secretariat to provide authentic 
data on the anti-dumping actions taken.   
57. The representative of Japan added that he had some preliminary questions pertaining to the 
semi-annual report of India.  Although India's semi -annual report was one of the reports that were, 
due to technical corrections, not subject to revision at the meeting, he indicated that he would like to 
give a preview of Japan's preliminary questions to India with respect to a sunset review initiated by 
India on 15 October 2009 in which certain Japanese companies were, though not involved in the 
original investigation, incidentally implicated in that sunset review.  He mentioned that this issue 
                                                      
5 Now circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/IDN/1.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 10  
 
  might be subject to bilateral consultations with I ndia and that Japan would raise this issue at the 
spring's Committee meeting.   
58. Concerning the semi-annual report of South Africa , the representative of the United States
 
posed two questions.  First, with regard to the m easures in force on imports of "frozen chicken meat 
portions" from the United States, she request ed an explanation as to why there was no ad valorem  or 
specific duty amount reported in the column of measures in the semi-annual report.6   
Second, she noted that South Africa had terminated a number of measures pursuant to a ruling by the 
Supreme Court of Appeals including the measure on imports of "Suspension PVC" from the United States.  She requested South Africa to indi cate when it intended to terminate the other anti-
dumping measures which were covered by the court's ruling, including those involving Unites States' 
exports of "frozen chicken meat", "Lysine" and "Acetaminophenol".   
 59. The representative of South Africa
 indicated that she just got the question on the day of the 
meeting and that South Africa would prepare answ ers to be submitted to the United States and the 
Secretariat as well.   
60. On the semi-annual report of Turkey , the representative of the United States  posed 
two questions to Turkey.  The first question involv ed column 10 of the semi-annual report, where the 
imports' column should be reported as a percenta ge of apparent domestic consumption or as a 
percentage of total imports.  She noted that the da ta was withheld for reasons of confidentiality and 
requested Turkey to report this information, if possi ble, at least with respect to some of the measures 
based on publicly available imports' statistics which would not reveal any confidential information.  
She indicated that the United States had also withhe ld certain information in column 10 for reasons of 
confidentially, but it had relied on pub lic import statistics wherever possibl e.  She asked Turkey if that 
was also a possibility at least for future reporting.   
The second question had to do with the annex on definitive anti-dumping measures in force.  With 
respect to the measure on "PVC" from the United States, Turkey had listed only the date of the 
imposition of the measure following an expiry review , but did not report the date of the imposition of 
the original measure which was 6 February 2003.  Sh e thus requested Turkey to explain why the date 
of the original imposition of the measure was not reported in the table.    61. On the first question, the representative of Turkey 
indicated that this was the first notification 
made pursuant to the new format.  She added that Turkey was not a big country and that in many 
sectors there might be just one domestic producer and in many investigations there would only be one 
cooperating exporter.  Taking all th at into consideration, some figures would be highly sensitive for 
the domestic producers and cooperati ng exporters, thus their figures would not be reported.  She 
added that Turkey had always provided timely notif ications and that all Turkey's communiqués were 
posted on its website and could be easily accessed by Members.  She stated that Turkey would go 
through the information pertaining to column 10 once mo re to rectify any errors or omissions, and that 
in future Turkey would be providing detailed information.   
62. On the second question pertaining to PVC, the representative of Turkey indicated that there 
was no specific reason that this date was not reporte d.  She noted that there was no cooperation from 
the United States' exporting companies, the inv estigation was completed, and the measures was 
imposed.   
63. With respect to the semi-annual report of the United States , the representative of Japan  stated 
that he had a general comment.  On the annex of me asures in force, Japan appeared to have a number 
                                                      
6 A revised semi annual report was subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/188/ZAF/Rev.2.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 11 
 
 
  of outstanding cases in page 47 of that report and th at the oldest initial date was in 1973 and some 
were in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000, i.e. some of those dates were nearly thirty years old.  He indicated 
that this was a general concern that might relate to sunset reviews.   
64. The representative of the United States  thanked Japan for that observation.   
65. The Chair  noted that Members were free to raise any issue regarding semi-annual reports for 
past periods that were not already reviewed by th e Committee.  No Member raised any issue in this 
respect.   
66. The Chair drew Members' attention to the fact that the Secretariat was approached by some 
Members inquiring whether they could provide, on a voluntary basis and only for transparency reasons, certain information pertaining to their al ready existing measures and which was not required 
by the old format for semi-annual reports, but becam e a requirement pursuant to the new format.  He 
informed Members that they could of course do so and that the Secretariat would issue that as a supplement to the semi-annual report of the Member concerned.  He indicated that a good example for 
that was what Japan notified as a supplement to its  semi-annual report and which was circulated in 
document G/ADP/N/188/JPN/Suppl.1.   
67. The Committee took note
 of the semi-annual reports, questions, answers and statements.   
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS :  NOTIFICATIONS  
68. The Chair  recalled that lists of the notifications of  preliminary and final anti-dumping actions 
submitted by Members since the Committee's sp ring meeting could be found in documents 
G/ADP/N/185-187, and G/ADP/N/189-191.  During that period, the following Members had notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions, which had been listed in these documents:  Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Co mmunities, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, 
Peru, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine and the Un ited States.  He noted that since document 
G/ADP/N/191 was circulated, Argentina, China, the European Communities, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, 
Ukraine and the United States had submitted such no tification which would appear in the next list 
circulated by the Secretariat in this respect.   
69. The Chair drew the attention of Members to th e apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement.  In particular, comparing the semi-annual reports with the lists of actions 
taken, it appeared that some Members had repor ted anti-dumping actions in progress in their semi-
annual reports, but had not submitted re ports of preliminary or final actions taken.  He stressed that 
these reports were a key element of the required transparency concerning Members' anti-dumping actions, and the Committee could not effectively carry  out its monitoring and discussion functions if 
Members did not fulfil their obligations in that re gard.  He, therefore, very strongly urged all 
Members taking anti-dumping actions to provide those notifications of preliminary and final actions, 
consistently and in a timely fashion.  He remi nded Members that the revised minimum information 
format for those notifications, which had been a dopted by the Committee in October 2006 (document 
G/ADP/2/Rev.1), contained important clarifications as  to the kinds of actions that should be notified 
and the information that should be provided.   
70. None of the notifications before the Committe e for review were addressed by any Member.   
71. The Committee took note
 of the Chair's statement.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 12  
 
  E. T
RANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
72. 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.   
73. 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.   
74. The Chair noted that the delegations of Japan and the United States had submitted questions 
in the context of the transitional review (docum ents G/ADP/W/475 and W/474, respectively).  The 
Chair invited Members to make any general statements.   
75. The representative of the United States  noted this was the eighth annual review of China's 
implementation of its anti-dumping regime, under the Transitional Review Mechanism of China's 
Protocol of Accession, to be undertaken by the Committee.  These reviews provided Members with an 
important opportunity to consider China's effort s to meet its obligations under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  As in prior reviews, the United St ates observed that China had been incrementally 
improving its compliance efforts, but there remain ed aspects of China's anti-dumping regime that 
were  obscure, thereby making it difficult for Members to confirm whether China was meeting the 
standard of procedural fairness reflect ed in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
76. China had developed into a substantial user  of the anti-dumping remedy and had initiated 
over 160 investigations since joining the WTO in 2 001, including 15 this year, which placed it among 
the top ten users of the remedy.  Given that China was an active user of trade remedies, it would be 
essential that China conduct anti-dumping inves tigations in a responsible manner.   
77. The United States used this opportunity to highlight certain concerns that it shared with its 
respondent companies that were subject to Ch inese anti-dumping proceedings regarding significant 
lapses in transparency on the part  of China's administering authority, the Ministry of Commerce 
("MOFCOM").  Such concerns were characterized  in large part by the Chinese petitioning company 
not providing MOFCOM with adequate non-c onfidential summaries of its submissions, and 
MOFCOM's subsequent failure to require that reasonable non-confidential summaries be provided.  
As a result, interested parties had been unable to adequately defend their interests in several recent 
anti-dumping proceedings, while MOFCOM had been de prived of key rebuttal information needed to 
render a fair and objective determination, as re quired by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The 
United States urged China to review the adequacy of its non-confidential investigative records to 
ensure that all interested parties were provided with adequate non-confidential summaries that allow 
for meaningful comments, well in advance of MO FCOM's final determination, and in a manner 
consistent with the provisions of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 13 
 
 
  78. According to Article 22 of the Antidumping Regul ations of the People's Republic of China 
and Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t, it would be the investigating authority's 
responsibility to ensure that proper non-confiden tial summaries were provided for any information 
considered to be proprietary in nature.  This w as particularly important given that in China's anti-
dumping practice, non-confidential summaries were th e only means by which interested parties might 
examine and evaluate submissions made by ot her parties and documen ts generated by the 
administering authority.  Accordingly, the United States urged China to thoroughly review requests for confidential treatment of information made by  all parties, particularly requests by petitioning 
Chinese companies, and provide as soon as possibl e non-confidential summaries that allow for 
adequate understanding of the submitted information a nd rebuttal of allegations based on such data.   
79. Similarly, the United States urged China to improve the level of detail provided by 
MOFCOM in its disclosure of dumping margin cal culations and of the essential facts supporting the 
positions taken in the preliminary determination, an other aspect of China's investigative process often 
criticized by responding parties.  The United Stat es urged China to provide parties with such 
improved disclosures with sufficient time to allow for the preparation of rebuttal arguments prior to a 
final determination.  In this way,  China could ensure that all parties were afforded the procedural 
fairness to which they were entitled.   
80. Furthermore, the United States noted that as China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many 
of the measures it had put in place have now reached the five-year mark.  Given the evidentiary problems the United States had encountered in prior anti-dumping proceedings conducted by 
MOFCOM, it was critical that when drafting its e xpiry review regulations and procedures, China 
should ensure that those regulations and procedur es would meet the high standards of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  Under the Anti-Dumping Ag reement, full access to critical arguments and 
evidence must be provided to interested parties in  expiry reviews, as well as full opportunities for due 
process.  In particular, details of the factual basis and the reasoning supporting the investigating 
authority's decisions, as well as complete accounts of  the petitioners' allegations and briefs, must be 
made available to all interested parties.  Therefor e, the United States urged China to finalize its expiry 
review regulations and procedures as soon as possible a nd to notify them promptly to this Committee.   
81. The United States also urged China to apply fair  procedures to all parties involved in an anti-
dumping proceeding as envisioned by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  This would include, but would 
not be limited to, timely access to administrators a nd favourable consideration of hearing requests.  
The United States urged China to provide all interest ed parties with the opportunity to raise issues in 
an open and transparent setting at an early stage of every proceeding, rather than resorting to private 
meetings with selected parties as a principal means to obtain views of parties.  The United States reiterated that interested parties not present for private meetings should be quickly informed of 
matters discussed at these meetings and be given an opportunity to present their rebuttal comments.   
82. The United States recognized the progress China had made to date in developing a legal 
framework for its anti-dumping regime and in pu rsuing the principles of transparency and fair 
procedures set forth in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  As a significant user of the anti-dumping remedy, China had a responsibility to demonstrate it s commitment to the principles set forth in the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In that regard, the Un ited States strongly encouraged China to complete 
the transition to make its anti-dumping investiga tive and decision-making processes fully transparent 
and procedurally fair for all parties.  The United States noted that it was looking forward to seeing 
continued improvement and offered its assistance  to China in pursuit of that goal.   
83. The representative of Japan
 referred to the technical questions posed by Japan in document 
G/ADP/W/475 and indicated that the two issues pertai ning to the application of facts available and 
injury determinations, on which the questions fo cused, were follow-up questions posed by Japan 
last year.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 14  
 
  84. On facts available, Jap an's central concern was the treatme nt of the exporters/producers who 
were unknown to the investigating authority and who we re not provided with a notice of initiation, did 
not have an opportunity to have access to the inve stigating authority's website or its questionnaires, 
nor were they able to register with that author ity.  Japan expressed its appreciation to the responses 
provided by China last year as reflected mainly in  paragraph 96 as well as other paragraphs of the 
October 2008 minutes contained in document G/ADP/M/35.   However, this did not respond to Japan's 
concern regarding the treatment of unknown exporters /producers and that if certain information was 
not supplied within a reasonable time, the investigating authority would be free to make determinations on the basis of the facts available.   
85. On injury determinations, Japan referred to  the WTO jurisprudence with respect to the 
investigating authority's obligation to separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the imports 
from countries other than the Japan.  This was clear in Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
Although Japan appreciated the detailed responses pr ovided by China on this issue last year and 
reflected in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Octobe r 2008 minutes contained in document G/ADP/M/35 
and the provision of the information to the Embassy of Japan in Beijing, China had not yet provided a clear answer on its practice in this regard.  The stat ement provided by China simply stated that "other 
factors were not the major reason for the material injury", without providing any further explanation 
on how the authority would "separate and distinguish".   
86. The representative of th e European Communities
 thanked Japan and the United States for 
their submissions and statements and indicated that the European Communities was looking forward 
to hearing China's comments on them.  In the past, the European Communities expressed concern 
with respect to, inter alia , the disclosure issue and that such concerns had remained and overlapped to 
some extent with what was raised in the submissi ons and statements of the United States and Japan.  
The European Communities, therefore, shared other Members' concerns expressed in this regard.   
87. Before responding to the specific points made by  Members, which were also reflected in the 
written questions addressed to Chin a, the representative of China  made some general observations.  
China indicated that the anti-dumping regime it ha d developed in the course of the great progress it 
achieved in opening the market, was comprehensiv e, detailed and fully consistent with the 
requirement of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The practice of the Chinese authorities in this respect 
had been fair and rule-based pursu ant to China's anti-dumping regulations and rules, and the Anti-
Dumping Agreement's requirements.  In initiatin g anti-dumping cases, China had always taken a 
serious, prudent and responsible attitude and exercised  great restraint.  On the contrary, China had 
become the largest victim of trade remedy measures imposed by other Members.  China indicated that 
the number of cases initiated by other Members was al so available and was reflected in the documents 
of the meeting.  The number of cases was sel f-explanatory and reflected that China was not a 
substantial user of trade remedy measures.  The number of cases initia ted by China was quite 
moderate taking into consideration China's huge volume of imports.   
88. Turning to specific questions posed by Memb ers, China indicated that it would like to 
respond to these questions.  Regarding non-confiden tial summaries, the Investigating Authority of 
China had dealt with the confidential information in anti-dumping proceedings in a way that was in 
compliance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the domestic laws, regulations and rules.  
According to the Provisional Rules on Access to Public In formation of Antidumping Investigations,  
the authority would request interested parties to provide non-confidential summaries which would 
present an appropriate understandi ng of the substance of the confidential information.  The non-
confidential summaries had always been made public in a timely manner and interested parties had no 
obstacle in obtaining such summaries.  Taking th e recent injury investigations as an example, 
interested parties submitted ar guments and comments on the issue of non-confidential summaries and 
these arguments and comments were addressed in the determ inations by the authority at a later stage.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 15 
 
 
  89. Regarding application of facts ava ilable, according to Article 40 of Provisional Rules on 
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations , upon the issuance of the Public Notice of initiation, the 
Ministry of Commerce should provide the non-confidential text of the application to the known exporters and the governments of the exporting countr ies (regions), which would be consistent with 
WTO agreements.  China believed that its practice w as in line with this rule and with international 
practice.   
90. According to Article 6 of Provisional Rules on Questionnaire in Antidumping Investigations , 
the producers or exporters of the countries (regions ) concerned have 20 days to register with the 
Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM and respond to the investigation after the date of initiation of an 
anti-dumping case.  Compared with relative WTO rules and the practice by other Members, this rule 
and practice by China was more favourable for exporter s to cooperate with the investigating authority, 
and reduce the possibility of application of facts available.   
91. Regarding the question on injury determina tions raised by Japan, during the injury 
investigation of the electrolytic paper case, the Japanese Embassy in Beijing raised the argument on 
the effects of imports from countries other th an Japan.  The petitioner submitted comments in 
response to that and the authority examined the issue.   An analytical paragraph was dedicated to this 
issue in the final determination which illustrated that the volume and market share of imports from 
Japan was more than ten-fold or twenty-fold of those from Germany and the United States, 
respectively.  The effects of imports from Germ any and the United States on the domestic industry 
were just minor.  Following the determination,  a Japanese company posed the application for 
administrative review.  Determination of the admi nistrative review confirmed that the authority's 
finding on the effects of imports from other count ries was based on facts and properly reasoned.  The 
applying Japanese company clearly indicated that it  would not put further petitions or arguments for 
the case.  During the above-mentioned process and af terwards, the authority had made explanations 
on the issue repeatedly under various occasions upon the request of the Japan ese Government.  China 
believed that it had already provi ded sufficient details in the explanation of the issue.   
92. Regarding regulations or rules for expiry revi ews, China currently conducted expiry reviews 
pursuant to Anti-dumping Regulation of the P.R.C .  Yet to further perfect China's expiry review 
system, China indicated that it was working on a pr eliminary draft of rules on expiry review.   
93. On the 20 days registration period, the representative of Turkey
 inquired whether China 
would send the questionnaire and provide  20 days for registration, or w ould it just provide 20 days for 
interested parties to register after the initiation of an investigation.   
94. The representative of China  clarified that after the initiation of the case, there would be 
20 days for the interested parties to register and that this was a separate procedure.   
95. The representative of the United States  thanked China for the answers provided and posed a 
follow-up question pertaining to expiry review regul ations.  The United States was pleased to hear 
that China was in the process of drafting these regul ations, but requested China to indicate when it 
would expect to actually have those regul ations finalized and promulgated.   
96. The representative of China  explained that the work on this i ssue was in its final stages.  In 
addition, there would be an internal procedure to  ratify that regulation.  Although China could not 
specify an exact date, it indicated that this would take place very soon.   
97. The representative of Japan  thanked China for the detailed responses, but indicated that 
Japan's question with respect to facts available remained unanswered.  Japan requested China to 
explain its practice with respect to the treatment  of unknown exporters who would not receive any 
questionnaire and who would ha ve no opportunity to have access to the website.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 16  
 
  98. The representative of China
 stated that this was a long-standing question which had been 
posed in the context of previous reviews.  China in dicated that this question was two-fold.  The first 
had to do with whether such unknown exporters/pro ducers exist and the second had to do with their 
treatment.  China explained that as already indicated, the investigating authority – upon initiation – pursuant to the anti-dumping regulation and in line with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, would notify 
all the companies known to the authority, publish the notice and the application, and place it on the 
website.  It would also provide the public version of  the application and the notice to the Embassies of 
the relevant governments to provide potential unknown interested parties with the necessary 
opportunity.   
99. As for the unknown interested parties that exist,  the investigating authority would exhaust all 
ways to provide the necessary oppor tunities.  However, there were no clear rules about that in the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The authority could calculate an anti-dumping margin based on facts 
available in line with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
100. The representative of Japan
 thanked China for the clear and structured answer, but indicated 
that Japan would analyse the respon se and come back if necessary.   
101. The Chair  thanked delegations for their participati on in the exchange.  He especially thanked 
the delegation of China for its preparation and for the information and answers that it had provided.  
He equally thanked those Members that had undertak en to submit written questi ons and had taken part 
in the discussion.   
102. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods in respect of the 
Transitional Review7, the Chair noted that the Protocol c ontained 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 the Transitional Review.  The Chair suggested 
proceeding again on that basis.   
103. The Committee so decided .   
F. CONSULTATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF 
NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES  
104. The Chair reported that the Committee held in formal consultations on 25 June 2009 to 
continue its discussions with respect to a couple of  pending issues raised at  the Committee's initial 
consultations held on 9 March 2009 and reported on by his predecessor at the regular meeting of the 
Committee on 8 May 2009.   
105. He indicated that the first issue the Committe e took up was the issue of the proposed draft 
notification format under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement or the so called 
"one-time notification format" for those Members that had not established investigating authorities 
and accordingly had never taken a ny anti-dumping actions.  This draf t format was developed mainly 
to urge long-standing non-notifying Members, that  had never established an investigating authority 
and accordingly had never taken an y anti-dumping actions, to submit a one-time notification which 
would be valid until further notice, provided that the Member in question should notify the Committee 
once it had established an authority competent to initiate and conduct inves tigations pursuant to 
Article 16.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as any domestic procedures governing the 
initiation and conduct of such investigations and should also promptly report to the Committee any 
anti-dumping actions taken pursuant to  Article 16.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  At the informal 
                                                      
7 Circulated in document G/ADP/18.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 17 
 
 
  consultations held on 25  June 2009, Members were informally agreeable to the draft format which 
was circulated in document G/ADP/W/471 dated 9 September 2009.   
106. The second issue discussed at the informal consultations was the submission of all 
notifications in an electronic form.  This i ssue was essential for improving information flows, 
enhancing transparency, and ameliorating reporting re quirements.  The main obstacle was that some 
Members were still submitting their ad hoc reports of preliminary and final actions taken, only in hard 
copy.  The Chair indicated that wh en this issue was discussed at th e informal consultations held on 
9 March 2009, his predecessor explained the various benefits of providing such reports in an 
electronic form.  The Committee was then agreeab le, in principle, to moving toward submitting 
electronically all notifications, including the ad hoc  reports of such actions and moving away from the 
submission of hard copies.  Further consultations we re held on 25 June 2009 and the results of such 
consultations were circulated in docum ent G/ADP/W/472 dated 9 September 2009.   
107. The third and last issue discussed at the 25th of June's informal consultations was the issue of 
introducing an additional paragra ph to the minimum information format encouraging Members to 
attach, in an electronic form, publicly available doc uments containing the relevant decisions in its 
original language.  At the said informal consultati ons, Members were informally agreeable to the draft 
non-mandatory language which was circulated in document G/ADP/W/473 dated 9 September 2009.   
108. On the third issue, the representative of Turkey  inquired whether Turkey should be sending 
all its relevant publicly availa ble underlying documents, which were  already on its website in its 
original language, to the Secretariat.   
109. The Chair  explained that the additional paragr aph to be introduced to the minimum 
information format would not contain any mandato ry obligation in this regard, but merely an 
encouragement.   
110. The Chair turned into an informal mode to  entertain any additional comments by Members on 
each of the three documents separately.  Once th e discussions with respect to the three documents 
were exhausted, the Chair reverted into the formal mode and indicated that af ter he had lis tened to all 
Members' comments and views with respect to these three documents, he concluded that the time was 
ripe to formally propose them for adoption at  this regular meeting of the Committee.   
111. The Committee so decided.    
112. The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair for his hard work in achieving the 
new notification formats and indicated that she suppo rted the adoption of these formats.  In addition, 
she urged the Chair to send a letter to the Chai r of the General Council acknowledging that this 
Committee had been responsive to the request to improve the timeliness and completeness of the 
notifications, not just with regard to these notifi cations, but also with regard to the adopted new 
format for semi-annual reports.   
113. The Chair  indicated that he would certainly send a letter to the Chair of the Trade Policy 
Review Body (TPRB) as the body responsible for this  matter to inform him of the developments.   
114. The representative of Canada  echoed the thanks expressed by the United States on the 
successful progress achieved by the Co mmittee.  She also thought that it was a good idea to share that 
success with the TPRB.   
115. The representative of Japan echoed the thanks expressed by previous delegations to the Chair 
and the Secretariat.  He indicated that his dele gation had always been supportive of the initiative of 
the Chairs of the General Council and the TPRB to improve the timeliness and completeness of G/ADP/M/37 
Page 18  
 
  notifications and other information flows on trad e measures, given the unprecedented economic crisis 
and increased protectionism.  He added that after fifteen years of experience in the WTO work, Members should be proud of such improvements wh ich would enhance the surveillance functions of 
the Committee.  He also supported reporting these results to the General Council.   
116. The representative of Australia 
echoed the comments of previous speakers in thanking the 
Chair, the Secretariat, and all the delegations for all the work done to develop the notification formats 
and expressed his support for the deci sions the Committee had reached.   
117. The representative of the European Communities  expressed his thanks to the Chair, the 
Secretariat, and Members for the informal consulta tions held and the quick solutions reached on the 
three issues which would eventually  enhance transparency.  He drew Members' attention to the 
European Communities' new DG Trade webpage wh ich had just been la unched on 20 October 2009 
and which could serve as a model for other Members' similar WebPages.   
118. The Committee adopted  the proposed draft notification format under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement or the so called "one time notification format"8, the decision on the 
electronic submission of all notifications9, and the introduction of an additional paragraph to the 
minimum information format encouraging Members to attach, in an electronic form, publicly 
available documents containing the relevant decisions made by the competent authority in its original 
language.10   
119. The Chair  also proposed that the Committee would request the Secretariat to provide the 
necessary technical assistance to the various Members that would be using the one time notification format.   
120. The Committee so decided
.   
G. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
121. The Chair indicated that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met that morning.  
He stated that although there were no new papers submitted to this meeting, one Member briefly 
recapped the factual situation concerning a possible anti-circumvention by the imports of padlocks in 
the form of parts.  There were no comments from Members on this issue.   
122. Members also agreed that work in this Info rmal Group should continue along the same lines 
as had been the case up to now.   
123. Concerning the date for the next meeting of the Informal Group, the Chair mentioned that this 
was set for the week of 26 April 2010 with the exact date to be confirmed in due course and that the 
deadline for submissions for that meeting would be 15 March 2010.   
124. The Committee took note  of the report.   
H. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
125. The Chair  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met that morning.  He 
indicated that there were four papers on the agenda  of the meeting of the Group.  The first two papers 
had been submitted by Egypt, wh ich contained Egypt's views on "A rticle 2.2 – export prices to 
                                                      
8 Subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/19.   
9 Subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/20.   
10 Subsequently circulated in  document G/ADP/2/Rev.2.    G/ADP/M/37 
 Page 19 
 
 
  third countries or constructed normal value" and "t he determination of signi ficant price undercutting – 
Article 3.2" which had been circulated in documents G/ADP/AHG/W/180 and 181, respectively.  
After Egypt's introduction, several Members made comments and raised questions on both papers and 
Egypt provided replies to the questions.   
126. The Chair added that the third paper submitted by Egypt, circulated in document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/182, proposed four new topics for discussion in the Group:   
• Article 2.3 – Constructed export price.  Wh en is the export price to be considered 
unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer and a third party?  How is the export price to be 
constructed?   
 
• Article – Other known causes of injury.  Ho w do Members ensure that the injuries 
caused by known factors, other than dumped imports, that are injuring the domestic 
industry are not attributed to the dumped imports?   
 
 •  Article 3.7 – Threat of material injury.  How do Members assess threat of material 
injury?   
 
• Article 5.3 – Accuracy and adequacy test .  How do Members assess the accuracy and 
adequacy of the evidence provided in an a pplication to determine whether there is 
sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation?   
 
127. The Chair indicated that the fourth paper was submitted by Korea and circulated in document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/183.  In its paper, Korea proposed to discuss the following topic in the Group:   
 •  Article 11.3 – Sunset reviews 
 
"Determination on the likelihood of con tinuation or recurrence of dumping and 
injury in sunset reviews" 
 128. The Chair informed the Committee that the topics proposed by Egypt received no negative 
comments from Members.  As for the topic propo sed by Korea, some Members expressed concern 
about the fact that sunsets represented a sensitiv e issue because this was being discussed in the 
Negotiating Group on Rules.  Korea acknowledged this fact and stated that it did not intend to discuss aspects of sunsets that were discussed in th e Negotiating Group on Rules.  Several Members 
supported Korea's proposal.   
129. The Chair decided
 to refer the topics proposed for di scussion by Egypt and Korea to the 
Committee for consideration as to whether such topics should be added to the list of topics that were 
already before the Group.  The Co mmittee agreed to refe r these topics for discussions in the Working 
Group on Implementation.   
130. It was so decided .   
131. Finally, the Chair underlined that the discu ssions in the Group should focus on technical 
aspects of anti-dumping proceedings and should not touch upon the issues that were being negotiated 
in the Negotiating Group on Rules.  He added that th is would apply not only to sunsets, but to all 
topics that were before the Negotiating Group on Rules for discussion.   G/ADP/M/37 
Page 20  
 
  I. O
THER BUSINESS  
132. No Member raised any issue under this item of the agenda.   
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
133. The Committee's spring 2010 regular meeting was scheduled for the week of 26 April 2010, 
with the exact date to be communicated to Members in due course.   
K. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE  18.6) 
134. The representative of the United States  wondered whether other Members were also of the 
view that Annex E of the Committee's annual report was useful.  She indicated that this annex had 
remained in the annual report for some time uncha nged and that the United States would support its 
deletion.  She requested other Members that found this annex useful to provide their views.   
135. The Chair  suggested keeping Annex E attached to the annual report this time around and then 
taking up this issue at the next Committee meeti ng where comprehensive discussions on this matter 
could be held.   
136. The representative of Canada  supported the United States and emphasized that there was no 
need to keep Annex E as an attachment to the report.   
137. The representative of Japan  described the information contained in Annex E as useful factual 
information and indicated that there was no reason for its deletion.   
138. The representative of Canada  explained that although this annex contained useful 
explanations, but such explanations  could equally be found in Member s' semi-annual reports and thus 
the utility of keeping this annex as an attachment to the annual report of the Committee was questionable.   
139. The representative of Japan 
supported the Chair's reaction to take up this issue at the next 
Committee meeting next year.   
140. The representative of the United States  indicated that he had no problem with keeping 
Annex E attached to the report this time, but stated that it would be useful to have a discussion in this 
respect on the margin of the next Committee meeting.   In addition, he inquired whether Annex D had 
always been attached to the report, as he could not recall seeing that annex before.  He requested the 
Chair to also have a discussion on Annex D at th e same time when discussions on Annex E would be 
held.   
141. The Chair indicated that Annex D had been there and it was not a new addition.  Having said 
that, he agreed with the United States' proposal to have discussions on the margin of the next 
Committee meeting in order to entertain Members' co mments on the issue of the deletion of Annex E.   
142. Pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the Committee adopted  its annual 
report (2009) to the Council for Trade in Goods.11   
143. The meeting was closed .   
__________  
                                                      
11 Subsequently circulated as G/L/902.