RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/34 
21 July 2008 
 (08-3530) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 28 APRIL 2008 
 
Chair:  Mr. Gareth Meyer (Australia
) 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
28 April 2008.  2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:   
 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIO NS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ).............................................................................................................2  
1. Albania (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/2-G/SCM/N/1/ALB/2) .................................................................2  
2. China (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.6)........................................................................................2  
3. Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3-G/SCM/N/1/CRI/3) ..............................................................3  
4. Guatemala (G/ADP/N/1/GTM /3-G/SCM/N/1/GTM/3)..........................................................3  
5. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/ADP/N/1/MKD/1) .........................................4  
6. Nicaragua (G/ADP/N/1/NIC /2-G/SCM/N/1/NIC/2)...............................................................4  
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY -REVIEWED 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS ...................................................................5  
1. Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4-G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4).................................................................5  
2. European Communities  (G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.5 - 
G/SCM/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.5) ....................................................................................................5  
3. United States (G/ADP/N/1 /USA/1-G/SCM/N/1/USA)............................................................5  
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (G/ADP/N/166) .........................................6  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS - REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/ADP/N/164-165  AND G /ADP/N/167-170) ...............................................................................11  
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION ......................11  
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION ..............................12  
G. MEXICO 'S ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES UNDER ANNEX 7 OF CHINA 'S ACCESSION 
PROTOCOL – ITEM REQUESTED BY CHINA .................................................................................12  
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................13  
I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS .............................................................................................................14  
 G/ADP/M/34 
Page 2  
 
  A. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL 
NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) 
3. The Chair  recalled that, as always, the Committee w ould conduct the reviews of legislative 
notifications in accordance with the pertinen t procedures adopted by the Committee, found in 
document G/ADP/W/284.  
4. He informed Members that th e deadlines for the submission of documents for the regular 
meetings in Fall 2008 of the Committee, the Worki ng Group on Implementation, and the Informal 
Group on Anti-Circumvention, had been established, a nd would be circulated by the Secretariat in a 
reminder document indicating those deadlines, as well as the analogous deadlines for the autumn 
meetings of the SCM and Safeguards Committees.   
5. Concerning the review of the legislative notif ications on the agenda, any written questions 
were to have been submitted to the Member con cerned, and to the Secretariat, not later than 
7 April 2008.  Oral questions could be asked at the meeting, and any Member desiring to receive a 
written answer to any such question had to submit it in writing not later than 13 May 2008.  Written 
answers to all written questions were to be submitte d to the Member posing the question, and to the 
Secretariat, not later than 3 June 2008.  The Chair noted that some of the no tifications being reviewed, 
and some of the question and answer documents, were multiple-symbolled.  He suggested in the 
interest of orderly record-keeping that the Comm ittee follow its usual practice of reserving for 
discussion in the relevant bodies any issues in those documents that related relating to topics other 
than anti-dumping.   
2. Albania (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/2-G/SCM/N/1/ALB/2) 
6. The written questions concerning the notification of Albania  can be found in the following 
documents: 
  G/ADP/Q1/ALB/4-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/4 – Submitted by the European Communities 
 
 G/ADP/Q1/ALB/5-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/5 – Submitted by the United States 
  
G/ADP/Q1/ALB/6-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/6 – Submitted by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
  
7. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/ALB/7 & Suppl.1-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/7 & Suppl. 1 – Replies to the European 
Communities, the United States and the Separa te Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen & Matsu 
3. China (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.6) 
8. The written questions concerning the notification of China can be found in the following 
documents:   
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/63-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/63 – Su bmitted by the European Communities 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/64-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/64 – Submitted by the United States 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/65-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/65 – Submitted by Chile  G/ADP/M/34 
 Page 3 
 
 
   
9. The written answers to these questions can be  found in the following documents:   
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/66 – Replies to  the European Communities 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/67 – Replies to the United States G/ADP/Q1/CHN/68 – Replies to Chile 
4. Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3-G/SCM/N/1/CRI/3) 
10. The written questions concerning the notification of Costa Rica  can be found in the following 
documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CRI/7-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/7 – Submitted by the United States 
 
 G/ADP/Q1/CRI/8-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/8 – Submitted by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
 
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/9-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/9 – Submitted by Chile 
 11. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/10-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/10 – Replies to the United States G/ADP/Q1/CRI/11-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/11 – Replies to Chile G/ADP/Q1/CRI/12-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/12 – Replies to the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
5. Guatemala (G/ADP/N/1/GTM/3-G/SCM/N/1/GTM/3) 
12. The written questions concerning the notification of Guatemala can be found in the 
following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/GTM/8-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/8 – Submitted by the United States 
 
 G/ADP/Q1/GTM/9-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/9 – Submitted by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
 
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/10-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/10 – Submitted by Chile 
 
13. The written replies to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/11-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/11 – Replies to the United States G/ADP/Q1/GTM/12-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/12 – Replies to the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/13-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/13 – Replies to Chile G/ADP/M/34 
Page 4  
 
  6. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/ADP/N/1/MKD/1) 
14. The representative of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
 indicated that his 
delegation was not in a position to provide answers to  the questions at the meeting, but that it would 
do so in writing in the near future.  His delegation would be willing to participate in a special meeting 
if necessary to conduct the review of the notification.   
15. No Member expressed a wish to hold a special meeting.  The Chair indicated that this 
notification thus would be placed  on the agenda for review at the Committee's fall meeting.   
16. The written questions concerning the notification of the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia can be found in the following documents.   
 G/ADP/Q1/MKD/1-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/1 – Submitted by the European Communities 
 
 G/ADP/Q1/MKD/2-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/2 – Submitted by the United States   G/ADP/Q1/MKD/3-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/3 – Submitted by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
 
17. NO WRITTEN REPLIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE  
7. Nicaragua (G/ADP/N/1/NIC/2-G/SCM/N/1/NIC/2) 
18. The written questions concerning the notification of Nicaragua  can be found in the following 
documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/NIC/1-G/SCM/Q1/NIC/1 – Submitted by the United States 
 
 G/ADP/Q1/NIC/2-G/SCM/Q1/NIC/2 – Submitted by the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
 
G/ADP/Q1/NIC/3-G/SCM/Q1/NIC/3 – Submitted by Chile 
 
19. The written replies to these questions  can be found in the following  
 G/ADP/Q1/NIC/4-G/SCM/Q1/NIC/4 – Replies to the United States 
  G/ADP/Q1/NIC/5-G/SCM/Q1/NIC/5 – Replies to the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen & Matsu 
 
G/ADP/Q1/NIC/6-G/SCM/Q1/NIC/6 – Replies to Chile  
20. The representative of El Salvador
 asked the Committee to note th at El Salvador had presented 
its notification of the Regulation on Unfair Trade Pr actices in force, which had been circulated in 
document G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3.  El Salvador consider ed it appropriate to so inform the Committee 
given that, as the Members could see, this Regulation was an instrument of the Central American Economic Integration System, and thus  had been incorporated into El Salvador's legislation.  Thus, 
this instrument had been notified to the Co mmittee under Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.   
21. The Chair
 thanked the delegation of El Salvador, a nd noted that this legislation as well as 
would be on the agenda for review at the Fall 2008 meeting of the Committee.   G/ADP/M/34 
 Page 5 
 
 
  22. The Committee took note  of all of the notifications, questions, answers, and comments. 
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY -REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS OF 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  
23. The Chair  recalled that in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the Committee 
(G/ADP/W/284), Members desiring to put any previously-reviewed legislative notification on the 
agenda of the meeting for further review were to have submitted questions in writing to the notifying 
Member and  to the Secretariat not later than 17 March 2008, and the delegations receiving any such 
questions were to have submitte d written answers by 14 April 2008, with any discussion at the 
meeting reserved for follow-up ques tions.  China had submitted to the Secretariat by the 17 March 
deadline questions concerning previously-review ed notifications of Canada, the European 
Communities and the United States.  The Chair had been informed, however, th at China inadvertently 
had omitted to provide those questions directly to the delegations involved, such that they had had less 
time than foreseen in the procedur es to prepare their answers.  The Chair understood that nevertheless 
those delegations had provided written answers, Canada and the European Communities by 14 April 
and the United States more recently.  The Chair than ked those delegations for their flexibility and for 
their efforts, which had allowed these reviews to take place at the meeting.   
1. Canada (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4-G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4) 
24. The written questions concerning the notification of Canada can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CAN/14-G/SCM/Q1/CAN/14 – Submitted by China 
 
25. The written replies to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CAN/15-G/SCM/Q1/CAN/15-G/SG/Q1/CAN/1 
 
2. European Communities  (G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.5 - G/SCM/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.5) 
 26. The written questions concerning the notification of the  European Communities  can be 
found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/27-G/SCM/Q1/EEC/27 – Submitted by China 
27. The written replies to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/28-G/SCM/Q1/EEC/28 – Replies to China 
3. United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1-G/SCM/N/1/USA) 
28. The written questions concerning the notification of the  United States can be found in the 
following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/USA/25-G/SCM/Q1/USA/25 – Submitted by China 
29. The written replies to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/USA/26-G/SCM/Q1/USA/26 – Replies to China 
30. The Committee took note
 of all of the notifications, questions and answers.   G/ADP/M/34 
Page 6  
 
  C. 
SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS (G/ADP/N/166) 
31. The Chair  recalled that a request for semi-annual re ports for the second half of 2007 had been 
circulated in document G/ADP/N/166, dated 9 Ja nuary 2008.  The reports had been due by 
7 March 2008, and it appeared that most Member s taking anti-dumping actions during the period in 
question had submitted a semi-annual report.  Th e Chair reminded those Members taking no anti-
dumping actions that all that was necessary was to subm it a simple letter to that effect twice per year.   
32. The Chair noted that a number of the Member s reporting anti-dumping actions had submitted 
their semi-annual reports after the deadline, some significantly so.  Late submission of these reports 
made it difficult for other Members to consider the information contained in the reports before the 
meeting where they reports would be discussed.  If all Members endeavoured to submit their semi-
annual reports on time, they coul d be circulated in all langua ges well before the Committee's 
meetings, and this certainly would enhance tran sparency, and thus the quality of the Committee's 
discussion.   
33. The Chair reminded Members that any Member  might, if it so wished, raise any issue 
regarding a semi-annual report for a past period that , due to late submission, had not already been 
reviewed by the Committee.  
34. The Chair noted that the status of Members' semi-annual reports for the second half of 2007 
was reported in document G/ADP/N/166/Addendum 1, dated 23 April 2008.  Paragraph 1 listed the 
Members that had reported anti-dumpi ng actions during that period.   
35. In addition to the Members that had submitted semi-annual reports of ac tions taken, a number 
of Members, listed in paragraph 2 of the same doc ument, had notified the Committee that they had not 
taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  After the document was circulated, 
Singapore also had submitted such a nil notification.   
36. There remained a significant number of Member s that had not responded to the request for 
semi-annual reports, which applied to all Member s whether or not they took anti-dumping actions 
during the period in question.  These Members were identified in paragraph 3 of the document.  The 
Chair urged all Members to comply with th is important notification requirement.   
37. The Committee then reviewed th e semi-annual reports of anti-dumping actions that had been 
submitted.   
38. Concerning the semi-annual report of Argentina , the delegate of New Zealand  asked for an 
explanation of the table on page 4 of the repor t identifying "pending anti-dumping cases".  The 
delegate of Argentina  replied on a preliminary basis that these were investigations that for one reason 
or another were still underway, and had not been cl osed, with or without the imposition of duties or 
additional measures, or any other final closing of  the case.  Thus they were still pending.  The 
delegate indicated that he would provide a definitiv e answer at a later stage, confirming what he had 
said and giving more details if necessary.   
39. The delegate of the United States  noted that the measure on polyvinyl chloride from the 
United States was not listed in the report, and re quested confirmation that this measure had been 
terminated.   
40. The delegate of Argentina  replied on a preliminary basis that the measure had expired.  He 
had looked at the previous reports from Argentin a and had noted that the last report where the 
measure was mentioned was the report G/ADP/N/153/ARG, notifying measures in force as of 31 December 2006.  In the subsequent repor t covering the period through 30 June 2007  G/ADP/M/34 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (G/ADP/N/158/ARG), the measure mentioned by th e United States was not notified.  It was the 
understanding of the delegate, subject to confirma tion, that the measure had simply expired on 
expired on 23 April 2007.   
41. Concerning the semi-annual report of Brazil , the delegate of the United States  noted that the 
report indicated in respect of pre-sensitized offset plate both that a final measure had been imposed on 
8 October 2007 and also, in column 10 of the report, that no final measure had been imposed for 
"other reasons".  The United States asked Braz il to clarify the status of this measure. 
42. The representative of Brazil  replied on a preliminary basis that the measure was still in force, 
and that the reason for the duplication in the notification might be a reduction in the scope of the product.  The delegate indicated that he would consult with his capital a nd provide the definitive 
answer to the United States.   
43. In respect of the semi-annual report of Canada , the delegation of China
 raised a concern over 
the non-market economy industry determination made by CBSA in the case on seamless carbon or alloy steel oil and gas well casings.  In responding to  a Section 20 enquiry under the SIMA of Canada, 
the Chinese Government had provided a large amount of evidence in the res ponse to the questionnaire 
and during the on-site verification which in the view of China sufficiently justified that this oil and 
gas well casing industry was a highly competitive and commercialized industry in China, and that 
there was no government pricing or government-determi ned price at all in the market.  However, the 
CBSA had rejected this argument only on the grounds  that the Chinese Government had ever carried 
out an industry adjustment policy at the macro level to the iron and steel industry as a whole.  Based upon this, the CBSA did not recognize the oil and g as well casing industry of China as a market 
economy industry and thus surrogate data were applied for determining the normal value to the 
Chinese companies which pushed the dumping margin ar tificially high.  China questioned, therefore, 
whether the determination had been made on the basis of sufficient factual findings and objective 
examinations, and whether this was consistent with the provisions of  Article 20 of SIMA of Canada. 
44. The representative of Canada
 stated that he was unable to comment on the decision by 
Canada's competent authorities as to whether they accepted or rejected information by the Chinese 
Government, except to indicate that the reasons for the decision of the competent authority were laid 
out in the Statement of Reasons that was made public .  He also noted that th ere were avenues for the 
exporters in the case, or the government, in the case of countervail investigations, to follow channels 
of appeal either in Canada's dom estic courts or through the WTO. 
45. Concerning the semi-annual report of Chile, the representative of Chile  took the floor to 
provide a clarification, for transparency, concerning developments in an investigation that had been 
reported.  In particular, in the semi-annual report being reviewed, a single investigation, on poultry, 
appeared as pending.  On 19 April, in the Official  Journal, the Investigating Authority had indicated 
that it was putting an end to the investigation fo r the anti-dumping investigation for the export of 
poultry to Argentina, and it was recommended that  no anti-dumping duties be imposed.  This had 
been notified to the WTO the previous week, a nd would be included in Chile's next semi-annual 
report.   
46. In respect of the semi-annual report of the European Communities , the representative of 
China  identified three investigations over which his de legation had concerns:  iron and steel fasteners, 
listed in the semi-annual report in Annex I; and citr ic acid and air compressors, listed in Annex V, the 
pending cases at the end of December 2007.  Regardi ng the iron and steel fasteners case, one concern 
of China was the level of information about the petiti oner, in particular that it did not provide in the 
application names and other information on the s upporting companies, and the European Commission 
had rejected the request to disclose such informa tion on grounds of confidentiality.  In the view of 
China, the absence of such information had adversel y impacted the legitimate rights of the interested G/ADP/M/34 
Page 8  
 
  parties, including Chinese exporters, in presenting ar guments concerning the petitioners' standing, and 
the representativeness of the domestic industry, as well as the analysis of the injury to the domestic 
industry during the course of the investigation. 
47. China also was concerned over the petitioner's standing.  To China's best knowledge, some 
European companies supporting the petition had estab lished subsidiaries within China that produced 
the products under consideration a nd resold it back to Europe.  As these affiliated companies had 
significant interests with their mother European co mpanies, and had a significant impact on the result 
of the case, they should have been excluded fr om the domestic industry.  Otherwise, any 
determinations made could not be deemed objective or unbiased.   
48. A third concern of China in the iron and steel fasteners case was the selection of a 
supplementary sample.  Since there had been a large number of Chinese exporters, the European 
Commission had decided to limit its examinations  by selecting 13 responding companies as the 
sample for individual dumping margin determinati ons.  Upon request from the Chinese, another four 
companies had been added to the sample.  Two of those supplementarily selected sample companies, 
however, were respectively a subsidiary of the petit ioner and an affiliate company of the European 
producer.  China wondered if this was consistent  with normal practice in the case precedent of the 
European Commission in selecting samples which re present the largest percentage of the production 
or export volume of the foreign producer s during the period of investigation. 
49. Regarding the citric acid, China wished to no te the incomplete information provided by the 
petition, and furthermore that the petitioner had act ually provided problema tic financial reports. 
50. For the air compressor case, both of the Italia n companies had subsidiaries in China, and 
similar to the fasteners case, th ese companies exported the product under consideration back to the 
European Community and, as the exporters concerne d, had responded to the investigation.  This 
raised the concerns over the determination of standing. 
51. China also remarked upon the granting of market  economy status in the air compressor case.  
The European Commission had decided to grant market economy status only to the two Italian 
investing companies located in China, while other Chinese companies had not been given this status.  
For this reason, the other Chinese companies faced a very high duty while the two Italian investing 
companies enjoyed a very low duty.  Those two companies therefore enjoyed a great competitive advantage in the European market.  China wondered whether this practice of selection was consistent 
with the non-discrimination principles set forth in  Article 9.2 of the ADA, and the Chinese companies 
also were concerned about what appeared to be the application of a double standard practice by the 
European Community in conducting anti-dumpi ng investigations against Chinese exports. 
52. The representative of the European Communities
 thanked China for the comprehensive 
questions, which addressed specific cases and were ve ry much to the point.  He was not in a position 
to immediately comment, and request ed that China provide the questions to his delegation in writing, 
such that he could provide a written answer for the Fall 2008 meeting of the Committee.   
53. Concerning the semi-annual report of India , the delegate of the United States  noted that the 
agreed guidelines for the information provide d in the semi-annual reports, G/ADP/1 from 
21 November 1995, provided that "the informati on on the measures in pla ce at the end of the 
reporting period should include dates since the measures have been in place".  In addition, there was a 
pending Chair proposal for a revised format for semi-annual reports of anti-dumping measures 
pursuant to Article 16.4 of the A-D Agreement,  whose adoption was being blocked by a single 
Member.  This revision would require that "for each listed measure the date of original imposition and 
dates of any extensions shall be provided with pub lication references".  The United States therefore  G/ADP/M/34 
 Page 9 
 
 
  requested that India provide all of the original dates as required or, ideally, submit a revised semi-
annual report that reflected the appropriate original  date of imposition for each of India's measures. 
54. In particular, based upon information provided in  previous semi-annual reports of India, the 
date of imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties on imports from the United States of aniline should be 6 October 2000, for caustic soda the date should be 26 June 2001, for sodium cyanide the 
date should be 6 June 2000 and for styrene butadiene  rubber, the date should be 24 August 1999.   
55. On a separate issue, the United States noted that in India's most recent semi-annual report 
there was no mention of a measure in force involving acrylic fibres from the United States, but there was a reference to an ongoing expiry review of a measu re on this product.  Did this indicate that India 
was not collecting anti-dumping duties on acrylic fibres beyond the fifth anniversary date?  The 
United States also requested clarification as to why there were references to flexible slabstock polyol 
imports from the United States, both as an on-going e xpiry review and as a present measure in force, 
since the effective date of this m easure was listed as 11 February 2002. 
56. Concerning the discrepancy in the dates, the representative of India
 recognized the issue, and 
considered that this was possibly because of the pending decision on the revised format.  He would 
take it up with the capital and report if there was something definite about changing dates, as the 
United States had requested.   
57. Concerning acrylic fibres, there were two mentions of acrylic fibres, one was in the SSR 
table, which said clearly that the sunset revi ew was undertaken on 8 October 2007, and the second 
was that the duty had lapsed from 9 October 2007, which was in the table on page 13 of G/ADP/N/166/IND.  Similarly, in respect of flexib le slabstock polyol imports from the United States 
there was indeed a reference both as an ongoing expiry  review as well as a present measure.  This was 
again because for the period of reporting, the sun set review was not completed and the measure was 
still in force at the end of the period unde r reporting, which was up to December 2007.  
58. In respect of the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the delegate of the United States
 inquired 
as to the status of Indonesia's measure on imports of paracetamol from the United States.   
59. The representative of Indonesia  stated that Indonesia had that day submitted its semi-annual 
report for the period 1 July 2007-31 December 2007.  During this period, no definitive or provisional 
anti-dumping duties had been imposed by Indonesia.  Concerning paracetamol, the representative would report to the Secretariat as to the status of the measure.   
60. Regarding the semi-annual report of  Mexico , the representative of the United States
 noted 
that Mexico had a measure in force on imports of apples from the United States with an imposition 
date of 12 August 2002.  The United States questione d why this measure had not been repealed.  In 
addition, the United States understood that Mexico  had initiated an anti-circumvention review of 
stearic acid imports from the United States on 15 January 2007.  Since this review did not appear in Mexico's most recent semi-annual report, the United States requested an update on the status of this 
proceeding. 
61. The representative of Mexico
 replied that Mexico did not have anyone from the anti-dumping 
authority present at the meeting in a position to pr ovide the requested information.  The delegation 
had taken note of the questions and would consult with the authority and then revert to the 
United States.   
62. In respect of the semi-annual report of South Africa , the representative of Egypt  raised for 
the record, in spite of the fact that no South African  delegate was present, that in its most recent semi-
annual report, G/ADP/N/166/ZAF, South Africa had indi cated that the sunset review with respect to G/ADP/M/34 
Page 10  
 
  imports of carbon black originating in or imported from, inter alia , Egypt, was still on-going.  This 
sunset review had been initiated on 23 July 2004, i.e., more than  45 months before.  During the 
previous meeting of the Committee, the South African delegate had indicated that as a result of a judgement challenging the continuation of an expi ry review investigation beyond 18 months, the 
measure under review would go befo re the International Trade Commission of South Africa at the end 
of November 2007, and a recommendation would be made that the duty on carbon black be 
withdrawn.  These duties nevertheless were still in  force.  Egypt reiterated its concern with the 
decision of South Africa to maintain anti-dumping measures on Egyptian imports nearly four years after the normal termination date w ithout any justification.  Egypt ha d submitted in the past that this 
measure should at least be suspended pending the ongo ing judicial review.  Egypt was also interested 
in receiving information on the status of this expiry review investigation, in particular on when it was 
expected to be concluded.   
63. Egypt also requested further information on the initiation or not of a sunset review on the 
measure imposed on imports of aluminium hollowware , since it had not been notified of any action 
taken by South Africa in this respect. 
64. The delegate of the United States
 also had questions concerning a number of expiry review 
proceedings.  One was with respect to PVC, in par ticular, whether the situation with respect to these 
expiry reviews was related to the September 2007 ruling of the South African Supreme Court of 
Appeals.  The United States had several other produ cts, including chicken, that were exported from 
the United States and that seemed to be caught up in this situation, and the United States requested an 
update concerning recent developments related to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and its 
impact on US measures. 
65. The Chair  thanked the delegations and noted that of  course their questions would be reflected 
in the minutes.  He encouraged delegations to make  direct contact with the South African delegation 
to follow up on the questions.   
66. No questions or comments were raised  concerning the semi-annual reports of Australia, 
China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea , Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, 
Paraguay, Peru,  Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, or the United States , or on any semi-annual 
report not previously reviewed because they arrived after the meeting at which the reports for a given 
period were reviewed.   
67. The Chair  recalled that the Committee still had before it, as one or two delegations had made 
reference to, a draft of the new format for semi-a nnual reports with a view to improving transparency 
in respect of Members' anti-dumping actions and, at the same time, clarifying the reporting 
requirements for Members that notify anti-dumping acti ons.  He had continued to have some informal 
contact with delegations and there continued to be some considerable  interest in trying to find an 
acceptable solution on the couple of issues that rema in unresolved.  He urged all Members to think 
creatively about how to bridge these gaps so that a  resolution could be found in the near future. 
68. The representative of Japan  recalled that at the Committee' s meeting in October 2007, his 
delegation had intervened to request a solution th rough the Chair's consultations, and supported the 
Chair's initiative to solve this issu e.  This intervention was reflected in the minutes of the meeting, 
document G/ADP/M/33, at page 8.  The Chair ha d indicated that he would make contact with 
delegations, but unfortunately nothing had been  undertaken since October 2007.  Indeed, it was 
becoming harder to find where the issue stood, as the initial consultations had taken place two years 
before and there had been changes in delegations si nce then.  In this sense, Japan requested the Chair 
and the Secretariat to issue a note explaining the state of play and the issues which were encountered.  Such a note would be very useful for all delegates in the Committee.    G/ADP/M/34 
 Page 11 
 
 
  69. The Chair  thanked Japan for the comments and the importance which the delegation ascribed 
to this particular issue in finding an acceptable outcome and solution.  The Chair consultations were 
continuing and were identifying that there was a positive environment and willingness to address 
those questions.  In the view of the Chair, probabl y the most appropriate course of action would be to 
reflect a little bit further on the suggestion that ha d been made, and on the outstanding issues, in 
considering what might be the best way to proceed.   
70. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS - REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/ADP/N/164-165  AND G /ADP/N/167-170) 
71. The Chair  recalled that lists of the notifications of  preliminary and final anti-dumping actions 
submitted by Members since the Committee's last meeting had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/164-165 and G/ADP/N/167-170.  During that period, the following Members had notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions, which had been listed in these documents:  Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Comm unities, India, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Pakistan, Paraguay, South Africa, Thailand, Turk ey, and United States.  In addition, Egypt had 
submitted a notification in March, which had inadvertently been omitted from document N/170.  This 
notification would be listed in the next document to be circulated. 
72. The Chair drew the attention of Members to th e continued 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 reported anti-dumping actions in progress in their semi-annual reports but had not submitte d reports of preliminary or fina l actions taken.  These reports 
were a key element of the required transparency  concerning Members' anti-dumping actions, and the 
Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard.  The Chai r therefore very strongly urged all Members taking 
anti-dumping actions to provide these notifications of  preliminary and final actions, consistently and 
in a timely fashion.  He noted in this regard  that the minimum information format for these 
notifications, which was adopted by the Committe e in October 2006 (document G/ADP/2/Rev.1), 
contained important clarifications as to the kinds of  actions that should be notified and the information 
that should be provided.   
73. The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements.   
E. 
CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
74. The Chair  reported that, as Members were aware,  the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention 
had met that morning.   
75. The Informal Group, taking into account a br ief summary prepared by the Secretariat 
compiling the Members' comments on the topic to that point, had continued the interesting discussion on the issue identified by New Zealand – the so-called bundling of invoices.  Several Members had offered comments on the issue.  The Group would keep  this item on the agenda for the next meeting, 
and would see if there were any more comments on it.  The Chair welcomed the interest that Members 
had shown in this topic, and ur ged all Members to follow the good example of New Zealand to make 
the best use of the Group by submitting papers and participating actively in the discussions.     
76. Concerning the date for the next meeting of th e Informal Group, this had been set for the 
week of 27 October 2008 with the exact date to be confirmed in due course.  The deadline for 
submissions for that meeting was 15 September 2008.   G/ADP/M/34 
Page 12  
 
  77. The Committee took note
 of the Chair's report.   
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
78. The Chair  reported that, as Members were aware, the Working Group on Implementation had 
met that morning.  In the light of the fact th at the Chairperson of the Rules Negotiating Group had 
included some proposed changes to the current te xt of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding the 
conduct of verification in his "Draft Consolidat ed Chair Texts of the AD and SCM Agreement" 
circulated on 30 November 2007, the Group had deci ded not to continue discussing the issue of 
"Conduct of verification – Article 6.7" for the time being.  Of course, things might change in the 
future and the Group might then wish to reve rt to the issue for further discussion.   
79. The Group had had a useful discussion on the to pic of "Foreign exchange fluctuations – 
Article 2.4.1" on the basis of a paper submitted by  New Zealand, circulated as G/ADP/AHG/W/177.  
A number of Members had posed questions to New Zealand and/or explained their own practices 
regarding foreign exchange fluctuations.  As the is sue of foreign exchange fluctuations was quite an 
important aspect in anti-dumping investigations, the Chair encouraged more Members to submit papers explaining their own practices. 
80. The third topic on the agenda was "Export pri ces to third countries or constructed normal 
value – Article 2.2".  The European Communities had introduced a paper, circulated as document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/178/Rev.1.  The discussions had b een useful.  A number of Members had posed 
questions to the European Communities and/or explaine d their own practices in respect of this issue.  
The European Communities had agreed to respond to th e questions in more detail at the next meeting 
of the Group. 
81. The Chair had encouraged those Members that ha d not to that point done so to submit papers 
on the four topics actively under discussion, for consideration at the next meeting:   
 Export prices to third countries or constructed normal value – Article 2.2; 
 Foreign exchange fluctuations – Article 2.4.1;  Judicial, arbitral or administrative review – Article 13; and  How do Members determine whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the 
dumped imports – Article 3.2. 
 
82. The Group had agreed to schedule its next meeting for the week of 27 October 2008, with the 
exact date to be confirmed in due course.   
83. The Committee took note  of the Chair's report. 
G. MEXICO 'S ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES UNDER ANNEX 7 OF CHINA 'S ACCESSION PROTOCOL – 
ITEM REQUESTED BY CHINA  
84. The representative of China  stated that this issue was of pa rticular concern to China.  The 
issue involved the existing anti-dumping measures that had been imposed around 1993 or 1994 by 
Mexico against a large number of products impo rted from China.  These measures had been 
maintained by Mexico until that point according to  Annex 7 of the Protocol  of Accession of the 
People's Republic of China.   
85. In Annex 7 of the Protocol, Mexico had made  some reservations on existing anti-dumping 
measures at the time that China joined the WTO, providing that during the six years following China's  G/ADP/M/34 
 Page 13 
 
 
  accession to the WTO, Mexico's existing measures would not be subject to the provisions of either the 
WTO Agreement or the anti-dumping provisions of the Protocol.  Meanwhile, Article.17 of the 
Protocol clearly provided that all prohibitions, quan titative restrictions and other measures in Annex 7 
had to be phased out or dealt with in accordan ce with mutually agreed terms and timetables as 
specified in that Annex.  Based upon these provisions, it was China's understanding that the 
reservations made by Mexico in Annex 7 of the Pr otocol were merely a transitional arrangement in 
line with the terms of China's accessi on to the WTO, meaning that at  the time, China had agreed to 
give six more years to Mexico, during which Mexico could make its anti-dumping measures which were then not WTO-compatible consistent with WTO rules.  In other words Mexico, according to 
Article 17 and Annex 7 of the Pr otocol, before 11 December 2007 had to complete its work of 
adjusting the existing anti-dumping measures agains t China's imports by means of taking actions 
including, inter alia , reviewing or revoking the measures, so as to make sure that all anti-dumping 
measures were fully consistent with WTO rules after th at deadline.  Much to China's regret, as of that 
point Mexico had not done so. 
86. The six year period mentioned in the Protocol had elapsed and the situation had not changed 
at all, with most of the anti-dumping measures main tained under the Protocol remaining valid.  China 
noted that before Mexico's reservation in Annex 7 of  the Protocol had expired, Mexico had started to 
review the anti-dumping measures mentioned under Anne x 7 of the Protocol, but the reviews did not 
necessarily mean that Mexico had fully performed its  obligations under Article 17 of the Protocol or 
the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
87. While China and Mexico were consulting bilate rally to seek a mutually  acceptable solution to 
this issue, China still considered  it necessary to use this opportunity to ask Mexico to take positive 
and pro-active actions to revoke all of those ex isting inconsistent anti- dumping measures under the 
reservation of Article 7 of the Protocol, so as to bring the bilateral trade flow, which was seriously 
affected by those measures, b ack to the normal track.   
88. China asked Mexico to explain why those meas ures, which had been clearly and sufficiently 
proven inconsistent with WTO rules,  were still being maintained.   
89. The delegate of Mexico
 thanked China for the concerns e xpressed.  Mexico had taken note of 
what had been said, and wished to confirm that, indeed, all the measures wh ich Mexico adopted under 
Annex 7 of China's Accession Protocol were or  had been submitted to a process which was 
continuing.  At the same time Mexico was engaged in bilateral consultations  with China and hoped 
that these consultations would result in a mutually sat isfactory solution.  Mexico wished to confirm to 
China that their concerns would be taken into acco unt, and would be transmitted to the appropriate 
level of the authorities in Mexico.  Mexico continued to be fully committed in this dialogue to reach a 
satisfactory solution. 
90. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
91. The Chair  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that 
regular meetings normally would be held in the last  week of April and the last week of October.  
Accordingly, the next regular meeting of the Committee, along with the meetings of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, were proposed for the 
week of 27 October 2008.  The exact scheduli ng of these meetings would be communicated to 
Members in due course.   
92. The Committee so decided
.   G/ADP/M/34 
Page 14  
 
  I. 
ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
93. The Committee elected  by acclamation Mr. Jorge Huerta Goldman (Mexico) as Chair, and 
Mr. Pasquale De Micco (Italy) as Vice Chair, for the coming year.   
94. The Chair  thanked the Members for their engagement  in the work of the Committee and their 
support, as well as the Secretariat for its support, during his term. 
95. The meeting was closed .   
__________