RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/29 
7 February 2006 
 (06-0529) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 31 OCTOBER 2005 
 
Chairman
:  Ms. Frida Collste (Sweden) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") held a regular meeting on 
31 October 2005.   
2. The Committee adopted  the following agenda.   
 A. ALBANIA - REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION .................................... 1 
  B. TURKEY - REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ....................................... 2 
 
 C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ............................................. 3  
 D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS........... 6 
  E. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL 
  OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE 
  WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION...................................................................................... 9  
 F. CHAIR'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON 
  IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 15  
 G. OTHER BUSINESS............................................................................................................. .. 16 
  H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR M EETING............................................................................. 17 
 
 I. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)...... 17 
 
 
3. The Chair  thanked Members for their understanding concerning the shortening of the usual 
sequence of anti-dumping related busin ess, particularly the cancellation of the meeting of the Informal 
Group on Anti-Circumvention, and the abbreviati on of the agenda of the Working Group on 
Implementation.  Meeting space was at a premium due to the many meetings to prepare the Hong Kong Ministerial, and all WTO standing bo dies had been asked to conduct their necessary 
business as efficiently as possible.   
A. ALBANIA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION 
4. The Chair  recalled that, as always, the reviews of ne w legislative notifications not previously 
reviewed would be conducted in accordance with th e pertinent procedures adopted by the Committee, 
found in document G/ADP/W/284.  She further informed Members that the deadlines for the submission of documents for the spring 2006 regular  meetings of the Committee, the Working Group G/ADP/M/29 
Page 2  
 
  on Implementation, and the Informal Group on Anti-Ci rcumvention, had been established, and would 
be circulated in a reminder document to be prepared by the Secretariat.  
5. Questions concerning the new legislative notifica tions on the agenda of the meeting were to 
have been submitted to the Member concerned, and to  the Secretariat, not later than 12 October 2005.  
As provided for in the agreed procedures, Members receiving written questions by that deadline were 
to provide oral responses at the meeting.  If a Member was able to respond to questions submitted 
after the deadline, that effort would certainly be appreciated, but there was no obligation to do so.  All 
Members receiving written questions in connection with the meeting were to submit written answers 
by the applicable deadline after the meeting.  Oral follow-up questions could be asked at the meeting, 
and any Member desiring to receive a written answer  to any follow-up question needed to submit the 
question in writing not later than 14 November 2005.   Written answers to all written questions posed 
in connection with the meeting's review of new le gislative notifications, whether the questions were 
received prior to the meeting or as written follow- up questions, were to be submitted to the Member 
posing the question, and to the Secret ariat, not later than 9 January 2006. 
6. The Committee
 reviewed the new legislative notifica tion of Albania, contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/ALB/1.   
7. The written questions posed concerning this notification can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/ALB/1 – submitted by the European Communities 
NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE 
8. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and [oral] answers.   
B. TURKEY  - REVIEW OF NEW LEGIS LATIVE NOTIFICATION  
9. The Committee  reviewed the new legislative no tification of Turkey, in document 
G/ADP/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.2.  No Member submitted writte n questions concerning this notification.   
10. The Committee took note  of the notification.   
11. The Chair  thanked the Members whose legislations we re discussed for their answers, and also 
the Members who undertook to pose questions.  As usual, the exchange had been informative and 
beneficial.   
12. The Chair  then noted in respect of previously-revi ewed legislative notifications that, as no 
questions concerning any such legislations ha d been received by the 21 September 2005 deadline, 
none had been included in the agenda for the mee ting.  However, after the deadline, questions 
concerning the previously-reviewed legislation of China had been received from the United States.  
That legislation thus would be on the agenda of  the Committee's Spring 2006 regular meeting.   
13. Furthermore, in accordance with the Committee' s agreed procedures, any Member wishing to 
place any other previously-reviewed legislative notif ication on the agenda of the Spring 2006 meeting 
would need to submit a written question not later th an six weeks before the meeting, that is, by 
13 March 2006, to the Member in question, with a copy to the Secretariat.  Written answers also 
would need to be submitted in advance of the meeting, specifically by 10 April 2006.   
14. For the spring 2006 regular meeting, pursuant to  the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a new  legislative notification to be placed on the age nda of that meeting, it would need to have  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 3 
 
 
  circulated in all three languages by 13 March 2006.  Shortly after that date, the Secretariat would 
circulate a document informing Members of all of the legislative notifications to be reviewed at the 
spring meeting.  Written questi ons concerning any such new  legislative notifications would need to be 
submitted by 3 April 2006. 
15. The Chair expressed concern over the fact th at some Members still had not submitted any 
notification concerning legislation.  This was a matt er of concern to all Members, from the point of 
view of transparency and better understanding, and for many Members all that would be required was 
a single nil notification.  For those Members that  conducted anti-dumping investigations but had not 
yet notified their legislation, it was all the more important for the Committee to have the opportunity 
to review and ask questions about that legislation.   Thus, she encouraged all Members that had not 
made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.  
C. SEMI-ANNUAL  REPORTS  OF ANTI-DUMPING  ACTIONS 
16. The Chair  recalled that a request for semi-annual repor ts for the first half of 2005 had been 
circulated in document G/ADP/N/132, dated 6 July 2005, and that the reports were to have been 
submitted by 31 August 2005.  It appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping actions during the 
period in question had submitted a semi-annual report, although some  of these reports had arrived 
after the deadline.  The Chair encouraged all Memb ers to make an effort to submit their semi-annual 
reports on time, and reminded the Members taking no anti-dumping actions that all that was necessary 
was to submit, twice per year, a simple letter to that effect.   
17. She also noted note that some semi-annual reports for the second half of 2004 had been 
submitted after the spring 2005 meeting, and so had not been reviewed by the Committee.  These 
reports were included in the document package, a nd the Chair would open the floor for any comments 
or questions on them.  Members were of course al so free to raise questions about any other semi-
annual reports that had not, for reasons of timing, been previously reviewed by the Committee.   
18. The Members who had submitted semi-annual re ports for the first half of 2005 were 
identified in paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/1 32/Addendum 1, dated 25 October 2005.  All of 
these reports had been circulated to the Committee, and were incl uded in the document package.  
They had been translated to the extent possible, but late submission obviously meant that not all were 
yet available in all three languages.   
19. In addition to the Members who submitted semi -annual reports of actions  taken, a number of 
Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/132 Addendum 1, notified the Committee that 
they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during th e period in question.  In addition, Honduras had 
notified having taken no action, but too la te to be included in that list.   
20. Finally, the Chair pointed out that there remained a significant number of Members who 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 
paragraph 3 of the document.  She urged all Memb ers to comply with this important notification 
requirement.   
21. No questions were raised concerning the semi -annual reports for the first half of 2005 
submitted by: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chin a, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, 
New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Trinid ad and Tobago, Turkey, or the United States for 
the first half of 2005.   
22. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by Brazil , the delegate of the United States  
requested confirmation that the dates of imposition listed in Table 1, anti-dumping actions in force, G/ADP/M/29 
Page 4  
 
  were dates of the original imposition of the measures, and not the dates of the most recently 
completed sunset reviews.  The delegate of Brazil
 replied that his delegation would submit a 
corrigendum rectifying the problem.   
23. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by the European Communities , the delegate of 
the United States  noted that much of the information reported related to European Council 
Regulations, rather than to the underlying measures th emselves.  In particular, in Annex II, definitive 
anti-dumping duties in force, it appeared that none of the duties reported had been in force prior to 2000.  The United States had however made a cursor y review of previous semi-annual reports, and 
from this it appeared that in at least 35 cases duti es had been in force prior to 2000.  This was not 
reflected in the table, however.  This manner of  reporting was not consistent with the guidelines 
adopted by the Committee, contained in documen t G/ADP/1, which required for measures in force 
during the reporting period the dates since the meas ures had been in place.  While the information 
provided in Annex II might be of  use to so me Members, nevertheless given the extensive 
underreporting of some items, the only solution might be to request the EC to issue a corrigendum.  The delegate of the European Communities
 noted that the question was similar to the one that the 
United States had posed to Brazil, and indicated that  the EC's report followed the same format as it 
had used in previous years, i.e., presenting the star t dates of new five-year periods, so that the listed 
measures indeed included some that had been subjec t to an expiry review which had confirmed the 
original measure.  The EC thanked the United States  for bringing the matter to its attention, and would 
look into it and see how to proceed.   
24. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by India , the delegate of the United States  
noted that India's semi-annual report indicated that provisional measures of 40 per cent on imports of 
certain rubber chemicals from the United States we re imposed on 8 April 2005.  In the published 
notice in India's gazette, the dumping margin and non -injurious margin were significantly lower than 
40 per cent.  The United States asked India to expl ain this discrepancy.  The delegate of India 
responded that the 40 per cent reflected the calculate d margin of dumping, and that the lower amount 
was the level of the provisional measure actually a pplied, which was less than 40 per cent due to 
application of the lesser duty rule.  The delegate of  the United States noted that it thus understood that 
the provisional measures were being taken at a rate  substantially lower than  the 40 per cent listed in 
the semi-annual report under the column "provisiona l measures".  The delegate of India confirmed 
that the duty imposed was less than 40 per cent b ecause the imposed duty was equivalent to the injury 
margin which normally was less than the dumpi ng margin.  The United States asked what the 
abbreviation "MOR" used in respect of the dumping  margin in this investigation signified.  The 
delegate of India believed that this probably the name of one of the chemicals covered by the 
investigation.   
25. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by Indonesia , the delegate of the United States  
requested an update on the status of the review by the Ministry of Finance on the case of paracetamol 
from the United States.  The delegate of Indonesia  requested the United States to submit its question 
in writing for referral to capital.  
26. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by Mexico , the delegate of the United States 
first recalled that Mexico's report covering the seco nd half of 2004 had lis ted a price undertaking 
scheduled to take effect on apples on 28 February 20 05 concerning its investigation of apples from the 
United States.  In the most recent report, however , the only mention of apples referred to a measure 
that had been in force since August 2002.  The United States asked Mexico to clarify the status of the 
price undertaking, and whether or not the case was being re-investigated.  The delegate noted, second, 
that Mexico's most recent report indicated initiation of  an investigation of crystal polystyrene from the 
United States on 13 January 2004.  Since more th an 24 months had passed since this initiation, the 
United States asked whether the investigation had been concluded as required by Article 5.10 of the 
Agreement.  If final measures had been imposed, the United States requested specific information  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 5 
 
 
  about those measures.  The delegate of Mexico  requested the United States to provide the questions in 
writing for referral to capital for reply.   
27. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by South Africa , the delegate of the 
United States  enquired as to the status of the sunset re view of the measure on chicken meat portions 
which had been notified as not yet initiated.  The delegate of South Africa  stated that the investigating 
authority was considering whether to initiate the re view, and that the determ ination in this regard 
would be included in the next semi-annual report to  be submitted.  The United States also sought an 
update on the compilation of "internal policy directiv es" that South Africa previously had indicated 
would be posted to the ITAC website .  How could interested parties in the chicken meat investigation 
obtain copies of these directives, which did not appear to be available on the website.  The delegate of 
South Africa replied that, except in regard to the qu estion of "major proportion", the policy directives 
had been overtaken by the regulations, and theref ore only the one on "major proportion" would be 
published on the website.  The United States stated that it understood from South Africa's reply that 
the policy directives were no longer in effect.  Th e United States also noted that in its table of 
definitive measures in force, South Africa had listed the dates of the most recently-completed sunset 
reviews, and not the dates of imposition of the orig inal measures, and asked South Africa to correct 
this by including the original imposition dates.  The delegate of the South Africa indicated that it 
would do so.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei  asked whether the measure on stainless steel 
hollowware from Chinese Taipei was still in force or had been termin ated, as it listed as a measure in 
force, but Chinese Taipei's understanding was that it had been terminated.  The delegate of South 
Africa replied that the measure had been termin ated on 28 September 2005.  The report would be 
amended accordingly. 
28. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by Thailand , the delegate of the United States 
noted that for two of the three investigations referre d to in the report, Thailand had indicated that less 
than 100 per cent of the trade volume had been in vestigated, and asked whether sampling had been 
employed and if so, what methodology had been used  to select the sample.  The delegate of Thailand  
replied that he would refer the inquiry to capital for reply once he received it in writing. 
29. The Chair  opened the floor for any questions or comments on semi-annual reports for earlier 
periods that had not been reviewed at previous meetings, which included the reports of Colombia, 
India, Israel, Malaysia, and Trinidad and Tobago  for the second half of 2004.  No questions or 
comments were raised.   
30. The Committee took note  of the semi-annual reports and of the questions, answers and 
statements of Members.   
31. The Chair then recalled that the more general question of reporting in the semi-annual reports 
had been discussed at the Committee's spring meeting, and that it had been decided to return to it at 
the present meeting.  In view of the shortness of meeting space and time this autumn, due to preparations for Hong Kong, the Chair had not conven ed any informal consultations, or prepared any 
specific questions or comments for discussion on this  issue.  Nevertheless, in her view it was 
worthwhile to start the discussion, by hearing Memb ers' views on what might be improved, either in 
the reporting format or in how it is filled out in pr actice.  To the extent that any Member found that 
any areas of the format did not correspond very well its practice, making the format difficult to complete, it would be very useful to hear what those difficulties were.   
32. The delegate of New Zealand
 stated that for a number of the anti-dumping issues being 
debated in the Negotiating Group on Rules, statis tics from the semi-annual reports were vital.  
However, some Members left certain columns in th eir reports blank.  If delegates were going to ask 
the Secretariat to prepare tables and charts based on the data in the semi-annual reports, this would be 
particularly difficult because these columns were not filled out.  The delegate reminded Members that G/ADP/M/29 
Page 6  
 
  filling out the format completely was an obligation.  The delegate further noted that in their reports, 
several Members referred to their legal notices, but that this was not what was required by the 
notification format.  Rather, what was required was to set forth the information in the tables.   
33. The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 noted the importance of reporting in accordance with the 
format, and in this regard supported the point rai sed by the United States of reporting the date of 
original imposition of each measure, rather than that of the latest sunset review.  She suggested that 
perhaps the notification guidelines coul d be recirculated to Members.   
34. The United States , in regard to its earlier point about da tes of measures in force, believed that 
the guidelines were clear, but to the extent they could be made clearer, that would be useful.  
Concerning the various columns in the format, the United States questioned the usefulness of some of 
them.  In light of the comments by New Zealand, it would be useful to further discuss them.   
35. The Chair  thanked Members for their comments, and c onsidered that the exchange had been a 
good start for a more detailed consideration at a later point.  She proposed to convene informal 
consultations on this topic in the new year, for a more thorough and focused discussion.  During those 
consultations, in addition to the substantive points, the Committee might wish to consider whether it 
should refer the issue to the Working Group on Implementation for further elaboration and possible 
recommendations.   
36. The Committee so agreed .   
D. NOTIFICATIONS  OF PRELIMINARY  AND  FINAL  ANTI-DUMPING  ACTIONS 
37. The Chair  recalled that lists of the notifications of  preliminary and final anti-dumping actions 
submitted by Members since the Committee's sp ring 2005 meeting could be found in documents 
G/ADP/N/129-131, and G/ADP/N/133-136.  During that period, the following Members had notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions:  Argen tina, Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, European 
Communities, India, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad and 
Tobago, Turkey, and the United States. 
38. 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 ac tions taken.  These reports were 
a key element of the required transparency c oncerning 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 this regard.  She th erefore very strongly urged all Members taking anti-
dumping actions to provide these notifications of pr eliminary and final actions, consistently and in a 
timely fashion.   
39. The delegate of Japan
 requested clarifications concerning one of the preliminary actions 
reported by the United States under G/ADP/N/136, i.e ., imposition of provisional duties on large news 
paper printing presses from Japan as the result of a ch anged circumstances review.  Japan questioned 
the consistency of this action with the Anti-dumping Agreement.  By way of background, the delegate 
noted that the original duty had been applied in 19 96, and was then revoked in respect of a Japanese 
company in January 2002 and fully revoked in Febr uary 2002 pursuant to an Article 11.3 review.  
Then, in May 2005, the United States opened a cha nged circumstances review in respect of this 
company, in which it reached a positive preliminar y determination and app lied provisional duty in 
September 2005.  Japan wondered whether the United  States considered this action fully consistent 
with the Agreement.  Setting aside the reasons fo r opening the review, and its legal basis under US 
domestic law, Japan was not sure on what basis in  the Agreement a review could be initiated on a  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 7 
 
 
  measure that already had been terminated pursuant to  Article 11.3.  Second, Japan noted a sentence in 
the preliminary determination (referred to in document G/ADP/N/136), that "if these preliminary results are confirmed in the final results, the De partment will initiate a new sunset review to 
reconsider the revocation of this order".  Japan wondered on what basis in the Agreement could an 
investigating authority initiate a sunset review to reconsider the revocation of an already-terminated 
measure.  Japan's questions had to do with whethe r this action was consistent with the Agreement. 
40. The delegate of the United States
 expressed puzzlement that Japan had wanted to raise this 
particular case.  The background was that on 4 September 1996, the Department of Commerce had 
published an amended final de termination and order on larg e newspaper printing presses and 
components thereof from Japan.  One of the producers covered by the order was a company named 
TKS, whose rate of dumping was 56.28 per cent.  However, in subsequent administrative reviews 
conducted for the periods 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 1999-2000, the Department had calculated a 
zero anti-dumping margin for TKS.  Based on these three years of zero per cent margins and TKS's having met all of the other procedural requireme nts for revocation under US regulations, TKS had 
been revoked from the anti-dumping order effectiv e 16 January 2002.  In February 2002, the 
Department had completed a sunset review whic h had at least in part taken into account the 
revocation of TKS from the order.  Based on that re view, the Department had terminated the order on 
large newspaper printing presses from Japan.  Subsequently, however, the Department had become aware of a US Federal Court decision against TKS, in  which proceeding, in the words of the Court,  
"the jury heard evidence at trial that TKS agreed to a fraudulent price increase, and a 
secret $2.2 million rebate, to keep the DMN [Dallas Morning News] from purchasing 
the two towers from the Goss Corporation.  To make it appear that the 1996 sale was 
not dumped, TKS and the DMN agreed to increase the price on paper to $7.4 million.  In exchange, TKS and the DMN agreed that TKS would secretly rebate $2.2 million to the DMN through a combination of $1 million in cash and a promise of $1.2 million of free digital ink pumps for credit to  be delivered in the future....TKS and its 
counsel engaged in a concerted effort to con ceal the secret rebate.  TKS's counsel told 
TKS that 'there should be no apparent linkage between the digital ink pumps 
giveaway and the towers' price', and urged TKS to falsify business records.  There 
was also evidence presented at trial that TKS and its counsel attempted to destroy 
documents to conceal the secret rebates".   
The delegate noted that in the DOC's determina tions in which it had found that TKS had a zero 
margin, the DOC had specifically asked TKS whether it had provided any discounts or rebates in 
connection with the subject sales.  TKS had stated, "TKS did not provide any discounts to the contract 
price", and "TKS did not provide any rebates to the contract price".  The changed circumstances 
review being undertaken was to review whether TKS had intentionally provided false information to 
the Department of Commerce.  On 13 Septem ber 2005, the DOC had issued its preliminary 
determination in the changed circumstances review preliminarily assigning TKS an anti-dumping duty 
rate of 59.67 per cent.  Based on these preliminary results, the DOC had preliminarily determined to 
rescind the partial revocation of the order with respec t to TKS, and had preliminarily determined that 
the revocation via the sunset review also should be  reconsidered.  In the preliminary results, the 
measure had not been reinstated, however, as this co uld only be done through the completion of a new 
sunset review.  If the DOC made a final determina tion that the revocation of the order via sunset 
review should be reconsidered, at that point the DOC would consider initiating a new sunset review.  
All interested parties had had an opportunity to comment in writing to the DOC on the preliminary 
results, and the delegate believed that a public heari ng had been held.  In light of these facts, in the 
view of the DOC and the United States, this was an appropriate and lawful ac tion to take within its 
WTO rights and obligations.   G/ADP/M/29 
Page 8  
 
  41. The delegate of Japan thanked the United States for the response and detailed factual 
background.  Japan's concern , however, was with th e consistency of the US preliminary action under 
the Agreement, rather than with regard to the f actual findings or legal findings based on US domestic 
law or litigation.  Article 18.1 of the Agreement cl early stipulated that "no specific actions against 
dumping of exports from another Member can be ta ken except in accordance w ith the provisions of 
GATT 1994, as interpreted by this Agreement".  Japan  again asked on the basis of which articles the 
US action was justified under the Agreement.  The delegate of the United States asked whether it was 
Japan's view that where a Member's determinati on is found to have been based on intentionally 
fraudulent activity by one of the parties appearing be fore the authority, the Agreement prohibits that 
Member from remedying the results of that fraudulent activity.  The delegate of Japan indicated that 
his delegation had to reserve comments on the factua l findings with regard to such fraudulent activity 
by the Japanese company, and that he had taken note of the US statement and would take it back to 
capital for further consideration, and that Japan would continue to follow the issue with great interest.   
42. The delegate of Hong Kong, China 
asked on the basis of which provisions of the Agreement 
the United States had initiated the changed circumst ances review, and whether the United States saw a 
distinction between the legal basis for initiating su ch review where there was fraud, versus other 
circumstances, e.g., if after terminating a measure,  it was discovered that there had been mistakes in 
establishment of the dumping or injury margin, could the case be reopened without initiating a new 
investigation?  The delegate of the United States  stated that he did not understand the question.  The 
procedural issue was a simple calculation issue – the $7.4 million price reported had not taken into account the rebate that had been paid, meaning th at the calculated margin had been based on false 
information.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China ask ed whether the US believed that if a measure was 
terminated and subsequently there was a findi ng that there had been mistakes affecting the 
termination decision, the case could be reopened inst ead of a new investigation being started.  The 
delegate of the United States noted that Japan had rai sed the facts of a very specific case, not a general 
proposition.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China indicat ed that her interest in the issue was systemic 
and that she was interested in the US interpreta tion, but that she would be happy to take it up 
bilaterally.  The delegate of the United States indi cated that his delegation was happy to continue 
discussing the large printing presses case with Japan. 
43. The Committee took note
 of the statements made.  
44. The Chair  then recalled that at its spring 2005 meeting, the Committee had agreed to discuss 
the procedure for notifying preliminary and final acti ons, with a view to possibly improving it.  As in 
the case of the semi-annual reporting requirement, the Chair had not prepared any specific questions 
or comments for discussion, but instead invited Members to share any views on the matter.   
45. The delegate of New Zealand  suggested that it would be u seful if these reports could be 
correlated with the data reported in the semi-annual re ports to ensure that all reports were lodged, and 
perhaps at the end for each reporting Member the Secr etariat could insert a list of which reports were 
missing, so that Members were aware of their oblig ations.  New Zealand suggested that perhaps the 
list could be prepared and circulated by the Secretariat.   
46. The Chair thanked the delegation for the comment , and suggested that the issue of possible 
improvements to the procedures for these notifications be included in the informal consultations that 
she would convene in the new year.   
47. The Committee so agreed .  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 9 
 
 
  E. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF ACCESSION  OF 
THE  PEOPLE'S  REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  TRADE  ORGANIZATION 
48. The Chair  recalled that Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of 
China to the World Trade Organization provides that  all subsidiary bodies, including this 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 th e Protocol, in subsidiary bodies which have a 
relevant mandate.  The Committee must report the r esults of the review promptly 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 earlier date decided by the General Council. 
49. The Chair further recalled that there are no procedures set out for the conduct of the 
Transitional Review in the Protocol, except that Chin a is to provide relevant information in advance 
of the review.  No information is specified  for submission to the Committee on Anti-dumping 
Practices under Annex 1A. 
50. The Chair noted that the delegations of the United States, Japan, and the European 
Communities had submitted questions and comments in the context of the Transitional Review, which 
were circulated in documents G/ADP/W/ 446, W/447, and W/448, respectively.   
51. In response to the Chair's invitation for any statem ents of a general nature , the delegate of the 
United States
1 noted that this was the fourth annual re view of China's implementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mech anism of China's protocol of accession, the goal 
of which is to provide Members an opportunity to examine and report on China's efforts to meet its obligations under the ADA.  In the previous thr ee reviews the US had voiced concerns about China's 
conduct of its anti-dumping actions but also ha d noted incremental improvements in China's 
compliance efforts.  Unfortunately, since the previous review, China's efforts to meet its obligations 
appeared to have shown little improvement.  China in sisted that its anti-dumping laws and regulations 
embraced the fundamental principles of transparency and fair procedures that formed the core of the 
Anti-dumping Agreement and in large part this appear ed to be the case.  In practice, though, China's 
conduct with regard to the anti-dumping measures th at it had imposed fell short of these fundamental 
principles.   
52. One needed only to turn to the statements made by the United States during the previous 
year's Transitional Review in the Committee and note how the circumstances described then were 
largely unchanged.  The previous year, the Unite d States had raised serious concerns about the 
availability of information from China's administering authority, the Ministry of Commerce 
("MOFCOM") and its injury arm in particular, the I nvestigation Bureau for Industry Injury ("IBII").  
As could be seen from the questions filed by the United States for this Transitional Review, these 
problems persisted.  The MOFCOM public readin g room still contained only a limited number of 
documents pertaining to a few of China's ongoing injury  investigations.  Interested parties, including 
responding parties and officials of the US Government, continued to be frustrated in their attempts to 
obtain adequate non-confidential versions of docum ents, such as Chinese industry responses to IBII 
questionnaires.   
53. As the number of anti-dumping measures bei ng imposed by China grew, there were a 
growing number of complaints by responding pa rties about the quality of the non-confidential 
                                                     
 
1 The statement by the United States was ci rculated in document G/ADP/W/449.   G/ADP/M/29 
Page 10  
 
  summaries China had made available.  Article 6. 5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement required that non-
confidential summaries of confidential documents be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable 
understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.  As the United States had 
pointed out the previous year, without access to confidential information submitted to MOFCOM, it 
was essential to responding parties to have comprehensive and informative non-confidential 
summaries in order to be able to mount an effec tive defence.  The US government had received ever 
more frequent complaints that non-confidential summa ries, when they were finally made available, 
contained insufficient factual information to permit development of effective arguments.   
54. Furthermore, the United States continued to be concerned that, in a growing number of cases, 
critical arguments or evidence put forward by inter ested parties had not been addressed adequately in 
either preliminary or final determinations.  This  had been a problem the previous year and still 
remained a problem, especially prevalent in inju ry determinations.  Similarly, many of the 
conclusions reached by MOFCOM did not appear to be supported by adequate evidence.  In many 
instances, either no evidence was cited at all, or the evidence cited was not available to anyone except 
the administering authority.  As the United States ha d stated the previous year, conclusory statements 
without evidentiary support did not constitute positive evidence.  In particular, details of the factual 
basis and reasoning supporting the investigating authority's decisions, as well as petitioners' 
allegations and briefs, had to  be made available to all interested parties.   
55. The United States again urged China to apply fair procedures to all parties to an investigation 
as envisioned by the Anti-dumping Agreement.  For inv estigations and reviews, this included, but was 
not limited to, timely access to administrators and fa vourable consideration of hearing requests, as 
embodied in Article 6.2 of the ADA.  The United States was concerned about continuing delays by 
MOFCOM in responding to requests to hold hear ings submitted by interested parties, as well as 
continued use of private meetings rather than hear ings open to all interested parties, as a principal 
means to obtain the views of parties.  The United St ates continued to urge that interested parties not 
present at such private meetings be quickly inform ed of matters discussed at such meetings in 
accordance with Article 6.3 of the ADA.   
56. As China's anti-dumping regime grew out of its  infancy, new concerns were surfacing with 
regard to how China's customs authorities were collecting anti-dumping duties.  Until that point, virtually all attention appeared to have been focused  on the investigative proces s.  However, even the 
most objective and transparent investigation could be undermined by poor interaction between the 
administering authority and the customs authorities who assessed the anti-dumping duties at the 
border.  In a growing number of cases, the US Government had received reports from responding 
parties of Chinese customs authorities either assessing anti-dumping duties on merchandise not 
subject to the measure, or imposing seemingly unreas onable burdens of proof be fore allowing entry of 
non-subject merchandise.  This situation was exacerbat ed by the apparent lack of uniform procedures 
for importers to resolve disputes when faced with such circumstances.  The United States urged China 
to put in place such procedures, as well as to refine the process by which MOFCOM informed 
Chinese customs officials, at China's ports, as to the precise merchandise subject to each anti-dumping 
measure and the anti-dumping duty rates applicable  to each importer.  The United States called to 
China's attention in this regard Article 5.9 of the ADA which provides that anti-dumping proceedings 
shall not hinder customs clearance.   
57. The previous year, the United States had noted th at China did not appear to have notified all 
relevant legislation to the Committee and in particul ar had asked China to clarify which rules applied 
to its prosecution of anti-dumping actions.  The same  problem still persisted.  Key pieces of China's 
legislation still appeared not to have been notified to the Committee, leaving considerable uncertainty 
as to the rules being used by China to conduct its  anti-dumping actions.  Such lapses in notification 
only served to compound the concerns about implem entation.  The United States urged China to  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 11 
 
 
  clarify in detail to the Committee the full set of ru les, regulations and laws that governed its anti-
dumping regime. 
58. In conclusion, the United States recognized the efforts China had made to develop a legal 
framework for its anti-dumping regime that took in to account the principles of transparency of the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  With much of that frame work now in place, China needed to focus its 
efforts on conducting its anti-dumping actions in a ma nner consistent with th at framework, and in 
conformity with WTO rules.  The United States l ooked forward to seeing substantial improvements in 
the very near future and offered its assist ance to China in pursuit of that goal. 
59. The Chair  noted that written questions from the United States had been circulated in 
document G/ADP/W/446, and offered the floor to China to respond.   
60. The delegate of China  noted that the Chair had requested China to respond first to questions 
posed by the United States, but indi cated that in its preparation of responses to all questions submitted 
by Members, China had categorized the questions , and therefore preferred to respond to all the 
questions that had been raised.   
61. Concerning the opening remarks of the US delegation, China did not share the view that 
China's implementation of the Anti-dumping Agreemen t, and the practices of the Chinese authorities, 
were inconsistent with the Agreement.  China ha d taken note of the comments made, but certainly did 
not agree with those points of view.  From the deta iled responses to the questions posed by Members, 
which China was about to present, the Committee woul d recognize that China had been abiding by the 
rules of the ADA sincerely and faithfully. 
62. Turning to the answers to all of the questions  raised by Members prior to the meeting, 
including the questions by the US delegation, the de legate of China noted first, that in terms of 
notification of the anti-dumping-related regulations of China, China had notified to the Committee, in 
document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.3, the regulations  of the People's Republic of China on anti-
dumping which regulated the work of the genera l administration of customs on anti-dumping duty 
collection and, in document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.1, the provisional rules on access to non-
confidential information of anti-dumping inv estigations.  Concerning the administrative 
reconsideration law and the implementati on measures of MOFCOM on administrative 
reconsideration, these did not provide specific procedures for initiation and investigation of anti-dumping cases but rather regulated the procedures of  administrative reconsideration on all kinds of 
administrative acts generally, and China considered that Article 16.5 of the Agreement did not apply 
to them.  Concerning the rules of the Supreme People' s Court on certain issues related to application 
of law in hearings of anti-dumping and administra tive cases, coordination was still ongoing with the 
judicial branch to prepare the English version for notification.   
63. The second issue was about information disclosure.   According to regulations of the People's 
Republic of China on anti-dumping, and provisions  on the anti-dumping investigation of industry 
injury, in any investigation of injury and causa lity, the authority disclosed the essential facts under 
consideration which formed the basis for the decisi on, as stated in Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, to interested parties or their attorney s in writing before the final determination.  The 
interested parties could submit comments in writing to  the authority within 10 days from the date of 
information disclosure and the authority accepted a nd gave full considerations to the comments 
submitted.  According to China's knowledge, not all investigating authorities of WTO Members 
disclosed information in strict consistency with Article 6.9 as China did.   
64. The third issue was confidentiality, in which re gard China referred Members to Article 22 of 
the regulation of the People's Republic of China on anti-dumping, which well safeguarded the business secrets in interested parties' submissions .  In practice, confidentiality applications from G/ADP/M/29 
Page 12  
 
  interested parties had been given serious considerat ion by the authority of China.  While protecting 
the confidential information of the interested partie s, according to China's relevant regulations and 
WTO rules, the investigating authority required the interested parties, incl uding both the domestic 
applicants and the responding parties, to provide  non-confidential summaries according to Article 6.5 
of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  After necessary ex amination, the authority sent these summaries to 
the anti-dumping non-confidential information unit w ithin 10 working days from the day they were 
received.  Therefore, the authority had alread y established a complete and competent injury 
information system with easy access to the non-confid ential summaries for the interested parties.   
65. Fourth, with regard to the situation when not all information requested was provided by 
interested parties, China understood that responding  companies might not be in the position to answer 
all questions in a questionnaire, and therefore took this situation into consideration when making 
determinations.  The partial questionnaire repli es would be partially accepted on the condition that 
they were partially qualified.  The Chinese author ity would disregard a questionnaire reply and use 
the facts available only on occasions when the interest ed parties provided false information or did not 
provide necessary information within a reasonable period of time, or significantly impeded the 
investigation.  In these situations , the Chinese authority would inform the relevant interested parties 
and provide a written explanation as to why their replies were excluded.  Even with the best 
information available, the Chinese authority woul d determine the case in strict accordance with the 
relevant regulations of China and the WTO rules, including the Agreement's Annexes. 
66. Concerning the questions on the injury investig ation, when examining the causal link between 
dumped imports and material injury in anti-dumping cases, the Chinese investigating authority 
analysed factors other than dumped imports that might injure the domestic industry, according to 
China's relevant regulations and WTO rules.  Th ese other factors included domestic market demand 
of the like product, changes in the patterns of consumption, management of domestic businesses, 
effects of trade policy, the competition environmen t, development of new technology, exports of 
domestic like products, the volumes and pr ices of imports from other countries, force majeure , etc.  
All the analysis and conclusions were demons trated in detail in the determinations.   
67. In an injury investigation, the authority firs t examined whether an industry was injured and 
then considered whether it was injured by dumpe d imports or by any other possible reasons.  
Comments on causality or other topics from interested  parties were fully considered.  According to 
the relevant WTO requirements, China understood that  an affirmative finding of causal link could be 
made when dumped imports were just one of the reas ons which led to injury.  If industry injury was 
caused only by other factors than the dumped imports, a negative finding would be made.  As for the 
technical aspects, the practices of the Chinese authority  were strictly consistent with the WTO rules, 
and while some other Members held different opini ons, many issues were still being discussed in the 
rules negotiations.  China was curious to know the views and practices on the above issues of the 
Member that posed the question.   
68. The second aspect in terms of injury investiga tion was on the public notices.  Public notices 
of both preliminary and final determinations issu ed by the investigating authority incorporated 
detailed information on findings of industry injury including procedures of investigation, facts and regulations on which the findings were based, and e xplanations of the final conclusions.  The public 
notices including all the information disclosure made by the Chinese authority were very detailed and 
accurate.  This had been well acknowledged by WTO Members.  However, China had also received 
reports from its interested parties that some WT O Members' public notices only consisted of three 
pages of information.   
69.
 The third aspect in injury investigations was the consideration of market share.  Pursuant to 
Chinese regulations and WTO rules, the Chinese injury investigating au thority analysed all relevant 
factors that reflected the impact of dumping on the industry, including market share, when evaluating  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 13 
 
 
  the impact of the imported products' increasing volum e.  In addition to the market share, when 
determining whether a domestic injury was injured, the authority also analysed apparent consumption 
as well as other factors of importe d products and domestic lik e products in the domestic market.  With 
regard to price suppression and price depression, Ch ina had some confusion over the question posed 
by the Member.  However, pursuant to Article 3.2 of the Agreement, the Chinese investigating 
authority held the view that price suppression referred to prices of the imported products preventing 
domestic price increases which otherwise should have  occurred to a significant degree, and that price 
depression referred to prices of imports resulting in a significant decline in the price of the domestic 
like products. 
70. Concerning the question of the general administ ration of customs, and the implementation of 
anti-dumping measures, according to Chinese anti-dumping regulations, MOFCOM, as the 
investigating authority, would propose imposition of an anti-dumping duty to the State Council Tariff Commission, ("SCTC"), based on the dumping and injury determination.  The SCTC would make a decision on the basis of such a proposal.  MOFCOM  would publish these dete rminations and Customs 
would implement accordingly, from the effective date  set forth in the public notice.  In the process of 
implementation, Customs would also give a public notice about the procedure to collect anti-dumping 
duties.  Concerning the scope and tariff line of the product subject to the anti-dumping measure, MOFCOM, as the investigating authority, would contact Customs immediately after initiating an anti-dumping case in order to make sure that the scope  of the subject product and the tariff line were 
accurate.  MOFCOM and Customs would consult wi th each other in case any problem emerged about 
implementation of the measures.  MOFCOM also would consult the SCTC about any questions on 
classification and identification of the subject products ' tariff lines.  In the process of implementation, 
the importer and exporter could claim to Customs through the local customs office, or to MOFCOM 
directly, if there were a dispute about implemen tation of anti-dumping measures, and Customs and 
MOFCOM would contact each other to solve the problem.   
71. Concerning "all other" rates, MOFCOM calculated such rates, and specific data, upon the best 
information available in an anti-dumping case.   
72. Concerning initiation of investiga tions or reviews, the Chinese authority carefully examined 
the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provide d in the applications lodged by the domestic 
industry, in full compliance with the provisions of  the anti-dumping legislations and the Agreement, 
when initiating investigations and reviews of anti- dumping cases.  A case or a review would only be 
initiated when a petition being considered cont ained positive evidence and clear reasons.  The 
authority would not take the data into consideration during the initiation if they were not related to the 
case or to the subject product directly. 
73. Concerning administrative reconsideration and j udicial review of anti-dumping investigations, 
there was one case of administrative reconsideration on an anti-dumping investigation, and the administrative reconsideration decision as well as the customs data and other relevant evidence were 
delivered to the interested parties.  To date, th ere had been no judicial review of any anti-dumping 
measures.  
74. The Chair
 thanked the delegate of China, and opened  the floor for any additional or follow-up 
questions, or other comments.  
75. The delegate of the European Communities  thanked China for its attempt to reply to the EC’s 
questions, noting that he used the term “attempt” deli berately.  First, the EC had seen a similar series 
of events already in the previous TRM and the EC  was most unhappy about the way its questions had 
been replied to.  The EC had posed very clear a nd precise questions, other Members had done so as 
well, and, although there was a little bit of overlap , the questions which had been posed by three 
Members were quite different.  But what the EC had received was not a reply to its precise and clear G/ADP/M/29 
Page 14  
 
  questions but a sort of wholesale attempt to dispo se of these different questions altogether in one 
general reply.  The EC clearly thought that this was not appropriate.  This was the first point as far as 
the form of these replies was concerned.  Moving to the second point, the content of the replies, 
listening to the delegate of Chin a could give the impression that China was one of the best possible 
anti-dumping worlds.  Unfortunately, the reality seemed to be somewhat different.  The EC delegate’s 
instructions indicated that there was, for exam ple, a case where no disclosure had been given on 
injury and causal link, contrary to what the Ch inese delegate had said, which was that disclosure 
normally would cover causal link and injury.  His inst ructions also indicated that there were indeed 
problems with confidentiality.  The EC knew of on e example where a respondent had been required to 
put in the non-confidential summary the minimum price for the purposes of an undertaking.  This was 
tantamount to allowing the domestic industry to set up a cartel, because once it knew the price at 
which the respondent could deliver to China, the indu stry could easily undercut that price, and on this 
basis drive the respondent out of the Chinese market. 
76. Third, China had mentioned that it would resp ect the provisions of questionnaire replies.  
However, the EC question was wider, expressing co ncerns about information requests which seemed 
to be far-reaching.  Indeed, the problematic information requests not  only appeared in questionnaires 
but also during on-the-spot investigations.  There again, EC exporters had been confronted, in some cases, with excessive information requests, and t hus far no reply had been provided to the EC’s 
questions concerning these information requests. 
77. Finally, the EC took issue with one point made by China concerning the examination of 
"other factors".  From listening to the reply, it did not seem to be in line with the standard required 
under the Agreement, that the various causes of injury must be separated and distinguished. 
78. The delegate of Japan
 thanked China for the detailed explanation, and appreciated the steady 
improvement in the anti-dumping rules and practice of the People's Republic of China.  Members' 
common objective of the Transitional Review Mech anism was to share understanding of the efforts 
made by China heading to the complete compliance with the Anti-dumping Agreement.  To make this 
discussion more clear and effective, Japan had submitted written questions, as the EC had done.  
Japan's questions were in response to the statemen t by China the previous year that Members should 
make comments based on solid evidence and facts of  individual cases, as referred to in the meeting 
minutes, G/ADP/M/27, paragraph 81.  Japan requested that China also circulate its response in some 
written form.  
79. The delegate of the United States  agreed with Japan that it would be very helpful indeed if 
China's answers were circulated in written form. 
80. The delegate of China  stated that in his view the responses provided by his delegation during 
the meeting had fully clarified and explained the qu estions raised by Members.  Chinese investigating 
authorities investigated and made determinations on anti-dumping, inju ry to the industry and causality 
pursuant to a comprehensive and objective analysis  of the facts in a manner that was strictly 
consistent with China's re levant regulations a nd WTO rules.  The relevant legislation of China and the 
authorities' practices secured sufficient and transpar ent access in different stages of the investigation 
process for interested parties to convey their comment s to and seek explanations from the authorities.   
81. Anti-dumping procedures and practices were very complicated issues and it was not difficult 
for anyone just to pick out a specific aspect of  procedure and practice and elaborate on the argument 
that these did not live up to the requirements of th e Agreement.  In the morning session, Members had 
heard about a specific case raised by the Japanese de legation, with a request for explanation from the 
US delegation, also on a consistency issue.  It s eemed that no definite answer had been provided.  
Therefore, from China's point of view, the approach  of criticising another Member was not the right 
approach within the Committee.  All Members faced the challenge of improving their practices with  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 15 
 
 
  regard to anti-dumping to reflect the spirit of th e Agreement.  China therefore did not accept the 
points particularly raised in the opening statemen t of the US delegation because, for example, on the 
point that public hearings were replaced by privat e meetings, the fact was that in China's practice, 
public hearings were held as long as interested part ies so requested.  Some of the specific private 
meetings in reality had been held at the request of the US Embassy in China.  China wanted to 
exchange views with Members on anti-dumping prac tices and procedures, which was helpful not only 
for China but also for all Members.  In this  respect, however, China did not accept a criticising 
approach. 
82. The delegate of Japan  stated that he did not want to criticise China, and asked China to repeat 
its response with regard to Japan's first question, concerning initiation of investigations or reviews.  
83. The delegate of China  noted a point which had been very clear, that in all the Transitional 
Review Mechanism, the Chinese delegation was not in a position to provide written responses.  This 
was a known position.   
84. The answer to the first question of the Japanese delegation, on the initiation of investigations 
or reviews of anti-dumping investigations, was th at Chinese authorities carefully examined the 
accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in th e applications lodged by the domestic industries, 
in full compliance with the provisions of domestic anti-dumping legislation and the Anti-dumping Agreement, when initiating investigations or re views of anti-dumping cases.  A case or a review 
would only be initiated when a petition being cons idered contained positive evidence and clear 
reasons, whereas if the data were not related to th e case or the subject product directly, the authority 
would not take them into consideration during the initiation of the case or review. 
85. The delegate of Japan
 thanked China for the response and reiterated its request for a written 
reply to Japan's written questions concerning three specific cases.  
86. The Chair  thanked all delegations for their partic ipation in the exchange, and especially 
thanked the delegation of China for its preparation and for the information a nd answers provided.  She 
equally thanked those Members that had undertaken to submit written questions and to participate in 
the discussion.   
87. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods concerning this Transitional 
Review, the Chair noted that there were no guidelin es for the report contained in the Protocol, and 
recalled that previously the Committee Chair, acting on his or her own responsibility, had prepared a brief, factual report, with references to the doc uments concerned, and a ttaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which related to the Tran sitional Review.  She suggested proceeding on the 
same basis for the 2005 report.   
88. The Committee so decided
.2 
F. CHAIR'S  REPORT  ON THE  MEETING  OF THE  WORKING  GROUP  ON IMPLEMENTATION 
89. The Chair  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met just prior to the 
Committee's meeting.  As had been indicated in  the annotated draft agenda for the Committee's 
meeting, given the shortness of time for the autu mn 2005 meetings of standing bodies, only papers 
that had been submitted to the Working Group by  the deadline of 19 September had been on the 
agenda for discussion.  There had been two such pa pers, both from Pakistan.  One further paper, from 
Brazil, which had been submitted after the deadline,  would be included on the agenda of the Working 
Group's spring 2006 meeting.   
                                                      
2 Circulated in G/ADP/14+Corr.1 G/ADP/M/29 
Page 16  
 
  90. The Working Group had continued its discussions on Article 6.7 – Conduct of Verification, 
on the basis of the paper introduced by Pakistan during the Spring 2005 meeting, and circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/171.  Members had benefitte d from the fact that Pakistan had had an 
expert in the room to address questions. 
91. The Group had decided to request the Secretariat to prepare a draft recommendation on 
Article 6.7 – Conduct of Verification, based on the di scussions to that point, for consideration at its 
Spring 2006 meeting.  
92. The Group also continued its discussions on Article 2.2 – Export Price to Third Countries or 
Constructed Normal Value, on the basis of a pape r submitted by Pakistan, and circulated as document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/172.  Although only one Member had submitted papers on two of the topics, the 
discussion nonetheless had been interesting and usef ul in enabling Members to better understand the 
issues involved and the practices also of new users of the instrument, particularly as the Pakistani 
investigating authority had b een established only recently.  
93. The Chair strongly encouraged those Member s who had not submitted any papers on these 
topics to do so.  The more information that was put on the table about the approaches of different 
national authorities on these issues, the better.  A dditional information concerning national practices 
and different Members' views would add to the value of the Group's discussions. 
94. Members were requested to further reflect on th e future work of the Group with a view to 
discussing this issue at the spring 2006, particularly with the view of developing a new list of topics to 
be recommended to the Committee for discussion. 
95. The next meeting of the Group would be held during the week of 24 April 2, and the deadline 
for submissions for that meeting was 13 March 2006. 
96. The Committee took note
 of the Chair's report.   
G. OTHER  BUSINESS 
Appropriate interpretation of Annex D of the Committee's annual report – item raised 
by the United States 
97. The delegate of the United States  recalled that his delegation had raised this issue in previous 
meetings at which Committee annual reports had be en up for adoption.  Specifically, the delegation 
wished to point out that some Members including the United States were shown in Annex D of the Committee's annual report as reporting a much larger number of preliminary and final actions than 
provisional and final measures.  In the case of the United States, and apparently also in other cases, 
this was due to the fact that those Members reported to the WTO all
 publications in the national 
gazettes related to these measures, including initiations , extensions of deadlines, examinations of the 
scope of measures, so in no case should Members in terpret that there were actually 351 preliminary 
and final determinations taken by the United States.  That was simply the num ber of Federal Register 
notices published and provided to the WTO.  Annex D was useful, and Members should be concerned 
where the number of a Member's reports of preliminary and final actions was less  than the number of 
provisional and final measures reported in that Member's semi-annual reports.  Indeed, some 
Members had provided no notifications of preliminary and final actions at all, despite having reported 
in their semi-annual reports that they had taken measures. 
98. The Committee took note  of the statement made.  G/ADP/M/29 
 Page 17 
 
 
  H. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
99. The Chair  recalled the Committee's agreement at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that regular 
meetings normally would be held in the last w eek of April and the last week of October.  
Accordingly, it was proposed that the next regular meeting of the Committee, along with the meetings 
of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, be held 
during the week of 24 April 2006.  The exact scheduling of these meetings would be communicated to Members in the first quarter of 2006.   
I. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  FOR  TRADE  IN GOODS  (ARTICLE  18.6) 
100. The Committee adopted  its 2005 annual report, which was subsequently circulated in 
document G/L/758.  
__________