WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/16 
21 November 2007 
 
 (07-5114) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
CHAIR'S REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
ON TRANSITIONAL REVIEW OF CHINA 
 
 1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices undertoo k the sixth Transitional Review of China 
pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on th e Accession of the People's Republic of China 
(WT/L/432) at its meeting of 22-23 October 2007.  2. There is no information specified for subm ission to the Committee under Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  Members submitted questions in the contex t of the transitional review relating to China's 
implementation of the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-dumping Agr eement).  These can be found in documents 
G/ADP/W/462 (submitted by the United States), G/ADP/W/463 (submitted by Japan).    3. The statements made at the meeting of 22-23  October 2007, at which the transitional review 
was item K of the agenda, are reflected in the mi nutes of the meeting, which will be circulated as 
document G/ADP/M/33.  The relevant paragraphs of  the minutes, which reflect the statements made 
and the discussion at the meeting, are annexed. G/ADP/16 
Page 2  
 
  Excerpt from the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
 
held on 22-23 October 2007, to be circulated as document G/ADP/M/33  
 D. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF 
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE 
ORGANIZATION 
 1. The Chairperson
 recalled that Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization pr ovided that all subsidiary bodies, including this 
Committee, "which have a mandate covering Ch ina's commitments 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 provisions of [the] Protocol."  
China was to provide relevant information in adva nce of the review, including information specified 
in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China also coul d 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 to report the results of 
the review promptly to the Council for Trade in Good s.  The review was to take place after accession 
in each year for eight years, with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier date decided by the General 
Council.   2. The Chairperson further recalled that there we re no procedures set out for the conduct of the 
transitional review in the Protocol, except that Chin a was to provide relevant  information in advance 
of the review.  No informati on was specified for submission to the Committee under Annex 1A. 
 3. The Chairperson noted that the delegations of the United States and Japan had submitted 
questions in the context of the transitional re view which had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/W/462 and W/463, respectively.   
 4. In response to the Chairperson's invitation for any statements of a general nature, the delegate of 
the United States
 noted that this was the sixth annual re view of China's implementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mechanis m created by China's Protocol of Accession.  
As in the past, the United St ates approached this mechanism with the understanding that the 
Transitional Review Mechanism was designed to  help Members understand and assess the progress 
that China had made in adopting and complying with  WTO disciplines.  From that perspective, the 
Transitional Review Mechanism continued to be a u seful mechanism.  It helped to provide needed 
additional transparency for China's trade re gime, as it allowed Members to seek and obtain 
clarifications regarding China's various trade polici es and practices.  It also provided Members with a 
multilateral forum for conveying their expectations  of China and their concerns with China's 
implementation and compliance efforts.  In that regard, the Transitional Review Mechanism was a 
useful supplement to bilateral discussions with China.  5. Since China's accession to the WTO in December of 2001, Ch ina had been incrementally 
improving its compliance efforts in the anti-dumping area.   Yet, nearly six years later, some aspects of 
China's anti-dumping regime remained obscure and a ppeared to fall short of meeting the standards of 
transparency and procedural fairness embodied  within the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.    6. The United States first wished to address China's notification obligation.  In past transitional 
reviews before the Committee, the United States had not ed that China did not appear to have notified 
all relevant legislation to the Co mmittee, and this continued to be a problem.  In fact, regulatory 
measures that the United States had inquired about at  the previous year's transitional review had not 
been notified one year later, nor had any explanation been given for this lack of notification.  These 
regulatory measures appeared to affect key aspects of China's anti-dumping regime, but they had not  G/ADP/16 
 Page 3 
 
 
  been notified to the Committee.  Lapses in  notification denied other WTO Members  the opportunity 
to review and comment on the content of new re gulations.  This process allowed WTO Members to 
obtain needed clarifications, and helped to avoi d misunderstandings and conflicts in actual anti-
dumping proceedings.  The United States noted that  China had recently submitted to the Committee 
helpful answers to questions po sed by the United States and the European Communities regarding 
legislation that China had notified the previous y ear.  The United States urged China to build upon 
this step by notifying the regulatory measures a ddressed in the questions that the United States had 
submitted in connection with the present transitional review.   7. Looking at how China had been conducting its anti-dumping regime, it was clear that China 
continued to be an active user of the anti-dumpi ng remedy.  It also was clear that China was 
continuing to improve its compliance with the dema nding standards of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
However, more needed to be done in this area.  8. In past transitional reviews before the Committee,  the United States had expressed concern that 
critical arguments or evidence put forward by inter ested parties had not been addressed adequately in 
either preliminary or final determinations by China's administering authority, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM").  As China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many of the anti-dumping 
measures it had put in place would soon reach the five-year mark.  Given the evidentiary problems 
encountered in China's anti-dumping investigations , it was critical that China ensure that the 
procedures governing the expiration and review of anti-dumping measures meet the high standards of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Full access to critical arguments and ev idence needed to be provided 
to interested parties in expiry reviews, as well as full opportunities for due process.  Therefore, the 
United States urged China to conti nue to develop its expi ry review regulations and procedures as soon 
as possible and to notify them promptly to the Committee.  
9. The United States noted as well that procedural and substantive deficiencies continued to be 
found, especially in injury and causal link determin ations made by MOFCOM's  Investigation Bureau 
for Industry Injury (IBII).  In  2006, China had continued to remedy some of these problems, 
terminating the anti-dumping investigations of buta nols and octanol due to findings of no injury.  
However, the United States remained concerne d because China had not clearly addressed the 
fundamental issues plaguing its affirmative injury and causal link decisions, which often cited either 
no evidence at all or evidence that did not ad equately address the arguments made.  As the 
United States had previously emph asized, conclusory statements without evidentiary support did not 
constitute "positive evidence" within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In 
particular, the WTO's anti-dumping rules required the investigating authority to make available to all 
interested parties details of the factual basis a nd reasoning supporting the investigating authority's 
decisions, as well as complete accounts of th e petitioners' allegati ons and briefs.   
 10. Interested parties, including responding parti es and US Government representatives, continued 
to be frustrated in their attempts to obtain adequa te non-confidential versions of documents, such as 
Chinese industry responses to IBII questionnaires, re ports on the results of on-the-spot verifications 
and disclosure of anti-dumping margin calculations .  Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
required that non-confidential summaries of confidenti al documents be in sufficient detail to permit a 
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.  As the 
United States had explained during previous tran sitional reviews, without access to confidential 
information submitted to MOFCOM, it was essential that responding parties have comprehensive and 
informative non-confidential summaries in order to be  able to mount an effective defence.  The 
United States urged China to remedy these shortcomings  in order to ensure that the determinations in 
forthcoming proceedings were conducted in acco rdance with the tenets of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  G/ADP/16 
Page 4  
 
  11. The United States also urged China to ensure the application of fair procedures to all parties to 
an investigation or review as envisioned by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  For investigations and reviews, this included, but was not limited to , timely access to administrators and favourable 
consideration of hearing requests, as embodied in Ar ticle 6.2 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement.  It 
also was important to provide all interested parti es with the opportunity to raise issues in an open and 
transparent setting at an early stage of every proceeding.  While MOFCOM had begun to hold more 
public hearings, the United States was concerned that  China continued to resort to meetings with 
selected parties as a principal means to obtain the vi ews of parties.  The United States reiterated that 
interested parties not present for such meetings needed  to be quickly informed of matters discussed at 
these meetings and to be given an opportunity to present their rebutta ls, in accordance with Article 6.3 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 12. Finally, the United States continued to urge Ch ina to put in place governing procedures and to 
refine the process by which MOFCOM and Chinese cu stoms officials at China's ports confirmed the 
precise merchandise subject to each anti-dumping measu re and the anti-dumping duty rates applicable 
to each importer.  The United States called to Ch ina's attention Article 5.9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, which provided that anti-dumping pro ceedings shall not hinder customs clearance.  The 
US Government had received reports from respondi ng parties of Chinese customs authorities either 
assessing anti-dumping duties on merchandise not subject to a measure, or imposing seemingly unreasonable burdens of proof before allowing entry of non-subject merchandise.  Although 
MOFCOM had shown improvement in responding in a timely manner to these customs problems 
once raised by interested parties, these situations  were needlessly hindered by the lack of uniform 
procedures to resolve this type of dispute.    13. In sum, the United States recognized the progr ess that China had made in developing a legal 
framework for its anti-dumping regime, which took into account the principl es of transparency and 
fair procedures as set forth in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The United States urged China to 
continue to improve the conduct of its anti-dump ing proceedings in order to complement that 
progress.  The United States looked forward to seeing continued improve ment, and offered its 
assistance to China in pursuit of that goal.  14. The delegate of Japan
 noted that his delegation generally shared the views in the statement by 
the United States concerning the objectives of the Tr ansitional Review Mechanism and the usefulness 
of the review in terms of transparency and the assess ment of China's consiste ncy with its obligations 
under the Protocol of Accession.  Concerning Japan's particular questions, one concerned procedures, 
and one concerned an individual case.    
15. Japan considered the answers that China had provide d to its questions the previous year to have 
been very helpful in showing how China's system worked.  Having studied those responses, Japan still 
had a specific question on China's u se of adverse facts available.   
 16. The question as presented in writing had two part s, and Japan wished to provide additional 
explanation as to the point of the question, which co ncerned the application of adverse facts available 
to unknown exporters or non-registered exporters.  The previous year, China' s answer was very clear 
that it had a specific procedure on its website and specific time periods, and that answer was appreciated.  Nevertheless, the question still remain ed concerning the uniform application of adverse 
facts available.  The spirit of the Appellate Body's ruling in the Mexico – Rice  case appeared relevant.  
The Appellate Body had stated that the investigati ng authorities should ensure that an interested party 
was aware that if it did not supply the required info rmation within a reasonable period, the authorities 
would be free to make determinati ons on the basis of facts available, including those contained in the 
application for the initiation of the investigation.  The Appellate Body had gone on to say, however, 
that an exporter that was unknown to the investigatin g authority - and, therefore, was not notified of 
the information required to be submitted to the investigating authority - was denied such an  G/ADP/16 
 Page 5 
 
 
  opportunity.  Therefore, if the authority used the f acts available in the application for the initiation of 
the investigation against an exporter that had not been given notice of the information the investigating authority required, th e authority acted inconsistently with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 17. Japan's concern was that although China had a website notification process, there were still 
exporters that were not known to the investigating au thority.  There could be two such situations:  
one, an exporter that had not registered as a participan t in the investigation; and the other, an exporter 
that knew nothing about the website.  For example, on e very small exporter might not be aware at all 
of the website, and of course it would not receive  any questionnaire.  Where there was uniform 
application of adverse facts availa ble, that very small exporter woul d still be subject to the adverse 
facts available.  It thus seemed to Japan that  the Chinese implementation was uniformly to apply 
adverse facts available in all cases.  In this regard, it might be helpful to consider the practices of other 
investigating authorities, which distinguished among several types of situations.  In some cases in 
China, exporters were aware of the website, but did not respond to it and thus did not receive 
questionnaires.  In other cases, however, exporters are not aware of the website and then they did not 
know anything about the investigation.  There were thus several cases in the context of application of 
adverse facts available.  For the small exporter th at was not aware of the website, and thus had no 
chance of participating in the investigation, the uniform application of adverse facts available was 
adverse to its interests.  For Japan , this meant that a careful distinction of cases was called for, in light 
of the spirit of the Appellate Body's decision in Mexico – Rice .   
 
18. Japan's second concern had to do with China's final determination on electrolytic capacitor 
paper from Japan.  While this concer n could have been raised in anot her format, such as a review of 
semi-annual reports, Japan had decided to raise it in the transitional review, because it related to the 
regulation itself, and because there was some urgency in obtaining clarification on this matter.  The 
issue was the injury finding, and in particular the non-attribution requirement, pursuant to Articles 3.1 
and 3.5.  In the view of Japan, Chinese practice fell short of the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement in the light of the Appellate Body jurispr udence.  In particular, Article 3.5 stipulated that 
injury caused by factors other than the investigated  imports should not be attributed to the imports.  
The Appellate Body had ruled that this meant that  investigating authorities needed to separate and 
distinguish the injurious effect of imports and other factors.    
19. This requirement to separate and distinguish the various causes of injury w as, in Japan's view, a 
very strong requirement under Article 3.5.  In th e particular case at hand, there had been a rapid 
increase of imports from Members other than Japan , while the Japanese market share had remained 
the same.  Under these circumstances, the investig ating authority of China had not separated and 
distinguished clearly the injurious effect of the imports from the other sources.  Japan had a very 
strong concern over this practice of China, and thus took the present opportunity to clarify this matter 
with China.    20. The delegate of China
 stated, by way of general remarks, that this was the sixth transitional 
review by the Committee on China's anti-dumping re gime.  In the preceding five years the Committee 
had already had quite a number of discussions with  regard to China's anti-dumping regime in its 
framework of legislation review and in the process of review of China's anti-dumping actions.  As a 
result, Members must already have a very clear  understanding of China's anti-dumping regime.   
 21. Concerning China's legislative framework, China had notified the Committee of dozens of rules 
and regulations to show the transparency of its anti-dumping regime.  China also had made 
tremendous efforts to improve th e information disclosure procedures, as embodied in its newly-
promulgated legislation in this regard.  China t hus believed that the anti-dumping regime of China 
was fully consistent with th e Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 G/ADP/16 
Page 6  
 
  22. Concerning the questions that China had receive d prior to the meeting, China would provide 
answers to the questions one-by-one, starting with those posed by the United States.   
 23. Starting with Section 1 of the questions, on "Notif ications", in answer to the first question, 
China had notified to the WTO, the previous week, the Regulations on Information Accession and 
Information Disclosure in Industry Injury Investigations .   
 24. Regarding the question concerning the Regulations on Responding to Anti-Dumping Cases of 
Export Products , China believed that these Regulations did not fall within the scope of the 
notification requirement under the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent.  Pursuant to Article 1 and Article 18.5 
of the Agreement, WTO Members were required to no tify only their laws and regulations relating to 
anti-dumping measures or investigations taken by the Members themselves.  The Regulations on 
Responding to Anti-Dumping Cases of Export Products  of China were used to provide Chinese 
exporters with directions on how to respond to anti-dumping i nvestigations initiated by WTO 
Members other than China, and thus were not re lated to anti-dumping measures or investigations 
taken or initiated by China.  Consider ing these reasons, China believed that these Regulations  were 
not subject to the notification requirement under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  25. Regarding the question on notification procedures fo r expiry reviews, China had not formulated 
specific regulations on procedures for expiry reviews.   As to Announcement No. 62 referred to in the 
written questions from the United States, this was ju st a notice of anti-dumping measures expected to 
be subject to expiry reviews in the near future.  The notice was not a regulation with regard to 
procedures for expiry reviews, but a description of China's current practice.    26. China then took up Section 2 of the questions, on  information disclosure.  Regarding disclosure 
of factual information mentioned in the written quest ions of the United States, China believed that its 
legislative regime and the practical measures it took in  this regard were totally consistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  With regard to inv estigations on the incidence of dumping and dumping 
margins, according to the provisional rules of MOFCOM on disclosure of information in anti-dumping investigations, MOFCOM not only would disclose to a responding foreign exporter or 
producer all data, evidence, information and reaso ns used to establish the dumping case and the 
determined dumping margin for that company, by which the exporter or producer can duplicate the 
calculation process for the dumping margin; MOFCOM also would disclose relevant essential facts to 
other interested parties, including the governments of the exporting Members concerned about how the determination was made.  MOFCOM had always treated transparency as one of the principles of crucial importance in conducting its anti-dumping investigations. 
 
27. In injury investigations, MOFCOM  informed all interested parties of the essential facts under 
consideration pursuant to the Regulations on Information Accession and Information Disclosure in 
Industry Injury Investigations .  Basically, three approaches could be identified.  First, MOFCOM 
transferred all received non-confidential information to the public reading room within seven working 
days.  Any interested parties could have access to  these materials.  Second, MOFCOM disclosed to 
the interested parties, generally 30 days before th e final determination, the essential facts that formed 
the basis for its decisions whether to apply definitiv e measures.  Third, in each final determination, 
MOFCOM published a report concerning the anti-du mping decision.  In each report, MOFCOM 
explained the facts and the reasons for the injury find ing in detail.  China beli eved that such efforts 
ensured the transparency of its injury investigation process and determinations. 
 
28. China then presented answers to th e questions on expiry reviews.  Regarding the protection of 
the rights of interested parties, China responded that it always gave  interested parties opportunities to 
participate in investigations, and to have access to critical documents and information necessary to 
protect their interests in the spirit and principal of  being fair, just and open.  MOFCOM had enacted a 
provisional rule on access to non-confidential informa tion in anti-dumping inves tigations according to  G/ADP/16 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Article 6 of the AD Agreement, which had taken ef fect in April 2002  The requirement on access to 
non-confidential information specified in this rule was applied equally in expiry review investigations.  
In injury investigations, the Regulations on Information Accession and Information Disclosure in 
Industry Injury Investigations  had been applied to expiry reviews so that interested parties had 
adequate access to public information, including evidence submitted by the domestic industry, to 
defend their interests.  In the past, for anti-dumpi ng expiry reviews, the Chinese authorities had given 
sufficient opportunities to interested parties to expr ess their views.  In practice, the authorities would 
formally notify the exporting country's embassy in Ch ina about the receipt of an application from the 
domestic industry before initiation.  After initiation, in terested parties were given 20 days to register 
and to make comments.  During the process of the i nvestigation, interested parties had the right to 
apply for hearings.  Before making decisions, the authority disclosed both the legal basis and the facts 
to the interested parties, and gave them the right to comment.  Throughout the course of an 
investigation, the authorities could meet with inte rested parties on request to learn their views and 
comments.  
29. Regarding the refund of anti-dumping duties, there was no such problem in the current practice 
of China.  Article 11.3 of the Agreement provide d that the duty could remain in force pending the 
outcome of expiry reviews.  China's anti-dumpi ng duties were assessed on a prospective basis, and 
review decisions entered into force from the date of their publication and di d not have retrospective 
effect.  The Chinese believed that this rule  maintained stability and predictability. 
 
30. Concerning the questions on registration procedures,  the delegate of China indicated that China 
conducted anti-dumping investigations strictly in accordance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement as 
well as with China's laws and regul ations.  The investigating authorit y informed all interested parties 
of the information required and, throughout an inv estigation, interested parties were given ample 
opportunity to submit evidence and materials, and to make relevant comments.  As had been indicated 
in previous transitional reviews, the Chinese anti- dumping practices were not inconsistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  China's anti-dumping i nvestigation respondent-registration procedure was 
based on the provisions of China's anti-dumping law, a nd gave a period of time for interested parties 
to express their willingness to participate in the invest igation.  This period of time was not included in 
the 37 days which was specifically granted for responde nts to answer the questionnaire.  All interested 
parties, including the unregistered parties could,  through their governments or from the Chinese 
official website or other means, gain access to the questionnaire and then submit it.  On the date of 
initiation, the Chinese authorities sen t the initiation notice as well as the non-confidential version of 
the application and other related documents to a ll known foreign enterprises and their embassies in 
China and informed, as relevant, interested parti es through the involved governments.  In the initiation 
notice the Chinese authorities stated clearly the c onsequences of not participating in anti-dumping 
investigations and the right of the authorities to make decisions based on the facts and information 
available.    31. According to Article 6.1 and Article 6.8 of the Agreement, the authorities could make decisions 
based on facts available in cases wh ere any interested parties refused to give access to or did not 
provide the necessary information within a reasonabl e period of time.  According to paragraphs 1 
and 7 of Annex 2 of the Agreement, there would be  a less favourable result to the party who was not 
cooperative.  China's practice was consistent with  the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 32. With regard to the question on the final an ti-dumping determination against electrolytic 
capacity paper ("ECP") from Japan, the delegate of China responded that in that case, pursuant to 
Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement MOFC OM had made an objective examination of the 
volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices and the consequent impact on the domestic industry based on positive eviden ce.  Members could find the examinations in 
the final determination report on pages 29-34.  Pursuant to Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, MOFCOM had analyzed the causality be tween dumped imports and injury, and then had G/ADP/16 
Page 8  
 
  addressed all other factors that might have caused injury.  After this analysis, MOFCOM found that 
other factors were not the reason for the material in jury.  This analysis could be found on pages 35-38 
of the final report.  Therefore, China belie ved that the anti-dumping determination was not 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1 an d 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  At the same time, MOFCOM 
had separated and distinguished the injurious e ffects of the imports from countries and areas other 
than Japan.  Members could find this analysis on pages 36-37 of the final report.  Neither the Anti-
Dumping Agreement nor the Appellate Body in the US – Hot-Rolled Steel  case provided a specific 
methodology to separate and distinguish injurious effects.  Nevertheless, MOFCOM had made a 
specific disclosure to Japan's embassy in China con cerning this issue.  In that disclosure MOFCOM 
had made a detailed explanation in response to Japan's  argument.  After the final determination in the 
case, the responding party had applied for an admini strative review.  The review tribunal had upheld 
the original determination of the investigating aut hority.  After the administrative review, no rebuttal 
arguments had been received.    33. The representative of Japan
 thanked the delegation of China for the informative explanations.  
On the question of the registration procedure, while  the explanation was better than that provided the 
previous year, Japan was still wondering about the uni form application of adverse facts available.  
Indeed, Japan had provided a supplementary explan ation to its own question on this subject, and 
perhaps to catch up with that on the spot would be a bit burdensome, but Japan remained unsure of the 
exact practice of China in this regard.  In par ticular, Japan wished to know whether under China's 
system there could be a uniform application of adverse facts available in a normal case.   
 
34. Concerning the investigation on ECP, Japan appr eciated China's explanation, which had been 
detailed and informative, and had e xplained the current state of play of the cases, i.e., the original 
investigation and the follow-up administrative re view requested by the Japanese firms.  The 
information was quite useful, and Japan therefore re quested China to provide a written explanation or 
a copy of the statement itself, which woul d allow Japan to better assess the case.   
 35. The delegate of China
 stated that his delegation had gi ven a very detailed explanation in 
China's statement, to which there was nothing to add.  Further views and comments could be exchanged after the meeting.    
36. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chinese delegation for its very detailed 
responses.  It was difficult, however, to ask coge nt follow-up questions when the responses were not 
available in writing in advance, and when the r esponses were read so rapidly it was even more 
difficult.  The United States would look at the minut es of the meeting and consider additional avenues 
of inquiry at that time.  The United States had tw o follow-up questions, the first in respect of US 
question 2, asking whether China would notify the Regulations on Responding to Anti-Dumping 
Cases of Export Products .  The United States understood China' s explanation, and might disagree 
with China on whether or not this measure should be notified.  As far as the United States was aware this was a very unique measure in the anti-dumpi ng area and for that reason alone the United States 
urged China to notify it, so that all Members could understand it.    
37. The second point related to US question 4, asking China to explain what specific steps 
MOFCOM had taken since the previous year's tran sitional review to improve its disclosure of anti-
dumping margin calculations.  China's response seemed to have been a simple description of the rules 
that were in place, and did not address whether or not MOFCOM had taken steps in the past year to improve how it handled disclosures of anti-dumping margin calculations.  The United States would 
appreciate hearing from China about any such specific steps.   
 38. The delegate of China
 responded that his delegation had provided detailed responses to the 
questions, to which it had nothing to add.     G/ADP/16 
 Page 9 
 
 
  39. The delegate of the United States  indicated that the responses had been read rapidly, and he was 
not certain that he had heard all of the details.  The Chairperson  asked whether China would be 
willing to re-read the portion of its statement that re sponded to US question 4, in view of the speed at 
which the answers had been read, to ensure that  the minutes of the meeting would be accurate.   
 
40. The delegate of China  indicated that his delegation had gi ven a very detailed explanation, to 
which it had nothing to add, and that any additional questions could be sent to China before the next 
transitional review.  41. The delegate of Japan
 stated that while China's explan ation regarding Japan's procedural 
question on the uniform application of adverse fact s available had been very helpful, Japan was not 
sure that the question had been fully addressed.  Jap an wished to express its concern over this matter, 
and noted that his delegation would reflect on how to proceed on future occasions.  Concerning the 
ECP case, the Chinese explanation had been very comprehensive on the facts and the legal implications.  Japan particularly appreciated China's mentioning the concept of separating and 
distinguishing causes of injury, and how this had been done in the particular case, but was still not 
sure whether this analysis had been adequate.  Jap an therefore reiterated its concern over this issue, 
and would reflect on how to proceed.  Japan asked China to take note of this point for future 
proceedings.  Again, accurate minutes would be very much appreciated.  42. The delegate of the United States
 stated that his delegation found it regrettable that China 
would not respond to a simple request from the Un ited States and the Chairperson to repeat its 
response to question 4.  43. The representative of China
 stated that his delegation's pos ition was quite clear.  China had 
provided a very detailed explanati on to every question by Members. 
 
44. The Chairperson  thanked the delegation of China for th e detailed information and answers that 
it had provided.  The Chairperson also thanked th e Members that had undertaken to submit written 
questions.  He urged all delegations to he lp to ensure the accuracy of the minutes. 
 45. Concerning the report that the Committee was requi red to provide to the Council for Trade in 
Goods concerning the transitional review, the Chai rperson recalled that the Protocol contained no 
guidelines for this report, and furt her recalled that in the past th e Chairperson of the Committee, 
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 that related to the 
transitional review.  The Chairperson suggested pro ceeding on the same basis for the 2007 report.   
 
46. The Committee so decided
.   
  
__________