RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/28 
8 August 2005 
 
 (05-3548) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 7 APRIL 2005 
 
Chairman
:  Mr. Ernesto Fernández (Costa Rica) 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
7 April 2005  ("this meeting"). 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
Page
 
A. AUSTRALIA  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION ...................................2  
B. CHINA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION ..............................................2  
C. EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  
NOTIFICATION ................................................................................................................... .....3 
D. CROATIA  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION ........................................3  
E. JORDAN  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION ..........................................3  
F. FORMER  YUGOSLAV  REPUBLIC  OF MACEDONIA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  
LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION..............................................................................................4  
G. MONGOLIA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION.....................................4  
H. CONTINUATION  OF THE  REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICAT IONS .................................................................................................................. ....4 
I. SEMI-ANNUAL  REPORTS  OF ANTI-DUMPING  ACTIONS ................................................5  
J. PRELIMINARY  AND  FINAL  ANTI-DUMPING  ACTIONS...................................................7  
K. CHAIRMAN'S  REPORT  ON MEETING  OF THE  INFORMAL  GROUP  ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION.................................................................................................................. .7 
L. CHAIRMAN'S  REPORT  ON MEETING  OF THE  WORKING  GROUP  ON 
IMPLEMENTATION................................................................................................................. 7 
M. OTHER  BUSINESS ...................................................................................................................8  
N. DATE  OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING .........................................................................9  
O. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS........................................................................................................9  
 
 G/ADP/M/28 
Page 2  
 
 A. AUSTRALIA
 – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION 
3. The Chairman  noted that the items A-G on the agenda concerned the review of notifications 
of anti-dumping legislation and/or  regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the 
Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (G/ADP/W/284).   
4. The Chairman recalled that deadlines for th e submission of documents for the Fall 2005 
regular meetings of the Committee, the Wo rking Group, and the Informal Group on Anti-
circumvention had been establishe d and would be announced, and circulated shortly in a Secretariat 
reminder document.1    
5. For the review at this meeting, questions con cerning new notifications of legislation were to 
have been submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat no later than 17 March 2005.  As 
provided for in the agreed procedures, Members wh ich had received written questions by the deadline 
were asked to respond orally to those questions duri ng the meeting, and if they were prepared to do 
so, to respond orally to the questions received after that date.  Any Member receiving written 
questions in relation to this meeting was to make avai lable its reply within the time limits applicable.  
At this meeting, supplemental oral questions could be asked, and any Member wishing to receive 
written replies to such questions was to submit them  in writing no later than 28 April 2005.  Written 
answers to all written questions in connection with the review of new notifications, whether received 
prior to the meeting or as written follow-up questions, were to be submitted to the Secretariat no later 
than 23 June 2005. 
6. The Committee then reviewed the notification of Australia , contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.3. 
7. The questions regarding the notification of Aust ralia can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/5–G/SCM/Q1/AUS/5 – Submitted by Japan 
 
 Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
 
 G/ADP/Q1/AUS/6- G/SCM/Q1/AUS/6 - Replies to Japan  
 
8. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers. 
B. CHINA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION   
9. The questions regarding the notification of China  (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppls. 3 & 4) can be 
found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/48-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/48 – Submitted by the EC 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/49-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/49 – Submitted by the EC 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/50-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/50 – Submitted by Japan  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/51-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/51 – Submitted by the US  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/52-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/52 – Submitted by the US  
  
 Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:  
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/53-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/53 - Replies to Japan 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/54 & Suppl.1-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/54 & Suppl.1 – Replies to the US  
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/55 & Suppl.1-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/55 & Suppl.1 – Replies to the EC 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/56 -G/SCM/Q1/CHN/56 – Replies to the EC and the US 
 
                                                      
1 Circulated as document G/ADP/W/445.  G/ADP/M/28 
 Page 3 
 
 
 10. The delegate of the United States  requested clarification on certain written answers provided 
by China:  In respect of the response to question 2, would the referenced cooperation of the Ministry of Agriculture in anti-dumping investigations include making recommendations on substantive 
issues?  Concerning the response to question 10, what  affirmative steps are taken by the Ministry of 
Commerce to identify the known exporters to be made aware of an initiation and to be given a copy of 
the application?  Regarding the refe rences in the response to question 15, inter alia , to "provisional 
rules", when would those rules be notified to the Co mmittee?  In respect of the answer to question 23, 
which indicates that new shippers can obtain the "all others" rate, can such new shippers get their own 
individual margins? 
11. The delegate of China
 replied that he would refer these qu estions to his capital for reply.   
12. The Chairman noted that the questions posed by the EC and the United States, contained 
respectively in G/ADP/Q1/CHN/49-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/49 and G/ADP/Q1/CHN/52-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/52 referred exclusively to counterva iling measures, and that, in accordance with the 
wishes of the submitting delegations, those quest ions would be taken up in the Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, rather than this Committee.   
13. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers. 
C. EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION   
14. No questions were raised concerning this notification, found in document 
G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.6. 
15. The Committee took note  of the notification. 
D. CROATIA  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION   
16. The questions regarding the notification of Croatia  (G/ADP/N/1/HRV/2) can be found in the 
following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/HRV/4-G/SCM/Q1/HRV/4 – Submitted by the EC 
 G/ADP/Q1/HRV/5-G/SCM/Q1/HRV/5 – Submitted by the US   
 Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:  
 G/ADP/Q1/HRV/6-G/SCM/Q1/HRV/6 – Replies to the EC 
 G/ADP/Q1/HRV/7-G/SCM/Q1/HRV/7 – Replies to the US 
 17. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers. 
E. JORDAN  – REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION 
18. The questions regarding the notifications of Jordan  (G/ADP/N/1/JOR/2/Corr.2 and 
G/ADP/N/1/JOR/3) can be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/JOR/4-G/SCM/Q1/JOR/4 – Submitted by the US 
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
G/ADP/Q1/JOR/5-G/SCM/Q1/JOR/5 – Replies to the US 
 
19. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers. G/ADP/M/28 
Page 4  
 
  
F. FORMER
 YUGOSLAV  REPUBLIC  OF MACEDONIA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  
LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION 
20. No questions were received concerning the no tification of the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia , found in document G/ADP/N/1/MKD/1. 
21. The Committee took note  of the notification. 
G. MONGOLIA  - REVIEW  OF NEW  LEGISLATIVE  NOTIFICATION 
22. The Chairman noted that no questions had b een received concerning the notification of 
Mongolia , found in document G/ADP/N/1/MNG/2. 
23. The Committee took note  of the notification. 
H. CONTINUATION  OF THE  REVIEW  OF PREVIOUSLY  REVIEWED  LEGISLATIVE   
NOTIFICATIONS 
24. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the pr ocedure of the Committee, any Member 
wishing to place on the agenda a notif ication of legislation previously  reviewed was to have submitted 
a question in writing at least six weeks prior to the date of the meeting, which in this case was 
24 February 2005.  Written replies were to have been submitted to the Committee before 
24 March 2005.   
25. Questions regarding the previously-reviewed notification of Mexico  
(G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1) can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/14-G/SCM/Q1/MEX/14- Submitted by the US 
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/MEX/15-G/SCM/Q1/MEX/15 – Replies to the US 
26. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers. 
27. Questions regarding the previously-reviewed notification of South Africa 
(G/ADP/N/1/ZAF/2) can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/8-G/SCM/Q1/ZAF/8 - Submitted by the US 
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/9-G/SCM/Q1/ZAF/9– Replies to the US 
28. The delegate of the United States  asked whether South Africa's decisions in specific cases 
were posted on the internet.   
29. The delegate of South Africa  indicated that these reports and final recommendations would be 
available on the internet.  
30. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers.  G/ADP/M/28 
 Page 5 
 
 
 31. The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their replie s to the questions posed, and thanked as 
well the Members that had formulated questions.  Th e process of reviewing notifications continued to 
be a positive one, of benefit to all Members.  The Chairman noted that any follow-up questions for 
which written replies were desired should be su bmitted to the interested Member and to the 
Secretariat not later than 28 April 2005.  Written repl ies to all written questi ons submitted before this 
deadline should be made available no later than 23 June 2005. 
32. The Chairman informed Members that the ne w legislative notification of Albania was 
expected to be on the agenda of the Fall 2005 m eeting.  The Chairman also noted that for a 
previously-reviewed notification to be placed on the agenda of that meeting, written questions should 
be submitted to the Member and the Secretariat no later than 21 September 2005.  As was customary, 
the Secretariat would distribute shortly a documen t containing the deadlines for submissions to the 
Fall meeting of the Committee.  
33. The Chairman expressed continuing concern over the failure of some Members to submit any 
notification at all concerning legislation or regulatio ns relevant to anti-dumping.  He noted that for 
many if not most of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification, indicating that there 
was no such legislation or regulation currently in e ffect, would be sufficient.  For those Members tat 
conducted anti-dumping investigations but had not ye t notified their legislation, it was obviously 
important for transparency and the better understandi ng of all Members that such legislation be 
notified.  He thus encouraged Members who had not yet done so to make their notification of 
legislation promptly. 
34. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
I. SEMI-ANNUAL  REPORTS  OF ANTI-DUMPING  ACTIONS   
35. The Chairman  recalled that the request for semi-a nnual reports covering the second half of 
2004 had been circulated to Members in document G/ADP/N/126, dated 5 January 2005.  The reports 
were to have been submitted by 7 March 2005.  Most Members taking actions had submitted semi-
annual reports, although not all reports  had been submitted by the deadline.  The Chairman hoped that 
there would be continued improvement in this respect.  Particularly for Members making a nil 
notification, reporting consisted simply of submitting a letter reporting that no actions had been taken, 
twice a year.  Although there continued to be so me problems in the formatting of reports, Members 
clearly had made an effort to submit reports in th e format established by the Committee, as set forth in 
the guidelines in document G/ADP/1.  The Secretaria t was always available to assist Members with 
questions about the format of reports.   
36. The Chairman suggested that at the fall meeting, the Committee discuss problems or 
questions relating to the submission of semi-annua l reports with a view to possibly improving the 
format or the guidelines.  The United States expressed support for this idea.  The Chairman noted that 
the Committee would proceed on that basis. 
37. The Chairman noted that Members that had s ubmitted semi-annual reports were identified in 
paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/ 126, dated 1 April 2005.  To the extent possible, the semi-annual 
reports had been translated and circulated to the Committee, and were included in the documents 
made available for the meeting.  In addition,  Trinidad and Tobago ha d submitted a semi-annual 
report, which would be distributed shortly.   
38. In addition to the Members submitting semi-annua l reports, a number of Members, listed in 
paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/126/Add.1, had notified the Committee that they had not taken 
any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.   G/ADP/M/28 
Page 6  
 
 39. While there appeared to be a degree of gene ral compliance with the obligation to submit 
semi-annual reports, or reports of no actions taken, there remained  a significant number of Members 
who had not submitted either type of report and t hus failed to comply with this aspect of the 
requirements set out in Article 16.4 of the Agreem ent.  These Members were identified in document 
G/ADP/N/126/Add.1 at paragraph 3.  The Chairman strongly urged all Members to comply with the 
requirement to submit semi-annual reports in the future. 
40. The Committee then turned to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted. 
41. No questions or comments were raised with r espect to the semi-annual reports of Argentina
, 
Australia , Brazil , Canada , China , Costa Rica , European Communities , Egypt , Jamaica , Japan , Korea , 
New Zealand , Pakistan , Paraguay , Peru , South Africa , Thailand , Chinese Taipei , Turkey , 
United States , or Venezuela .   
42. Regarding the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the delegate of the United States  recalled the 
importance of compliance with the agreed guidelin es for semi-annual reports, and urged all Members 
thus to notify information on all cases pending, even  if no action were taken during a given reporting 
period.  In this regard, he asked why the anti- dumping investigation regarding paracetamol that 
appeared in Indonesia's previous semi-annual repor t in G/ADP/N/119/IDN with an initiation date of 
2 September 2003 no longer appeared in Indon esia's most recent semi-annual report.  The 
United States requested an update on the status of this investigation.   
43. The delegate of Indonesia  responded that this investig ation had been completed on 
5 February 2005, and that a decision by the Minister of Finance was pending.  The delegate of 
Indonesia agreed that the reference to this inv estigation was missing from the semi-annual report, and 
undertook to make the correction.   
44. Regarding the semi-annual report of Mexico , the delegate of the United States  noted that a 
price undertaking on apples had been signed on 29  December 2004, and was to take effect on 
28 February 2005.  It had come to the attention of  the United States that a Mexican Court had recently 
prohibited the administering authority from implem enting the price undertaking, and had ordered the 
authority to reinitiate its anti-dumping inves tigation of apples from the United States.  The 
United States sought clarification from Mexico as to the status of this case.  The delegate of the 
United States  also requested an update on the stat us of Mexico's anti-dumpi ng investigation on leg of 
pork (hams), which had been initiated on 31 May 2004.   
45. The delegate of Mexico  stated that no one was present from the anti-dumping authority and 
that consequently his delegation would have to re ply in writing.  He therefore requested the United 
States to make available its questions in writing.  The delegate of the United States  agreed to do so.   
46. The delegate of the United States  recalled the statement of the Chairman that not all Members 
had provided reports, and stated that it was l ooking forward to receiving the missing semi-annual 
reports as soon as possible.  The United States had had certain questions relating to prior semi-annual 
reports of Malaysia and India, a nd again urged all Members to include  in their semi-annual reports the 
full information on all  open investigations, as this gave the fu ll picture of Members' usage of anti-
dumping remedies.  The United States had been looked forward to receiving updated information 
concerning Malaysia's investigation of newspr int, and India's investigations of TDI and 
cyclohexanone.   
47. The delegate of Malaysia  stated that it would file its se mi-annual report shortly.  Regarding 
the newsprint case against the United States, the investigation had been concluded on 
26 September 2003 with an affirmative final determ ination.  The investigatory report? and gazette 
notification had been sent to all interested parties a nd were available on the official website.  The final 
duties were:  Canada – 33.55 per cent, Indonesia – 5.59-33-14 per cent, Philippines – 31.74 per cent, 
United States – 39.20 per cent.    G/ADP/M/28 
 Page 7 
 
 
 48. The delegate of India  stated that his delegation would submit its semi-annual report very 
shortly.  Concerning TDI and cyclohexanone, no duties had been imposed.   
49. The Chairman thanked the delegations for their questions  and replies.  He stated that the 
exchange of information had been useful.   
50. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
J. PRELIMINARY  AND  FINAL  ANTI-DUMPING  ACTIONS 
51. The Chairman  noted that lists of the notifications  of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions received by the Committee had been circul ated to the Committee in documents G/ADP/N/124 
and Addendum 1, and G/ADP/N/125, /N/127, and /N/128.  Since the previous meeting of the 
Committee, preliminary and final anti-dumping actions had been notified by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, China, the European Co mmunities, Korea, Jamaica, Me xico, New Zealand, Pakistan, 
Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United States , and Uruguay.  The Chairman stated that there 
continued to be a lack of full compliance in th is area.  Some Members who had submitted semi-
annual reports indicating actions in  progress had not submitted reports of preliminary or final actions 
taken.  If the Committee was to carry out its role  in monitoring and discussing actions taken by 
Members, it was extremely important that Members notify their measures as required by the 
Agreement.  The Chairman strongly urged all Members to comply with their notification 
requirements.  
52. The delegate of the United States  suggested that that this notification procedure be part of the 
discussions to be undertaken on problems or quest ions relating to the s ubmissions of semi-annual 
reports.   
53. The Committee  took note of the statements made. 
K. CHAIRMAN'S  REPORT  ON MEETING  OF THE  INFORMAL  GROUP  ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION 
54. The Chairman  recalled that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met on 
6 April 2005.  Members had had an interesting de bate, in particular regarding a document submitted 
by New Zealand, and in respect of questions that had been raised earlier by the United States.  As to 
the continuation of work in the Group, it was clear from the debate that Members wished to continue 
reviewing anti-circumvention measures in the co ntext of the Informal Group pursuant to its 
Ministerial mandate.  The Chairman asked the delega tes thus to make the best use of the Group by 
submitting documents and by participating actively in the discussions.   
55. The next meeting of the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention was scheduled for the 
morning of 1 November 2005, and the deadline fo r the submission of communications for that 
meeting was 20 September 2005.  The Chairman urged delegations to respect th is deadline to enable 
the Secretariat to make arrangments for the timely translation and circulation of documents.   
56. The Committee  took note of the Chairman's report.   
L. CHAIRMAN'S  REPORT  ON MEETING  OF THE  WORKING  GROUP  ON 
IMPLEMENTATION 
57. The Chairman  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met on 5 April 2005.  
The Group had continued debates on the new issues referred to it by the Committee at the Spring 
2003 meeting.  Although only four Members had s ubmitted documents on three of the new issues, the G/ADP/M/28 
Page 8  
 
 debates had been interesting, and had made it possible for Members to better understanding the 
questions raised and the relevant practices of Member s.  Three of the four documents had been filed 
by relatively new users of anti-dumping instrument s.  The Chairman had urged Members which had 
not already done so to submit documents on these issues.  The Group had decided to continue the 
process of debating the four issues then before it.  The Group had found very useful in this context a 
document submitted by the delegation of Hong Kong, Ch ina, which contained questions that could be 
used as a basis for Members' submissions.  Some Me mbers had suggested that at a future meeting, the 
Group consider developing recommendations for some of the issues that were then before it, in 
particular on Article 6.7 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, regarding verification.   
58. The next meeting of the Working Grou p on Implementation was scheduled for 
31 October 2005, and the deadline for the subm ission of documents for that meeting was 
19 September 2005.  Members were urged to make maximum efforts to resp ect this deadlines, to 
enable the Secretariat to translate and circulate the submissions in time for delegations and capital-
based experts to study in their preferred WTO langu age and prepare carefully-crafted replies, which 
would enhance the discussions.   
59. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's report.   
M. OTHER  BUSINESS 
 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON CONSULTATIONS ON RULES OF ORIGIN 
 60. The Chairman
 informed the Committee concerning the c onsultations on rules of origin issues 
that he had held jointly with the Chairpersons  of the Committees on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures and on Safeguards, on 1 and 6 April 2005, in response to a request of 15 February 2005 
from the Chair of the General Council.   
61. The General Council Chair had asked the thr ee Committees to consider two questions on 
which, to date, Members had been unable to come to a consensus in the negotiations of the Committee 
on Rules of Origin on harmonized rules of origin.  The first question was whether harmonized rules of 
origin should be applied to the Anti-dumping, SCM and Safeguards Agreements, and the second 
question was whether harmonized rules of origin sh ould be applied to the problem of circumvention 
of trade remedy measures. 
62. When this request had been received, the three Chairs had sought clarification from the Chair 
of the Committee on Rules of Origin as to the ag reed views of Members on the interpretation of 
Articles 1.2 and 3(a) of the Agreement on Rules of  Origin, given the cross-references in these 
provisions to the Anti-dumping, SCM and Safegua rds Agreements.  The Chair of the Committee on 
Rules of Origin replied that there was no agr eed view among Members on the meaning of these two 
provisions.  Given this response, and given that it was not within the mandate of the three Committees 
to interpret the provisions of another Agreement, the three Chairs had sought, in their consultations, 
the views of Members on the implications of the i ssue of origin of a good in the application of, 
respectively antidumping, countervailing and safeguard measures.  They also had sought the views of 
Members on the relevance, if any, of the references in the three Agreements to  the word "origin", and 
of other provisions identified by Members, to the i ssues referred to the Commi ttees.  The Chairs also 
had sought Members' views on the relevance of the or igin of a good in the context of "circumvention" 
of trade remedy measures, and the implications of the issue of harmonized rules of origin in this 
context.   
63. Members of the three Committees had had a pos itive and useful debate on the issues of 
origin..  One delegation had presented a document w ith questions about the practices of Members in 
the application of rules of origin in the context of trade remedies.  In the discussions, Members had  G/ADP/M/28 
 Page 9 
 
 
 referred to some aspects of their practices.  Memb ers had discussed the meaning of the word and the 
concept of "origin" in the provisions of the Agreem ents.  Members also had referred to the issue of 
"origin" in the context of circumvention of trade remedies.  Some Members had indicated that it would be useful to further explore the questions re ferred by the Chair of the General Council.  The 
Chairs of the three Committees intended to convene, in the near future, another session of informal 
consultations on this issue.  In the meantime, Members were invited to reflect on the questions 
discussed during the debate.   
64. The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 indicated that for the Members that could not attend the joint 
consultations, and even for those that could, it woul d be useful if the Secretariat could provide some 
summaries of the consultations, as this would allow delegates to bring those issues back to their 
respective capitals.   
65. The Chairman  indicated that the Secretariat, in the fax convening the next session of joint 
consultations, would refer to the questions as posed  by the three Chairs and discussed by Members.   
66. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
N. DATE  OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
67. The Chairman  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.  The 
SCM Committee had the same schedule, as did the Safeguards Committee.  The Committee on Anti-
dumping Practices would hold its fall meeting during the week of the 31st of October 2005.  In view 
of the scheduled dates for the fall meetings of the Working Group on Implementation and the 
Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, the meeting of the Committee would begin on Wednesday, 
2 November 2005.   
O. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS 
68. The Committee elected  by acclamation Ms. Frida Collste (Sweden) as Chairperson.   
69. The Committee elected  by acclamation Mr. Eduardo Tempone (Argentina) as Vice-
Chairperson.   
70. The Chairman  thanked delegations for having honoured him by electing him as Chairman for 
the past year.  Chairing the Committee had been an  unforgettable experience, and many interesting 
discussions had taken place.  He thanked the Secretariat for their work and support. 
71. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________