RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/35 
13 January 2009 
 (09-0118) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 27-28 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Chair:  Mr. Jorge Huerta (Mexico
) 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 27-
28 October 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/Rev.1-G/SCM/N/1/ALB/2/Rev.1)............................................2  
2. Egypt (G/ADP/N/1/EGY/2/Rev.1/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/EGY/2/Rev.1/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/1/EGY/2/Suppl.1)........................................................................................................ 3 
3. El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3 – G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3) .........................................................3  
4. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/ADP/N/1/MKD/2 AND 
G/ADP/N/1/MKD/2/Suppl.1) (ADP ONLY) ...........................................................................3  
5. Ukraine (G/ADP/N/1/UKR/1 – G/SCM/ N/1/UKR/1 – G/SG/N/1/UKR/1) ...........................3  
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LE GISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE ..............................................................................4  
1. Albania (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/2–G/SCM/N/1/ALB/2 and G/ADP/N/1/ALB/1/Suppl.1 
–G/SCM/N/1/ALB/1/Suppl.1) ..................................................................................................4  
2. China (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.6 – AD only)......................................................................4  
3. Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3 – G/SCM/N/1/CRI/3)............................................................5  
4. Guatemala (G/ADP/N/1/GTM/3 – G/SCM/N/1/GTM/3).......................................................5  
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS .................................................................6  
1. Review of semi-annual reports ................................................................................................6  
2. Draft revised format fo r semi-annual reports........................................................................9  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS :  NOTIFICATIONS ......................................11  
E. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ..............................12  
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION ......................16  
G. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION ..............................16  G/ADP/M/35 
Page 2  
 
  H.
 INVESTIGATION BY PERU FO R THE APPLICATION OF ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON 
IMPORTS OF PORTLAND CEMENT (GREY ) ORIGINATING IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – 
ITEM REQUESTED BY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ......................................................................17  
I. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................18  
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................19  
K. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE  18.6) ...............................20  
 
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL 
NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) 
3. The Chair  noted that items A (i) through (v) of th e agenda concerned the review of new 
legislative notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee, and that as always, the reviews 
would be conducted in accordance with the pertin ent procedures adopted by  the Committee, found in 
document G/ADP/W/284.   
 
4. The Chair informed Members that the deadlines for the submission of documents for the spring 
2009 regular meetings of the Committee, the Worki ng Group on Implementation, and the Informal 
Group on Anti-Circumvention had been established, and would be circ ulated by the Secretariat in a 
reminder document indicating those deadlines, as well as the analogous deadlines for the spring 
meetings of the SCM and Safeguards Committees.   
 5. Concerning the review of the legi slative notifications on the agenda, any written questions were 
to have been submitted to the Member concerned, an d to the Secretariat, not later than 6 October 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 la ter than 10 November 2008.  The deadline for written 
answers to all written questions we re to be submitted to the Member posing the question, and to the 
Secretariat, not later than 1 December 2008.    6. The Chair also noted that, as had been indicate d in the annotated draf t agenda, most of the 
legislative notifications to be re viewed were multiple-symbolled.  He  proposed that the primary review 
of those notifications take place in this Committee, recalling that delegations that had specific questions 
pertaining to countervailing measures  and/or safeguards we re free to take those questions up in the 
respective Committees.    
1. Albania (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/2/Rev.1-G/SCM/N/1/ALB/2/Rev.1) 
7. The written questions concerning the notification of Albania  can be found in the following 
document: 
G/ADP/Q1/ALB/10 – submitted by the European Communities 
8. The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
NO WRITTEN REPLIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE.  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. Egypt (G/ADP/N/1/EGY/2/Rev.1/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/EGY/2/Rev.1/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/1/EGY/2/Suppl.1) 
9. The written questions concerning the notification of Egypt  can be found in the following 
document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/EGY/7-G/SCM/Q1/EGY/7-G/SG/Q1/EGY/3 – submitted by the United States.   
 
10. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document:   
NO WRITTEN REPLIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE. 
3. El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3 – G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3) 
11. The written questions concerning the notification of El Salvador can be found in the 
following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/SLV/4-G/SCM/Q1/SLV/4 – submitted by the United States 
 12. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/SLV/5-G/SCM/Q1/SLV/5 – replies to the United States 
4. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/ADP/N/1/MKD/2 AND 
G/ADP/N/1/MKD/2/Suppl.1) (ADP ONLY) 
13. 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 And Matsu 
 
G/ADP/Q1/MKD/7-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/7 – submitted by the European Communities 
 
14. The written answers to these questions receive d to date can be found in the following 
documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MKD/4-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/4 - replies to the European Communities (.../MKD/1) 
  G/ADP/Q1/MKD/5-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/5 & Co rr.1 – replies to the United States 
 
 G/ADP/Q1/MKD/6-G/SCM/Q1/MKD/6 – replies to the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen And Matsu 
 
5. Ukraine (G/ADP/N/1/UKR/1 – G/SCM/N/1/UKR/1 – G/SG/N/1/UKR/1) 
15. The written questions concerning the notification of Ukraine  can be found in the following 
documents: G/ADP/M/35 
Page 4  
 
   G/ADP/Q1/UKR/1-G/SCM/Q1/UKR/1 – submitted by China 
  G/ADP/Q1/UKR/2-G/SCM/Q1/UKR/2 & Add.1 – submitted by the European Communities   G/ADP/Q1/UKR/3-G/SCM/Q1/UKR/3 – submitted by the United States  
 
16. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/UKR/4-G/SCM/Q1/UKR/4 – replies to China G/ADP/Q1/UKR/5-G/SCM/Q1/UKR/5 – replies to the United States G/ADP/Q1/UKR/6-G/SCM/Q1/UKR/6 – re plies to the European Communities 
17. The Committee took note
 of the notifications, questions, answers and statements. 
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISL ATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
1. Albania (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/2–G/SCM/N/1/ALB/2 and G/ADP/N/1/ALB/1/Suppl.1 –
G/SCM/N/1/ALB/1/Suppl.1) 
18. 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 and Matsu 
 G/ADP/Q1/ALB/8-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/8 – follow-up questions from the United States 
  The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following documents: 
  G/ADP/Q1/ALB/7-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/7 & Suppl.1 – replies to the European Communities, the 
United States and the Separate Customs Terr itory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
   G/ADP/Q1/ALB/9-G/SCM/Q1/ALB/9 – replies to the follow-up questions of the 
United States 
 
2. China (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.6 – AD only) 
19. The written questions concerning the notification of China  can be found in the following 
documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/69–G/SCM/Q1/CHN/69 – submitted by the United States 
 20. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/70-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/70 – replies to the United States  
  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 5 
 
 
  3. Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3 – G/SCM/N/1/CRI/3) 
21. The written questions concerning the notification of Costa Rica  can be found in the following 
documents:   
 G/ADP/Q1/CRI/13–G/SCM/Q1/CRI/13 – submitted by the United States 
 
22. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CRI/14-G/SCM/Q1/CRI/14 – replies to the United States 
 
4. Guatemala (G/ADP/N/1/GTM/3 – G/SCM/N/1/GTM/3) 
23. The written questions concerning the notification of Guatemala  can be found in the 
following documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/GTM/14–G/SCM/Q1/GTM/14 – submitted by the United States 
 24. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/15-G/SCM/Q1/GTM/15 – replies to the United States 
25. The Chair
 reminded Members that any questions c oncerning the reviewed legislation for 
which a written answer was desired had to be subm itted in writing to the Member concerned with a 
copy to the Secretariat not later than close of business on 10 November 2008.  Written answers to all 
questions submitted in writing had to be s ubmitted not later than close of business on 
1 December 2008. 
26. For the spring 2009 meeting, in accordance with the Committee's agreed procedures, all new 
legislative notifications that had circulated in all three languages at least six weeks before the meeting, 
i.e., by 23 March, would be placed on the agenda for review.  Shortly after this date, the Secretariat 
would circulate a document informing Members of all of the legislative notifications to be reviewed at the spring meeting.  Written questions concerning those and any other new
 legislative notifications 
would need to be submitted not less than three w eeks before the meeting, i.e., by 13 April 2009. 
27. The Chair further noted that any Member wishing to place any previously-reviewed 
legislative notification on the agenda would need to submit questions in writing to the Member in 
question, with a copy to the Secretariat, not la ter than six weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 
23 March 2009.  Written answers also were to be  submitted in advance, by 20 April 2009.   
28. Finally, the Chair drew attention to the fact that some Members had yet to submit any 
notification concerning legislation.  This was a matt er of concern to all Members, from the point of 
view of transparency and better understanding.  Fo r many Members all that would be required was a 
single nil notification.  For any Members that condu cted anti-dumping investigations but had not yet 
notified their legislation, it was all the more im portant for the Committee to have the opportunity to 
review and ask questions about that legislation.  Thus, the Chair encouraged all Members that had not 
yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.   
29. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.   G/ADP/M/35 
Page 6  
 
  C. 
SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of semi-annual reports  
30. The Chair recalled that a reques t for semi-annual reports for th e first half of 2008 had been 
circulated in document G/ADP/N/173, dated 1 July 2008, with a due date of 31 August 2008.  It 
appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping ac tions during the period in question had submitted a 
semi-annual report.  He reminded those Members ta king no anti-dumping actions that all that was 
necessary was to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year.    31. For those Members reporting anti-dumping actions, the Chair emphasized the importance of 
submitting those notifications on a timely basis.  Ma ny of the reports for the covered period had arrived 
after the deadline, some significantly so.  Circulati ng and translating the reports sufficiently before the 
meeting at which they were to be reviewed allo wed Members the opportunity to study them, and to 
formulate any questions, which contributed to th e quality of the Committee's discussion and was an 
important part of the transparency function that these reports were intended to fulfil.  He therefore encouraged all Members to make an effort to  submit their semi-annual reports on time.   
 
32. The Chair further noted that so me semi-annual reports for the second half of 2007 had been 
submitted after the Spring 2008 meeting, and so had not been reviewed by the Committee.  Members 
were free to raise questions abou t any semi-annual reports for past periods that had not already been 
reviewed by the Committee.    
33. Turning to the semi-annual reports  for the first half of 2008, the Chair noted that the Members 
that had submitted such reports were identified in  paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/173/Addendum 1, 
dated 21 October 2008.  The reports had been translat ed to the extent possible, but late submission 
obviously meant that some were not available for the meeting in all three languages.   
 
34. In addition to the Members who submitted semi-a nnual reports of actions taken, a number of 
Members, listed in pa ragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/173 Adde ndum 1, had notified the Committee 
that they had not taken any anti-d umping actions during the period in question.  After the document was 
circulated, Nigeria had submitted such a nil notification.    35. The Chair also pointed out that there remained a significant number of Members that had not 
responded to the request for semi-annu al reports, which applied to all Me mbers, whether or not they had 
taken anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  These Members were identified in 
paragraph 3 of the document.  He again urged all Me mbers to comply with this important notification 
requirement.    
36. The Committee conducted the review of the semi-a nnual reports that had been submitted for the 
first half of 2008.  No Member raised questions or  made comments concerni ng the semi-annual reports 
of the following Members:  Argentina , Australia , Brazil , Canada , Chile , China , Colombia , Costa  
Rica , Egypt , European  Communities
, Indonesia , Israel , Jamaica , Japan , Malaysia , Chinese  
Taipei , Thailand , Trinidad  and Tobago , Turkey , Ukraine , and United States .   
 
37. Concerning the semi-annual report of Brazil , no delegation raised a question, but the delegate 
of Brazil  recalled that at the Committee's spring mee ting, the United States had presented questions 
related to Brazil's investigation on pre-sensitized off-set plates.  Brazil's reply to was that there had been 
no change in the scope of the investigation.  Brazil ha d included a reference to that investigation in its 
semi-annual report under column 10 for purposes of tran sparency.  What actually had happened was that 
Brazil had decided to extend the investigation from one year to one-and-a-half years.   
  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 7 
 
 
  38. In respect of the report of India , the delegate of the United States  noted that in the list of 
measures in force there were two dates listed for the measure on sodium cyanide from the United States, 27 December 1999, the date of the original meas ure and 9 December 2005, the date of extension 
resulting from the sunset review.  However, there we re no similar extension dates for flexible slabstock 
polyol, styrene butadiene rubber, an iline or caustic soda, so the Unite d States requested  clarification on 
the status of those measures, in particular, whether there were on-go ing sunset reviews or whether the 
measures had been terminated?  39. The United States also noted that in the list of  anti-dumping measures wh ich had lapsed or been 
removed after review, there were several recently impo sed measures for which the duties were listed as 
having lapsed or been withdrawn.  The United Stat es asked India to explain the circumstances that 
would lead to an anti-dumping duty such as those reported lapsing or being withdrawn. 
 40. The representative of India
 noted that his delegation had only received the questions the 
preceding Friday, so that his answers were tentative and India reserved the right to come back.  With 
regard to sodium cyanide, the date of imposition of the original  measure was 27 December 1999, and 
the second date, 9 December 2005, was the date of impos ition of measures after the sunset review.  This 
information seemed to have been added by the WTO Secretariat, because Indi a had not mentioned the 
second date in the soft copy of its report.  The sec ond date seemed to have been  added in, in a few other 
cases as well.  To maintain consistency, India wa s mentioning in its reports only the date of imposition 
of original measures.  As for the question whether anti-dumping duties continued to be imposed after the 
sunset reviews on slabstock polyol, styrene butadiene rubber, aniline, and caustic soda, the answer was 
yes, these anti-dumping duties had been continued.   41. On the list of anti-dumping cases in which the duties had lapsed, or been  removed after review, 
in the remarks column the remark "duty lapsed" denoted that no suns et review had been initiated and the 
remark "duty withdrawn" denoted that the anti-dumping duty ha d been withdrawn after conducting a 
sunset review.  The Indian delegation was happy to  answer any follow-up questions before the next 
Committee meeting, and would appreciate re ceiving any such questions in writing.   
 42. The representative of the United States
 recognized that his delegation's questions had been 
given to India rather late, and stated that th e questions would be provided in written form. 
 
43. The Chair  stated that the Secretariat would be in c ontact with the Indian delegation on the issue 
of the dates.    44. With respect to the semi-annual report of Korea , the representative of Korea
 stated that there 
appeared to have been a miscommunication between his delegation and the Secretariat, as the second 
page of Korea's list of outstandi ng anti-dumping measures was missing from the report as circulated.  In 
particular, 10 products from eight c ountries, including Indonesia, India,  Canada, US, Spain, Singapore, 
Malaysia, Chinese Taipei, were missing from the li st of outstanding anti-d umping measures.  Korea 
would resubmit the missing information to rectify the problem.    
45. The delegate of the United States
 asked whether or not the measures on imports of choline 
chloride and polyvinyl alcohol from the United States  had been terminated, or whether perhaps this had 
to do with the missing pages.    46. The representative of Korea
 replied that those two measures were still effective and should have 
been inscribed in the list of outstanding anti-dumping measures. 
 47. Concerning the semi-annual report of Mexico , the representative of the United States
 raised 
three points.  First, Mexico had submitted its semi-a nnual report a bit late, so the United States request 
that the Committee be able to discuss this report at the Spring 2009 meeting.   G/ADP/M/35 
Page 8  
 
   
48. Second, the sunset review of ammonium sulpha te imports from the Unit ed States had been 
initiated on 22 May 2007.  In the Decree amending, supplementing or repealing various provisions of 
the Foreign Trade Act notified to this Committee, Ar ticle 89(f)4 stated:  "within a period not exceeding 
220 days from the date following the publication of th e Resolution initiating the review in the Official 
Diary, the Ministry shall issue the final Resolution whereby it may either decide to extend the duty in 
effect for another five years, following the date on wh ich the duty lapses.  In so deciding, the Minister 
may modify the amount thereof or the other action could be that the countervailing duty would be 
eliminated".  Given that as of the end of the se mi-annual reporting period this proceeding had been 
ongoing for more than a year, the United States was interested to know when Mexico would issue the 
final resolution regarding this sunset review. 
 49. Third, there did not appear to have been a su nset review of the meas ure on imports on red and 
golden delicious apples from the Un ited States, although more than six years had passed since the listed 
August 2002 imposition of final anti-du mping measures.  The United St ates queried why this measure 
had not been terminated. 
 50. The delegate of Mexico
 stated that Mexico had always been in favour of transparency, 
particularly with regard to anti-dumping measures , and the semi-annual repor t was detailed, and was a 
fundamental tool and instrument for ensuring transparency.  Unfort unately there ha d been certain 
problems concerning the preparation of this semi-annual  report which had caused the slight delay in its 
presentation.  Mexico had not been able to provide the semi-annual report any ea rlier, but nevertheless 
would be more careful about this in the future.  On the specific questions of the United States, regarding 
the duties on the imports of ammonium sulphate and the red and golden delicious apples, no experts 
from the capital were present at the meeting, and Mexico therefore was not able to reply to these 
questions at that time.  Neverthele ss, the delegation would send a written reply to the United States after 
having contacted the capital. 
 51. With respect to the semi-annual report of South Africa , the delegation of Brazil
 had submitted 
written questions which ha d been circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/ZAF/1.   
 52. The representative of South Africa
 indicated that a written respon se would be provided as soon 
as possible after the meeting, and gave the follo wing preliminary response s.  The retrospective 
implementation of anti-dumping duties to the date of  imposition of the provisional payment in the case 
of A4 paper originating in and imported from Braz il and Indonesia had led to  the Supreme Court of 
Appeal Decision against ITEC, the Commission.  The Court had ruled that ITEC had made an error in 
the way it calculated the five-year period beyond which anti-dumpi ng duties could not be maintained if 
a sunset review was not initiated.   
 53. The Supreme Court of Appeal had determined that  in the context of Sout h African legislation, 
the five year period should have commenced at th e date of imposition of provisional payments and not 
the date of imposition of definitive measures.  The duty on A4 paper originating in or imported from Brazil and Indonesia therefore had been terminated.  This judgement obviously  had ramifications for 
other duties imposed by South Africa.  The Commis sion was in the process of consulting with legal 
counsel and the government department s of other jurisdictions.  The intention was to approach the High 
Court in South Africa for a decision regarding the effe ct of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal 
on other anti-dumping du ties in place.   
 
54. With regard to the anti-dumping duties on susp ension PVC originating in or imported from 
Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and the United  States, the Commission  had already made a 
recommendation to the Minister of Trade and Industry to withdraw the duties with  retrospective effect to 
the date of the five-year expiry of the duty, a nd Minister had approved this recommendation some 
months before.  However, due to changes in the Mini stry of Finance, implemen tation had been delayed.   G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 9 
 
 
  South Africa was, however , expecting implementation, and withdr awal of these duties, in the next 
month.  55. The delegate of the United States
 expressed his delegation's general concern over Venezuela 's 
continued failure to submit semi-annual notifications to this Committee.  The United States had some 
products that were subject to anti-dumping orders in Venezuela and thus had an interest in this.  The 
United States requested Venezuela to provide some sort of status update with respect to this measure.  56. The representative of Venezuela
 replied in respect of the de finitive anti-dumping measures 
imposed by Venezuela on imports of polyvinyl chlo ride from the United Stat es, that as regards the 
results of the five-year sunset review, as it had indicated at previous meetings, these would be notified to 
the WTO once the determinations had been made.   57. The Chair
 opened the floor for any comments or questions regarding any semi-annual reports 
for previous periods that had not been reviewed pr eviously by the Committee because they had arrived 
after the meeting at which the reports for the peri ods in question had been reviewed.  No delegation 
requested the floor.  
 58. The Chair thanked delegations for the questions a nd comments that they had raised on the semi-
annual reports, and for the answers that they had provide d.  As usual, the exchange had been very useful 
and beneficial to all.    
59. The Committee took note
 of the semi-annual reports, que stions, answers and statements.  
 
2. Draft revised format for semi-annual reports 
60. The Chair  recalled that that during 2005 and 2006,  the Committee had engaged in informal 
consultations to review the format for semi-annual re ports under Article 16.4, with a view to revising 
it so as to improve the reporting of information concerning Members' anti-dumping actions.  The 
Committee had made considerable progress during that  exercise, and at the Committee's meeting in 
October 2006 a draft revised format, copies of which were available in the meeting room, had been proposed for adoption.  While there had been broa d support for the draft, a reservation had been 
expressed as to one area of the draft, as a result of wh ich no consensus had been reached at that time.  
The Chair informed the Committee th at he had been engaged in cont acts with a number of delegations 
on this issue, and in his latest consultations w ith Members, one Member had reiterated its grave 
systemic concerns over the revised format of the se mi-annual report in the light of the objective of the 
exercise to improve transparency of Members' anti-dumping actions.  Yet, that Member had indicated that without prejudice to its position and in the spir it of cooperation, it would not oppose the adoption 
of the revised format by the Committee.    
61. The Committee adopted
 the format.   
 62. The Chair thanked Members for their very constr uctive engagement on this issue, which had 
allowed the Committee to take a decision on a matter that had been pending for quite some time.  He 
especially appreciated the flexibility shown by the delegation that had expressed the reservation, and 
assured that delegation that its system ic concerns were duly noted.   
 63. The Chair informed Members that the Secretaria t would in the coming days circulate the new 
format in document G/ADP/1/Rev.1.  He hoped and expected that as the format began to be used, 
Members would see an increase in both the quality a nd the quantity of information provided, to the 
benefit of all.  The Secretariat stood ready to pr ovide advice to Members concerning the new format 
as they began to make the necessary in ternal changes to implement it.   
 G/ADP/M/35 
Page 10  
 
  64. On the subject of implementation, the Chair noted that the new format was considerably 
different from the old one, and that it would require some time for many or most Members to modify 
their internal procedures for gathering the informat ion and filling in the form.  For this reason, he 
proposed that Members agree to begin reporting data using the new format as of the reports covering 
the period January-June 2009, the deadline for whic h would be late August 2009.  Thus, one more 
period of data, for the second half of 2008, w ould be collected using the old format.   
 
65. The Committee so decided
.   
66. The Chair  thanked the delegations that had particip ated in the latest consultations.  Their 
effort and openness to achieve consensus had been ex tremely useful for this agreement.  He thanked 
as well all of the delegations that had participated in the drafting of this new format, and recognized 
all the effort taken in the previous process.  He thanked the previous Chairs and the Secretariat for 
their efforts as well.   
67. The representative of Japan  recalled that at the Committee' s meeting in October 2007, his 
delegation had made an intervention to request a solution to the Chair's consultations.  However, 
nothing had been undertaken since then.  His delegation again had expressed concern at the 
Committee's meeting in April 2008, and had requested the Secretariat and the Chair to issue a note explaining the state of play and the issues.  The Japanese delegation had attached importance to this 
issue for a long time, with a view to enhance transparency of anti-dumping measures with due 
consideration as to a proper balance between maximi zed information and burden  for the investigating 
authority.   
68. In addition, Japan had had systemic concerns  about leaving the matter undecided for such a 
long time after Members' collective efforts in 2005 and 2006.  Since the beginning of October, his 
delegation had assumed a facilitating ro le on this issue with the highest resolve.  They had actively 
contacted other Members and made efforts to renew confidence in this exercise.   
69. Japan had welcomed that the new Chair had unde rtaken serious and effective consultations, 
and highly appreciated his strong leadership and energy to achieve the adoption of the new format.  
His approach of creating confidence and building a gradual consensus without recourse to unilateral 
power plays was a best practice for a Chair.  Japan also appreciated the contribution of the Vice Chair 
to the process.  Japan also commended all the WT O membership on the fact that the our Rules 
community had successfully demonstrated that it c ould achieve a consensus in a professional manner. 
70. Finally, Japan thanked the Secretariat, partic ularly Ms Clarisse Morgan for her patience and 
her professional contribution to this adoption.  She ha d kept this dossier for almost three years for all 
the WTO membership, without diminishing its high value.   
71. The representative of Canada
 stated that her delegation had c onsistently supported efforts to 
increase transparency within the context of semi-annual reports for anti-dumping actions and, as such, 
was pleased with the adoption of th e format proposed by the Chair. 
72. The delegate of the United States  thanked the Chair, the previo us Chairs and the Secretariat 
staff for their hard work in reaching a consensu s on this issue.  The United States had noted the 
concerns expressed by others earlier, and appreci ated everyone's flexibility at arriving at a way 
forward on this issue.  The United States hoped that  the successful completion of this exercise would 
ultimately help to improve transparency with  respect to the actions of all Members. 
73. The representative of th e European Communities  also very much appreciated and thanked all 
Members, in particular the Chair, the Vice Chair,  the WTO Secretariat, and the delegations for the 
consensus reached on the proposal, and for the effort undertaken to keep on discussing with the  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 11 
 
 
  objective of achieving a solution to the benefit of all Members.  This, once again, was a good example 
that it was possible to reach consen sus in this forum.  The new format provided, without any doubt, 
better transparency on anti-dumping actions taken, to the benefit of all Members. 
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS :  NOTIFICATIONS  
74. The Chair  recalled that lists of the notifications of  preliminary and final anti-dumping actions 
submitted by Members since the Committee's sp ring meeting could be found in documents 
G/ADP/N/171-172, and G/ADP/N/174-177.  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, Chile, Egypt, European  Communities, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Pakistan, 
South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United States.  He further noted that after document N/177 
was circulated, Peru had submitted such a notification,  which would appear in the next list circulated 
by the Secretariat.   
75. 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 s ubmitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  Those 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 that regard.  He th erefore very strongly urged all Members taking anti-
dumping actions to provide those notifications of pr eliminary and final actions, consistently and in a 
timely fashion.  He reminded Members that the revised minimum information format for those 
notifications, which had been adopted by the Committee in October 2006 (document 
G/ADP/2/Rev.1), contained important clarifications as  to the kinds of actions that should be notified 
and the information that should be provided.   
76. Regarding the notifications before the Comm ittee for review, the Chair noted that the 
delegation of Peru had submitted written qu estions, in documents G/ADP/Q2/ARG/1 and 
G/ADP/Q2/BRA/3, concerning the notifications provi ded by Argentina and Brazil respectively.   
77. The delegate of Argentina
 thanked Peru for the questions it had submitted.  As the questions 
had been received very recently, Argentina was not in  position to answer orally.  The questions were 
being analyzed and Argentina would provide answers in writing.   
78. The representative of Peru  stated that her delegation had presented written questions to 
Argentina, within the timeframe established by  the Committee, concerning the alleged dumping of 
Peruvian and Chinese exports of certain zip fastener s.  The questions reflected Peru's concerns over 
the initiation of the investigation.  In particul ar, in the first report published by Argentina's 
investigating authority, not all of the information presented by the Peruvian exporting firm within the 
established deadline had been taken into account, contrary to Art. 6.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Nevertheless, the authority had ta ken account of informati on submitted late by a 
domestic firm.  In addition, the latter information had not been made available to the interested 
parties, and the exporters thus had not been able to exercise their right of defence, contrary to 
Articles.6.1.2, 6.1.3 of the Agreement.  This pa rtial use of the submitted information had led the 
investigating authority to determine an alleged marg in of dumping by Peru of 483.06 per cent in its 
first report, compared with 93.95 per cent when th e investigation was initiated.  Peru's authorities 
were closely following the investigative process in  Argentina concerning the Peruvian exports, and 
urged the Argentine authorities to consider the inform ation submitted by the Peruvian exporters in the 
next phases of the investigation, that is, the prelimin ary determinations of injury and causation, in full 
conformity with the multilateral rules of the WT O.  Peru looked forward to receiving the written 
answers from Argentina to its written questions.   G/ADP/M/35 
Page 12  
 
  79. The delegate of Brazil
 thanked Peru for the questions, which Brazil understood could have 
been raised under agenda item I., Other Business,  as no preliminary or definitive AD actions had yet 
been applied.  What Brazil had underway was an investigation of probable dumping practices, on 
imports of biaxially-oriented polypropylene ("BOPP") film from Peru and other countries.  No measure had yet been applied.  Brazil would provide further clarifications on the matter in a bilateral 
meeting that it had scheduled with the delegation of  Peru the following day, and would provide full 
answers on all topics that had been ra ised in Peru's written questions.   
80. The representative of Peru
 stated that in August 2008, the Brazilian investigating authority 
had initiated an investigation on unprinted BOPP f ilm from Argentina, Chile, China, Ecuador, the 
United States, and Peru.  Peru wished to regist er its concern over the procedures followed by the 
Brazilian authority in initiating that investigation, es pecially in respect of the information it had used 
at initiation to calculate the normal value and to determine the like product for unprinted BOPP film.  
The delegations already had had informal consultati ons on this matter and would continue to do so.  
Peru exhorted the Brazilian investigating authority to use the complete information submitted by the 
Peruvian exporters in the investigation so as to ma ke a rigorous determination in conformity with the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  Peru looked forward to receiving the written answers to its written 
questions.   
81. The delegate of Ecuador  thanked Brazil for its notification in document G/ADP/N/177, in 
which it had kindly informed the WTO regarding th e initiation of an investigation on BOPP film from 
Ecuador and other WTO Member countries.  In genera l, Ecuador shared the concerns that had been 
expressed by Peru.  Ecuador agreed, however, with the clarification made by Brazil concerning the 
interpretation of Art. 16.4 of the Agreement.  Ec uador also was to have a bilateral meeting with 
Brazil, and thanked that delegati on for being open to clarify certain points regarding the initiation. 
82. The Committee took note  of the questions, answers and statements.   
E. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
83. The Chair  recalled that pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization,  all subsidiary bodies, including the Committee, 
"which have a mandate covering China's commitme nts under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol 
shall, within one year after accession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by China of the WTO Agreement and of the related provis ions of [the] Protocol".  China was to provide 
relevant information in advance of the review, in cluding information specified in Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  China could also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to any other 
specific commitments made by other Members in the Protocol, in subsidiary bodies which had a 
relevant mandate.  The Committee was required promp tly to report the results of the review to the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  The review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an ea rlier date decided by the General Council.   
 
84. There were no procedures set out for the conduct of the transitional review in the Protocol, 
except that China was to provide relevant informati on in advance of the review.  In this regard the 
Chair noted that there was no information sp ecified for submission to the Committee under 
Annex 1A.    
85. The Chair noted that the delegations of the United States and Japan had submitted questions in 
the context of the transitional re view (documents G/ADP/W/467 and W/468, respectively).  The Chair 
invited Members to make any general statements.     G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 13 
 
 
  86. The representative of the United States  noted that this was the seventh annual Transitional 
Review of China, and that the Transitional Review Mechanism continued to be useful in helping to 
provide needed additional transparency on China' s trade regime so that Members could better 
understand and assess China's progr ess in implementing and complyi ng with its WTO obligations.  
Regarding anti-dumping, this was the seventh annual  review of China's impl ementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mechan ism of China's Protocol of Accession.  These 
reviews provided Members an opportunity  to consider China's efforts to  meet its obligations under the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.    87. As it had in prior reviews, the United States  observed that China had been incrementally 
moving forward in meeting its obligat ions.  There remained aspects of China's anti-dumping regime that 
were obscure, however, making it difficult for Memb ers to confirm whether China was meeting the 
standards of transparency and pr ocedural fairness embodied within  the requirements of the Anti-
dumping Agreement.    
88. China continued to be an active user of the anti-dumping remedy.  In past Transitional Reviews 
before the Committee, the United States had expresse d concerns that critical arguments or evidence put 
forward by interested parties ha d not been addressed adequately in either preliminary or final 
determinations by China's administering authorit y, the Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM.  As 
China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many of th e measures it had put in place had now reached 
the five-year mark, with several more reaching that  point in the coming year.  Given the procedural 
fairness issues that the United States had encoun tered in prior Chinese anti-dumping proceedings, it was 
critical that China ensure that the procedures gove rning the expiration and revi ew of measures met the 
high standards of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Full access to critical argume nts and evidence had to 
be provided to interested parties in  sunset reviews, as well as full opportunities for due process.  In 
particular, details of the factual basis and reasoning supporting the inves tigating authority's decisions as 
well as complete accounts of the pet itioners' arguments and briefs had to  be available to all interested 
parties.  While China had a basic regulation pr oviding for the conduct of sunset reviews, the 
United States urged China to continue to develop those regulations and proce dures as soon as possible 
and notify them promptly to the Committee.    89. The United States also urged China to apply fair  procedures to all part ies involved in a sunset 
review as envisioned by the Anti-dumping Agreemen t.  This included but was not limited to timely 
access to administrators, and favoura ble consideration of hearing requests , as embodied in Article 6.2 of 
the AD Agreement.  The United States urged China to provide all interested parties with the opportunity 
to raise issues in an open and transparent setting and at an early stage of every proceeding, rather than relying on private meetings with sele cted parties as the principal means of listening to the concerns and 
arguments of all of the parties.  The United States reiterated that interested parties not present for private 
meetings should be quickly informed  of the matters discussed at thos e meetings, and should be given an 
opportunity to present their rebuttals  in accordance with Article 6.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.   
 90. The United States also again urged China to  refine the process by which MOFCOM and 
Chinese customs officials at China's ports confirmed 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 Article 5.9 of the Anti-dum ping Agreement, which provided that anti-dumping 
proceedings were not to hinder cust oms clearance.  In prior Transi tional Reviews, the US government 
had described reports from respond ing parties regarding Chinese cust oms authorities either assessing 
anti-dumping duties on merchandise not subject to  a measure or imposing seemingly unreasonable 
burdens of proof before allowing entry of non- subject merchandise.  Although MOFCOM had shown 
improvement in responding in a timely manner to th ese customs problems once raised by interested 
parties, these situations seemed needlessly hindered by the lack of uniform procedures to resolve such 
disputes.    G/ADP/M/35 
Page 14  
 
  91. The United States recognised the progress that China had made in developing a legal framework 
for its anti-dumping regime that took into account the principles of transparency  and fair procedures as 
set forth in the Anti-dumping Agreement.  The United  States urged China to continue to improve the 
conduct of its anti-dumping proceedings in order to complement that progress.   
 
92. The United States looked forward to seeing con tinued improvements and offered its assistance 
to China in pursuit of that goal.    93. The representative of Japan
 drew attention to the document submitted by his delegation 
(G/ADP/W/468), which raised two specific questions regarding China's anti-dumping practices.  The 
first question concerned the application of facts av ailable by MOFCOM.  The previous year, Japan had 
voiced its concern about this issue.  The key ques tion was whether the investigating authority could 
make determinations based on the fa cts available when it had failed to ensure that so-called unknown 
exporters or producers were aware of the consequences of not suppl ying relevant information.  The 
explanation from China the previous year indicated th at all interested parties could gain access to the 
questionnaires from the official website and thereby could be aware of their consequences.  In many 
cases, however, parties who gained access to the que stionnaires from the websit e were limited to those 
exporters or producers that were  already known to the investiga ting authorities.  Under these 
circumstances, Japan queried why MOFCOM could apply facts available to the so-called unknown 
exporters or producers, in the light of Article 6. 8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-dumping 
Agreement.  Japan noted that other WTO Members seemed to apply a more reasonable average rate or 
indicative rate under such circumstances  for unknown exporters or producers.   
 94. Turning to the second question, about injury dete rminations, the previous year Japan had voiced 
its concern that MOFCOM's injury determination in  the investigation on electrolytic capacitor paper 
originating in Japan might run counter to Article 3. 1 and 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  The final 
determination of that case had simp ly concluded that imports from Ge rmany and the United States had 
had little effect on injury, without providing suffic ient and reasonable explan ations as to how the 
investigating authority had separate d and distinguished the injurious ef fects of those imports and of the 
imports from Japan.  Japan needed an explanation regarding the details of the analytical methodology 
for the injury determinations of MOFCOM in respec t of the injurious effects of imports from countries 
other than Japan.   
 
95. The representative of China
 indicated that his delegation had taken note of the statement that 
had just been made by the United States.  With re gard to the transparency of China's anti-dumping 
regime, including also the transparency regarding customs clearance procedures, China noted that transparency was the funda mental principle of the Organization, and was actually a continuous process 
of each and every Member of the WTO.  In the past seven years, with China's notifications and the 
reviews and the exchange of questions under the agen da items of the legislati on review and others, and 
also China's efforts made under the Transitional Re view Mechanism, China's anti-dumping regime had 
been quite transparent to Members.  It was also Chin a's belief that this regime was consistent with the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  Turning to the detailed re sponses to the specific que stions raised in the two 
documents, the first one, from Japan, concerned the a pplication of facts available.  China believed that 
its practices in this regard were in line with th e requirement of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
Those practices were that China would inform the Members concerned in due time after receiving an 
application for initiation of an anti-dumping investiga tion.  At the initiation of the investigation, the 
notice of initiation would be publishe d and notified to all the known e xporters and producers and also to 
the Members concerned.  China's anti-dumping legisl ation provided 20 days to potential respondents to 
register with its an ti-dumping authority to respond to the inves tigation, and questionna ires would also be 
available on the official website of the Ministry of Commerce for all interested parties, including those 
that had not registered with the an ti-dumping authority in the 20 days provided.  China was puzzled by 
the question of Japan, specifically the sentence in  the document saying that the "parties who can gain 
access to the questionnaire from China's official webs ite or other means are limited to those exporters or  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 15 
 
 
  producers that have already been kno wn to the investigating authority".   China had no secret code for 
the interested parties to gain acce ss to the questionnaire.  It was pu blic, it was accessible by everyone, 
China did not see why there was any limitation on any parties interested in a case to gain access to the 
questionnaire.    
96. It was only for those enterprises not havi ng responded to the questionnaire that the 
determination would be based on in formation or facts available.  Therefore in China's view these 
practices were consistent with Ar ticle 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-dumping Agreement, 
and it seemed to China that the practices  of other WTO Members were the same.   
 
97. Regarding the question from Japan on injury de terminations, as China had explained in the 
previous Transitional Review, in the electrolytic ca pacitor paper case, the competent authority had made 
examinations on the volume of the dumped imports, th e effect of the dumped imports on prices and the 
consequent impact on the domestic  industry, based on positive eviden ce, which was consistent with 
Article 3.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Memb ers could find these examinations in the final 
determination report on pages 29 to 34.  Also, in lin e with Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, 
the competent authority had analyzed the causality between dumped imports an d injury, and then had 
addressed all other factors which mi ght have caused injury.  After the analysis, it was found that other 
factors were not the major reason fo r the material injury, as indicated  on pages 35 to 38 in the final 
report.  China therefore did not think in this regard  that there was an incons istency with Articles 3.1 
and 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.   
 
98. Furthermore, the injurious effect s of those imports from countri es and areas other than Japan 
also had been separately distinguished .  Members could find this on pages 36 to 37 in the final report.  In 
this respect, the Anti-dumping Agreement did not pr ovide for specific method ologies to separate and 
distinguish injurious effects.  Nevertheless, in this  particular case, the comp etent authority had made a 
specific disclosure to the Japanese embassy in Beijin g concerning this issue, and in that disclosure had 
made a detailed explanation in response to the argument of Japan.  After receiving the final 
determination in this case, the re sponding party had applied for an ad ministrative review.  The review 
tribunal had upheld the original determination by th e investigating authority.  After the administrative 
review, no rebuttal arguments had been received.    
99. With regard to the questions on expiry review s raised by the United States, Chapter V of the 
Regulations on Anti-dumping of Ch ina, namely Duration and Review of Anti-dumping Duties and Price 
Undertakings, specifically provide d for how anti-dumping reviews, in cluding expiry reviews, were 
conducted.  The Regulations had first been promulgated on 26 November 2001, and had later been 
revised and promulgated on 31 March 2004.  The Regulations had been notified to the WTO 
(document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Supp1.3).   
 100. The representative of the United States
 stated that concerning expiry reviews, the United States 
understood that the Chinese Ministry  of Commerce might be in the process of preparing additional 
regulations or rules on the conduct of expiry reviews.  The United States asked if this was the case, and 
if so, when China envisioned finishing the developm ent of these regulations or rules and notifying them 
to the Committee.   
 101. The representative of Japan
 stated that his delegation had take n note of the explanation, and had 
a supplementary comment for the record.  Japan still wondered whether the mere posting of the 
questionnaire on the website would be  consistent or not in light of  Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of 
Annex II of the Anti-dumping Agreement, noting th at other Members applied a more reasonable 
average rate or indicative rate not based on the adverse facts availa ble.  In the light of those Members' 
practices, Japan would pursue th is question in due course.   
 G/ADP/M/35 
Page 16  
 
  102. The representative of China
 responded to the question of th e United States that China was 
internally discussing the possibility of having separa te rules on expiry reviews, but that the work was 
still at a very early stage.  If the separate rules were finalized and formally  promulgated, China would 
certainly fulfil its notificati on obligations and provide those rules to the Committee.   
 
103. With regard to the question from Japan, China di d not have much to add,  but had taken note of 
the points made for the record by Japan.    104. The Chair
 thanked delegations for their participation in  the exchange.  He especially thanked the 
delegation of China for its preparation and for the information and answers that it had provided.  He 
equally thanked those Members that  had undertaken to submit written questions and had taken part in 
the discussion.    105. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods in respect of the 
Transitional Review, the Chair noted that the Prot ocol contained no guidelines for these reports.  He 
recalled that in the past, the Chair of the Comm ittee, acting on his or her own responsibility, had 
prepared a brief, factual report, with references to the documents concerned, and attaching the portion 
of the minutes of the meeting which related to the Transitional Review.  The Chair suggested 
proceeding again on that basis.    106. The Committee so decided
.   
 
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
107. The Chair  recalled that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met that morning.   
108. No new papers had been submitted to that m eeting, but Members had made some follow-up 
comments on the issue raised earlier by New Zealand – the so-called bundling of invoices.  Members 
had agreed that work in the Informal Group should co ntinue along the same lin es as had been the case 
until then.   
109. The date for the next meeting of the Info rmal Group had been set for the week of 
4 May 2009, with the exact date to be confirmed in  due course.  The deadline for submissions for that 
meeting was 23 March 2009.   
110. The Committee took note  of the report.   
G. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
111. The Chair  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met that morning.   
112. The Group had continued discussions on export prices to third countries or constructed 
normal value – Article 2.2.  The European Commun ities had answered Members' questions regarding 
its paper on this topic that it had s ubmitted at the Group's spring meeting. 
113. The second topic that had been discussed wa s the determination of significant price 
undercutting in anti-dumping investigations.  New Zealand had introduced a paper on this issue, 
circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/178.  The discussions on this matter had been useful.  A 
number of Members had posed questions to New Zeal and and explained their own practices in this 
regard.  New Zealand had provided oral answers to the questions. 
114. In concluding the meeting, the Chair had encour aged those Members that had not done so to 
submit papers for discussion at the next meeting on the four topics actively under discussion, that is:  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Export prices to third countries or c onstructed 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 be en a significant price undercutting by the 
dumped imports – Article 3.2 .   
115. The next meeting of the Group had been schedule for the week of 4 May 2009, with the exact 
date to be confirmed in due course.   
H. INVESTIGATION BY PERU FO R THE APPLICATION OF ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF 
PORTLAND CEMENT (GREY ) ORIGINATING IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ITEM REQUESTED 
BY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  
116. The delegate of the Dominican Republic  expressed concern over Peru's Initiation Resolution 
for an anti-dumping investigation on imports of portland cement originating in the Dominican 
Republic, published by the Commission on Dump ing and Subsidies of INDECOPI under No. 116-
2007/CDS INDECOPI dated 26 October 2007.  In th e opinion of the Dominican Republic, this 
Resolution (complemented by Report no. 021-2007/ CDS INDECOPI) failed to take into account inter 
alia the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement:  Article 2.4 on the determination of 
dumping; Articles 3.4 and 3.7 on the determination of injury; Article 5.3 on the determination to 
initiate an investigation; and Article 5.8 for not ha ving rejected the request for initiation presented by 
the domestic industry.   
117. Concerning the determination of the existence of dumping, the Dominican Republic observed 
that in making the comparison between the export pr ice and the normal value no relevant adjustments 
had been made for differences in volumes.  Nor had any details been provided, in the Initiation 
Resolution or in the Report, concerning the computa tion of the adjustments made by the investigating 
authority for supposed differences in the level of trade. 
118. The Dominican Republic also was concerned that  the investigating authority, in determining 
the existence of injury, had not taken into account an y of the factors of Article 3.4, whereas there were 
precedents at WTO that even in th e case of determinations based on a threat of injury, in addition to 
the factors in Article 3.7 it also was necessary to take into account the factors in Article 3.4.  The 
Dominican Republic also was surprised that the investigating authority had concluded that the 
exporter had sufficient freely disposable capacity in the sense of Article 3.7 (ii).   
119. In the view of the Dominican Republic, the investigating authority had not observed the 
provisions of Article 5.3 of the Agreement, initia ting the investigation on the basis of evidence of 
dumping and of injury that was not "sufficient" to ju stify the initiation of such an investigation.  By 
initiating an investigation contrave ning Article 5.3, Peru also had violated Article 5.8 of the 
Agreement.   
120. The Dominican Republic requested Peru to reply to the following questions:   
(a) How, in detail, had the investigating au thority calculated the normal value for the 
determination under Article 5.3? G/ADP/M/35 
Page 18  
 
  (b) Regarding the adjustments that had had to be carried out in order to make a fair 
comparison for the purposes of the determination under Article 5.3: 
(i) For which differences had the investig ating authority considered that 
adjustments needed to be made?  
(ii) On what factual basis had it been de termined that the adjustment for 
differences in the level of trade amounted to 35 per cent of the domestic sales 
price (net of TVA)?  Where in the Initiation Resolution (or in Report no. 021-2007/CDS INDECOPI) was that factual basis referred to? 
(c) What analysis had been used to determin e that the exporter had had sufficient freely 
disposable capacity?   
(d) How much time had been given to the exporter to respond to the exporters' 
questionnaire?  
121. The delegate of Peru
 replied that on 2 November 2007, the investigating authority of Peru had 
initiated an investigation on anti-dumping duties on portland cement from the Dominican Republic.  
This initiation had been reported in Peru's semi -annual reports for July-December 2007 and January-
June 2008, as well as in a notification made in Oct ober 2008.  The investigation had not yet been 
concluded and was following its regular course.  As of that date the Commission on Dumping and 
Subsidies of INDECOPI had not applied anti- dumping measures on exports from the Dominican 
Republic.  Peru thanked the Dominican Republic for its in terest in this investigation, and stated that it 
had taken note of its questions, comments and concerns  to the extent possible given that this was the 
first time that Peru had heard them.  Peru asked the Dominican Republic to provide the questions in 
writing so that they could be submitted to the auth orities for reply.  The written answers would be 
forwarded to the delegation of the Dominican Republic.   
122. The representative of Mexico  stated that his delegation had taken note of Peru's intention to 
provide written replies to the concerns that had been expressed by the Dominican Republic.  Mexico 
hoped that the replies would be thorough and comp lete enough to provide a better understanding of 
the nature of these measures, and of the results, which Mexico hoped would be  consistent with the 
Agreement.  As this was a measure that also af fected a Mexican company, Mexico associated itself 
with the concerns expressed by the Dominican Republic.   
123. The Committee took note  of the statements. 
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
- Investigation by Brazil on milk powder – requested by New Zealand  
 
124. The representative of New Zealand  drew to the Committee's attention Brazil's notification, in 
document G/ADP/N/173/BRA, that its anti-dumping du ties on milk from Argentina and Uruguay had 
automatically expired, on 18 Februa ry and 5 April 2008, respectively.  Brazil also had notified in the 
same document that the anti-dumping duties on milk  imported from New Zealand, which had been 
imposed on 23 February 2001, remained in force.  As New Zealand had never exported milk to Brazil, 
it understood that "milk" in this case extended to the export of milk powders.   
125. Brazil had conducted a sunset review in this case in 2006 and in early 2007, and had decided 
to maintain the anti-dumping duty against New Zeala nd, established in the original investigation at 
3.9 per cent, for a further five years.  This w as despite the fact that the New Zealand exporter, 
Fontera, had advised the Brazilian authorities that it had ceased milk powder exports from  G/ADP/M/35 
 Page 19 
 
 
  New Zealand to Brazil due to a change in its stra tegy.  Fontera had advised that it had in fact 
purchased a share in DPA, a major Brazilian dairy company, and was supplying the Brazilian market 
with milk powder via that joint venture.    
126. The decision to extend this measure was, in the view of both Fontera and the New Zealand 
Government, lacking any technical or trade justifi cation.  The New Zealand company had advised the 
Government that since 2005, exports of  milk powder to Brazil had been:   
 2005 - 36 tonnes of skimmed milk powder 
 2006 - 7 tonnes of skimmed milk powder and 10 tonnes of whole milk powder  2007 - no exports  2008 - no exports 
 
127. Given that the duties relating to products fro m Argentina and Uruguay had expired, and given 
the miniscule amount of exports from New Zeala nd to Brazil during the preceding four years, 
New Zealand believed that this duty should automa tically be revoked.  The domestic industry in 
Brazil could not be suffering material injury as a result of exports from New Zealand.   
128. New Zealand requested Brazil to explain why the duties remained in place on the 
New Zealand product given the facts as outlined, and asked Brazil to indicate what practical steps it 
was willing to take to revoke those duties.   
129. The representative of Brazil
 thanked New Zealand for its questions, and recalled, as a first 
reaction, that Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement did no t require a determination of injury but instead a 
determination regarding the recurrenc e of dumping and the related injury.  As a consequence, an anti-
dumping duty could be extended even when there was no trade at all, i.e., the existence of trade was 
not considered as a pre-condition to the extension of  any duty.  Brazil also emphasized, in relation to 
New Zealand's second question, that any interest ed party could apply under Article 11.2 (the 
corresponding provision in the Brazilian Regulation was Article 58) for a re vocation review.  The 
interested parties of course included the New Zealand exporter.  For this reason, if an exporter or any 
other interested party understood that there was a change of circumstance, it could apply to the 
Brazilian Government for revocation. 
130. The representative of New Zealand  thanked the delegate of Brazil for the explanation, but 
noted that there had been a sunset review in  which the New Zealand company had provided the 
information required.  While the situation of no ex ports could be taken into  account under the review 
provisions, the New Zealand exporter was not prepar ed to apply for a revocation review because 
clearly the Brazilian authorities had ignored what the exporter had said during the sunset review, 
which was that it would not supply milk powder to Br azil because of the change of strategy and the 
purchase of a Brazilian company.  The New Zealand exporter thus was somewhat frustrated, as it 
considered that if it entered into an Article 11.2 review again, the time and money would be wasted 
because to the extent that the Brazilian authorities had not accepted what the exporter already had said 
in that context, there was no new information that  it could give to Brazil.  New Zealand thus was 
trying to see if there were a way to solve this  problem without putting the New Zealand company 
through a situation where it would spend time and money to get the same result. 
131. The Committee took note  of the statements. 
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
132. The Committee's spring 2009 regular meeting w as scheduled for the week of 4 May 2009, 
with the exact date to be communicated to Members in due course. G/ADP/M/35 
Page 20  
 
  K. 
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE  18.6) 
133. Pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Agreement, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods.1   
134. The meeting was closed .   
__________ 
                                                      
1 Subsequently circulated as G/L/861.