RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/31 
2 April 2007 
 (07-1343) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 25-26 OCTOBER 2006 
 
Chairperson:   Mrs. Victoria Campeanu (Romania) 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") held a regular meeting on 
25 and 26 October 2006.  The proposed agenda fo r the meeting was circulated in WTO/AIR/2913. 
2. The Committee adopted
 the following agenda. 
A. NEW ZEALAND - REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION 
(G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/SUPPL .2).........................................................................................................2  
B. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS .................................................................2  
1. Review of semi-annual reports ................................................................................................2  
2. Draft revision of semi-annual reporting format – Report on Chairperson's 
consultations.................................................................................................................. ............6  
C. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS ....................................................................7  
1. Review of notifications........................................................................................................ ......7  
2. Draft revision of minimum information format – Report on Chairperson's 
consultations.................................................................................................................. ............7  
D. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ................................8  
E. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -
CIRCUMVENTION .......................................................................................................................15  
F. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION .................15  
G. DENIM FABRICS – AD MEASURE BY PERU – ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL .................................16  
H. WOVEN FABRICS OF COTTON AND POLYESTER /COTTON MIXES (DRILL ) – AD MEASURE 
BY PERU – ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL ...................................................................................16  
I. MULTI -LAYER PAPER SACKS FOR LIME AND CONCRETE – AD MEASURE BY MEXICO – 
ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL .....................................................................................................16  
J. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................18  
• AD measure of Brazil on polyvinyl chloride from Mexico –– Item requested by 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... .............18  
• AD measure of Turkey on iron and steel pipe fittings from Bulgaria – item 
requested by Bulgaria.......................................................................................................... ...19 
K. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................19  
L. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)................................19  G/ADP/M/31 
Page 2  
 
   
3. The Chairperson  informed Members that the deadlines for the submission of documents for 
the spring 2007 regular meetings of the Committ ee, the Working Group on Implementation, and the 
Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, had been est ablished, and would be circulated, along with the 
analogous deadlines for the Committees on Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures and Safeguards, 
in a reminder document to be prepared by the Secretariat. 
A. NEW ZEALAND - REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/SUPPL .2) 
4. The Chairperson  recalled that the review of the onl y new legislative notification on the 
agenda, that of New Zealand (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/S uppl. 2), would be conducted in accordance with 
the pertinent procedures adopted by the Committ ee, found in document G/ADP/W/284.  She noted 
that no written questions had been posed concerning this notification in advance of the meeting. 
5. The representative of New Zealand  stated that this notification identified, pursuant to Part 1, 
Section 15(c) of China's Protocol of Accession, the provisions of New Zealand's legislation pertinent 
to the methodologies referred to in Section 15(a) of the Protocol.   
6. The Chairperson recalled that for the spri ng 2007 meeting and in accordance with the 
Committee's agreed procedures, any Member wishing to place on the agenda any previously-reviewed 
legislative notification on the agenda would need to  submit questions in writing no later than six 
weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 14 March 2007, to  the Member in question, with a copy to the 
Secretariat.  Written answers would need to be submitted by 11 April 2007. 
7. Furthermore, for the spring meeting, pursuant to  the Committee's agreed procedures, in order 
for a new  legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of that meeting, it would need to be 
circulated in all three languages by 14 March 2007.  Shortly thereafter, the Secretariat would circulate 
a document informing Members of all of the legisla tive notifications to be reviewed at the spring 
meeting.  The Chairperson noted that new legisl ative notifications of Chinese Taipei and Panama 
would be on the agenda of that meeting, as they ha d not been available in all three working languages 
as of six weeks before the present meeting.  Wr itten questions concerning these and any other new 
legislative notifications to be reviewed would need to be submitted by 4 April 2007. 
8. The Chairperson expressed concern over the fact  that some Members still had not submitted 
any notification concerning legislation.  This was a matter of concern to all Members, from the point 
of view of transparency and better understanding, and for many Members all that would be required 
was a single nil notification.  For those Members that conducted anti-dumping investigations but had 
not yet notified their legislation, it was all th e more important for the Committee to have the 
opportunity to review and ask questi ons about that legislation.  Thus , all Members that had not made a 
legislative notification were encouraged to do so as promptly as possible.  
9. The Committee took note  of the notification of New Zealand and of the statements made. 
B. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of semi-annual reports 
10. The Chairperson  recalled that a request for semi-annual reports for the first half of 2006 had 
been circulated in document G/ADP/N/145, dated 13 July 2006, and that the reports were to have 
been submitted by 31 August 2006.  It appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping actions 
during the period in question had submitted a semi -annual report, although so me of these reports had 
arrived after the deadline.  The Chairperson encourag ed all Members to make an effort to submit their  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 3 
 
 
  semi-annual reports on time, and reminded the Memb ers taking no anti-dumping actions that all that 
was necessary was to submit, twice per year, a simple letter to that effect.   
11. The Chairperson also noted that some semi -annual reports for the second half of 2005 had 
been submitted after the Spring meeting, and so had not been reviewed by the Committee.  These 
reports were included in the document package, and the Chairperson would open the floor for any 
comments or questions on them.  Members were of c ourse also free to raise questions about any other 
semi-annual reports that had not, for reasons of timing,  been previously reviewed by the Committee.   
12. The Members that had submitted semi-annual reports for the first half of 2006 were identified 
in paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/145/Add.1, dated 18 October 2006.  All of these reports had 
been circulated to the Committee,  and were included in the document package.  They had been 
translated to the extent possible, but late submission obviously meant that not all were yet available in 
all three languages.  The semi-annual reports from In donesia and the Philippines were available in the 
room. 
13. In addition to the Members that had submitted semi-annual reports of ac tions taken, a number 
of Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/145 Add.1, had notified the Committee that 
they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  In addition, Croatia had 
notified having taken no action, but too la te to be included in that list.   
14. Finally, the Chairperson pointed out that there remained a significant number of Members 
that had not responded to the request for semi-annua l reports, which applied to all Members, whether 
or not they had taken anti-dumping actions duri ng the period in question.  These Members were 
identified in paragraph 3 of the document.  She ur ged all Members to comply with this important 
notification requirement. 
15. No questions were raised concerning the semi -annual reports for the first half of 2006 
submitted by:  Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia , Egypt, Israel, Jordan, New Zealand, Pakistan, 
Peru, Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Trinidad a nd Tobago, Turkey, or the United States.   
16. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by Brazil , the delegate of the United States  
requested an explanation of the proceeding conducte d to reverse a final determination of no injury on 
December 2004 on polyvinyl chloride from the United States,  as well as when and where the results 
of the proceeding were made available.  The delegate of Brazil  replied that this was a sunset review 
related to PVC, that the domestic industry had app ealed to the administrative court under Article 13, 
and that the final determination had been reversed  by the court.  The information could be found in 
the resolution of the Chamber of Foreign Trade No. 18, dated 29 June 2005.   
17. Concerning the semi-annual report of China , the delegate of the United States  noted that no 
response had been received to its written question re garding the investigation on epichlorohydrin from 
the United States, and that the dumping margin conti nued to be reported incorrectly in the most recent 
semi-annual report of China.  He requested that Chin a correct its semi-annual report in respect of this 
dumping margin.  The delegate of China  replied that his capital was studying the question and would 
respond when the results were available. 
18. Concerning the semi-annual report of Costa Rica,  the delegate of the United States  noted that 
a preliminary anti-dumping determination on water-b ased latex paint from the United States had been 
issued on 24 April 2006, and requested Costa Rica to provide a status update regarding the investigation and an estimated date for the final determination.  The delegate of Chile
 raised a similar 
question regarding Costa Rica's investigation of flexible polypropylene packaging from Chile.  The 
representative of Costa Rica  responded that imposition of a provi sional measure on water-based latex 
paint had been published in the Official Journal on  22 May 2006, that the time-frame for the duration G/ADP/M/31 
Page 4  
 
  of the measure was six months, and that given the complexity and quantity of information involved, 
the investigation was still underway.  Concerning fl exible packaging from Chile, that investigation 
was in progress and no provisional measur es had been taken as of that point. 
19. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by the European Communities , the delegate of 
the United States
 noted that although the United States was one of the five countries subject to an 
anti-dumping investigation of pentaerythritol initiate d on 17 January 2006, Part 1 of the semi-annual 
report listed only China, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine (but not the United States) in this connection.  
The United States also noted that Part 1 of the re port indicated that the EC had repealed measures on 
seamless pipes and tubes from the United States follo wing an interim review, but the United States 
was not aware of any measure in place on this produc t.  The United States requested clarification from 
the European Communities of these two situations.  The representative of th e European Communities  
indicated that he would convey the questions to cap ital and provide the requested clarifications as 
soon as he received them.   
20. Concerning the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the representative of the United States  asked 
Indonesia if any actions or reviews had occurred duri ng the first-half of the year concerning the anti-
dumping measure in force against paracetamol from the United States.  The delegation of Indonesia 
did not take the floor.   
21. In respect of the semi-annual report of Korea , the delegate of the United States  asked Korea 
to clarify the omission of the initiation of an inves tigation in February 2006,  and the imposition of a 
provisional measure in June 2006, on polyvinyl alco hol from the United States, Singapore and China.  
The delegate of Korea  indicated that he would contact his capital for a clarification.   
22. Concerning the semi-annual report submitted by Mexico , the delegate of the United States 
noted that the report listed a final measure of a "max imum of 44.09%" in its review of the measure on 
liquid caustic soda exports from the United States.  The United States sought clarification of the term 
"maximum of", as well as of footnote 4 which read:  "reference price of US$192.67 per tonne.  The amount must not exceed the dumping margin of 44.09 per cent".  In particular, the United States 
asked Mexico to clarify whether it was conducting a review of a reference price or of a dumping 
margin, or some combination of both.  The representative of Mexico
 asked the United States to 
submit its question in writing. 
23. In addition, the representative of the United States  wished to draw to the attention of the 
Members the recent significant improvements that Me xico had made in the contents and searchability 
of Economía's website.  These upgrades included a "wha t's new" section and a calendar, as well as the 
ability to search for determinations by date, by co untry and by product.  The United States applauded 
Mexico's efforts at providing increased transparen cy in its administration of trade remedies and 
encouraged other countries to consider similar me ans to provide public information to interested 
parties.  In this regard the United States comme nded to other Members' attention Economía's new and 
improved website.  The delegate of Mexico  thanked the United States for its comments.   
24. In respect of the report of South Africa  report, the delegate of the United States  requested a 
status report on, and an estimate as to when a final determination was expected in, the sunset review 
of chicken-meat portions from the United States.  The representative of Egypt  noted that the report 
indicated that the sunset review on carbon black from Egypt was still ongoing, more than 27 months 
after its initiation on 23 July 20 04.  Furthermore, despite the fact that, during this period, the 
International Trade Administration Commission of  South Africa had concluded on three occasions 
that the expiry of the anti-dumping duties was not li kely to lead the continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and material injury, the measures had be en maintained.  Egypt understood that these 
measures had not been allowed to expire because the only South African carbon black producer had 
filed a case against the Commission's final determin ation of 5 April 2006, and that this case was only  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 5 
 
 
  due to be examined at the end of 2007.  Egypt had addressed written questions to the Commission but 
had received no response regarding South Africa's de cision to maintain these measures for more than 
two years after the normal determination without jus tification.  Egypt had submitted in the past that 
this measure should at least be suspe nded pending the ongoing judicial review. 
25. Regarding the question of the United St ates, the delegate of South Africa  explained that the 
final determination had been reached after the peri od covered by the semi-annual report, and that the 
recommendation concerning the final determination was pending before the Minister of Trade and 
Industry, and was expected to be finalized within th e month.  As for the issue raised by Egypt, this 
was not a new issue.  The Commission had made a determination in that case, and had recommended 
that the duty be withdrawn.  Subsequent to that, the domestic industry had lodged an appeal in the 
High Court to prevent the Commission from presenti ng this recommendation to the Minister, so there 
was not much the Commission could do.  The Commi ssion also was frustrated with the situation. 
26. The Chairperson  opened the floor for any questions or comments on semi-annual reports not 
reviewed at previous meetings due to having arrive d after the meeting at which they would have been 
on the agenda.   
27. The United States  took the floor in respect of semi-annual reporting by India .  The 
United States was concerned that some Members had not submitted semi-annua l reports to the WTO 
Secretariat in advance of the Committee meetings.  The United States appreciated the Chairperson's 
reminder to Members of the importance of doing so, so that Members could review the reports in a 
timely manner in the interests of greater transparen cy.  The United States th us looked forward to 
receiving and reviewing the report of India for the period under discussion.  Since India also had not 
been able to submit its semi-annual report for the period July-December 2005 in advance of the 
previous spring's regular meeting, the United States wi shed to use this opportuni ty to revisit that tardy 
notification.  In this respect, several sunset  reviews of measures against exports from the 
United States, such as the measures on oxo-alcohols  and aniline, had been initiated more than 
18 months previously, but no final determinations had yet been issued.  The United States sought an 
update of the status of these reviews.  The United St ates also asked India to indicate the expected date 
for the final determination in the investigation on ethylene propylene non-conjugated diene monomer 
(EPDM) from the United States, which had been in itiated on 28 April 2005.  The representative of 
India  noted the concern raised by the United Stat es and indicated that the report for January-
June 2006 would be submitted in the near future, and that this shoul d answer some of the questions 
raised by the United States.  For the previous report,  given that 18 months had elapsed since initiation 
of the reviews mentioned by the United States, the fi nal determinations probably had been published, 
but he would obtain a clarification and get back to the United States on this.   
28. The delegate of the United States  noted that Malaysia  had not provided its report for January 
to June 2006 and asked if the measure on newsprin t from the United States was still in force, and if 
any actions concerning this measure had been taken during the first half of 2006.  The representative 
of Malaysia  explained that the measure was still in force and was due for review some time in 2007, 
and that no action had been taken on it during the reporting period.  The delegate apologized for delay 
in the submission of Malaysia's semi-annual report.   
29. Regarding semi-annual reporting by Venezuela , the delegate of the United States  noted that 
the last semi-annual report submitted by Venezuela ha d been for the period ending in December 2004, 
and asked Venezuela to respond to the question that  the United States had posed at the previous 
Committee meeting regarding the sunset review of the measure on polyvinyl chloride from the 
United States, and to provide an update on any action taken in respect of this measure.   
30. The representative of Venezuela  responded that the review of the measure in question had 
been conducted during the first half of 2006.  A ll parties had had the opportunity to provide the G/ADP/M/31 
Page 6  
 
  information they deemed pertinent, and the results  were under internal cons ideration and would be 
published and notified as soon as possible.   
31. The Committee took note
 of the semi-annual reports and of the questions, answers and 
statements of Members.   
2. Draft revision of semi-annual reporting format  – Report on Chairperson's consultations 
32. The Chairperson  recalled that for some months the Committee had been engaged in a process 
of informal consultations to revise the format fo r semi-annual reports of anti-dumping actions.  Since 
the summer break the process had been quite intens ive, and the Committee had had a great deal of 
success in finding consensus on almost all points in  the format which, once adopted, would ensure 
that much new information would be provided in a far more clear, organized and uniform fashion than 
was then the case.  The draft of the format c ontained in document G/ADP/W/460 represented the 
advanced state of agreement among Members.  As i ndicated in the cover note to that document, the 
columns numbered 10 and 11 remained unresolved, but she hoped that the Committee could find a 
solution and reach a decision on the new format at the meeting.   
33. In this regard, she had circulated to members a Chairperson's proposal for these columns in a 
fax dated 19 October.  To facilitate the discussi on at the meeting, she had prepared as a room 
document a consolidated version of the format wh ich introduced her proposal for columns 10 and 11 
into the version of the draft format contained in G/ADP/W/460.  It was the Chairperson's view that 
this consolidated draft reflected a balance among the various positions that had been expressed, and 
that if adopted it would provide additional transp arency as to the trade coverage of anti-dumping 
actions, through clear definitions and use of conc epts drawn from the existing Agreement, while 
responding to Members' concerns regarding data av ailability and confidentiality, as well as the utility 
of the data and effort required to provide them, all of which had been at the heart of the discussions on 
these columns since the process began. 
34. The Chairperson noted that she had received onl y one reaction to her 19 October proposal, 
from Hong Kong, China, which had submitted a documen t, available in the room, suggesting certain 
changes.  While the suggestions clearly meant that  there was not yet a full consensus, there were 
certain elements of convergence in what Hong Kong, China had submitted and the Chairperson's 
proposal.   
35. After an informal discussion on the possibilit y of reaching a consensus, the Chairperson  
informed Members that it did not appear that the Co mmittee would be able, at the meeting, to adopt a 
decision regarding the format for semi-annual reports.  She asked the Members that had not been in a 
position to join a consensus to reconsider their pos itions, bearing in mind that this was a notification 
format applicable to an existing agreement and that th e instructions that had been drafted as part of the 
revised draft format would bring transparency , uniformity and a common understanding about what 
would need to be reported in the semi-annual repor ts.  The Chairperson indicated that she would 
continue to work on this issue, and would be prep ared to convene at an ap propriate time a special 
meeting of the Committee to adopt the new format, which she hoped would be before the end of the 
year.   
36. The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's statements.    G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 7 
 
 
  C. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of notifications 
37. The Chairperson  recalled that the lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-
dumping actions submitted by Members since the Committee's last meeting could be found in 
documents G/ADP/N/143-144, and G/ADP/N/146-149.  During that period, the following Members 
had notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions:  Argentina, Australia, Canada, Egypt, 
European Communities, Korea, Malaysia, New Zeal and, Pakistan, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, 
Turkey, and the United States. 
38. The Chairperson drew the attention of Members to the apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  In particular, comparin g the semi-annual reports with the lists of actions 
taken, it appeared that some Members had repor ted anti-dumping actions in progress in their semi-
annual reports but had not submitted re ports of preliminary or final ac tions taken.  These reports were 
a key element of the required transparency c oncerning Members' anti-dumping actions, and the 
Committee could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard.  She ther efore strongly urged all Members taking anti-dumping 
actions to provide these notifications of preliminar y and final actions, consistently and in a timely 
fashion.   
39. No questions were raised regard ing any of the notifications.  
40. The Committee took note
 of the Chairperson's statement.  
2. Draft revision of minimum information format  – Report on Chairperson's consultations 
41. The Chairperson  recalled that in conjunction with th e work on the semi-annual report format, 
the Committee also had been revi ewing the minimum information form at for ad hoc notifications of 
preliminary and final anti-dumping actions.  The results  of that work were reflected in the revised 
version of the minimum information format circ ulated in G/ADP/W/460.  She proposed that the 
Committee adopt the revised draft format.   
42. The delegate of India  suggested that a decision on this fo rmat be taken with the decision on 
the semi-annual report format discussed under the pr evious agenda item.  The representative of 
Canada  supported adoption of this format, which it c onsidered to be independent from the format for 
semi-annual reports.  The delegates of Thailand  and the European Communities  supported Canada's 
position and added that if there was no real objection, the decision should not be postponed.  The delegate of India
 clarified that his delegation had no objection to adopting the document.   
43. The Chairperson thanked the Members and noted  that as soon as the document was adopted, 
this would be the format that Members should begin immediately to use in submitting minimum 
information in respect of preliminary and final anti-dumping actions pursuant to Article 16.4.   
44. The Committee adopted the revised format  for minimum information contained in document 
G/ADP/W/460.1 
                                                      
1 The revised format was subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/2/Rev.1. G/ADP/M/31 
Page 8  
 
  D. 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
45. The Chair  recalled that Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of 
China to the World Trade Organization provides that  all subsidiary bodies, including this Committee, 
"which have a mandate covering China's commitme nts under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol 
shall, within one year after accession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by 
China of the WTO Agreement and of the related provi sions of [the] Protocol."  China is to provide 
relevant information in advance of the review, in cluding information specified in Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  China can also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to any other specific commitments made by other Members in th e Protocol, in subsidiary bodies which have a 
relevant mandate.  This Committee must report the results of the review promptly to the Council for 
Trade in Goods.  The review is to take place after accession in each year for eight years, with a final 
review in year 10 or at an earlier date decided by the General Council. 
46. The Chair
 further recalled that there are no procedures set out for the conduct of the 
transitional review in the Protocol, except that China is to provide relevant in formation in advance of 
the review.  No information is specified for submission to the Committee under Annex 1A. 
47. The Chair  noted that the delegations of the Japan, the European Communities and the 
United States submitted questions and comments in th e context of the transitional review, which have 
been circulated in documents G/ADP/W/457, W/458, and W/459, respectively.   
48. In response to the Chair's invitation for any stat ements of a general natu re, the delegate of the 
United States2 noted that this was the fifth annual revi ew of China's implementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mechan ism of China's Protocol of Accession, the goal 
of which is to provide Members with an opportunity to examine China's efforts to meet its obligations 
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as well as to give China the opportunity to clarify its policies 
and practices.  Similarly to prior reviews, the United States had voiced concerns about China's 
conducts its anti-dumping actions but also had noted incremental improvements in China's 
compliance efforts.  Unfortunately, five years and many anti-dumping actions after its accession, 
China appeared to still face many hurdles in maki ng its anti-dumping regime reach the standards of 
transparency and procedural fairness fully commens urate with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
49. One needed only to turn to the statements made by the United States during the previous 
years' Transitional Review in the Committee and not e how the circumstances described then remained 
largely unchanged.  More specifically, in past re views the United States had raised serious concerns 
about the availability of information from China's ad ministering authority, the Ministry of Commerce 
("MOFCOM"), and its injury arm in particular, the I nvestigation Bureau for Industry Injury ("IBII").  
As was seen from the questions submitted by th e United States for this transitional review 
(G/ADP/W/459), many of these problems persisted.  Interested parties, including responding parties 
and officials of the US Government, continued to be  frustrated in their attempts to obtain adequate 
non-confidential versions of documents, such as Chinese industry responses to IBII questionnaires. 
50. As the number of anti-dumping measures bei ng imposed by China grew, there were a 
growing number of complaints by responding pa rties about the quality of the non-confidential 
summaries China had made available.  Article 6. 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement required that 
non-confidential summaries of confidential documents  be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable 
understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.  As the United States 
pointed out again this year, without access to conf idential information submitted to MOFCOM, it was 
                                                      
2 The statement by the United States was circulated in document G/ADP/W/461.  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 9 
 
 
  essential to responding parties to have comprehens ive and informative non-confidential summaries in 
order to be able to mount an effective defence.   The government of the United States had received 
continued complaints from responding parties th at non-confidential summaries, when they were 
finally made available, contained insufficient fact ual information to permit development of effective 
arguments.  
51. Furthermore, the United States continued to be c oncerned that, in a growing number of cases,  
critical arguments or evidence put forward by inter ested parties had not been addressed adequately in 
either preliminary or final determinations.  This  had been a problem the previous year and still 
remained a problem, especially in injury determinati ons.  Similarly, many of the conclusions reached 
by MOFCOM in its determinations did not appear to be supported by adequate evidence.  In many 
instances, either no evidence was cited at all, or the evidence cited was not available to anyone except 
the administering authority.  As the United St ates had emphasized previous years, conclusory 
statements without evidentiary support did not cons titute "positive evidence" within the meaning of 
Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In pa rticular, details of the factual basis and reasoning 
supporting the investigating authority's decisions, as well as petitioners' allegati ons and briefs, had to 
be made available to all interested parties.    
52. The United States again urged China to apply fair procedures to all parties to an investigation 
as envisioned by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  For investigations and reviews, this included, but 
was not limited to, timely access to administrators and favourable consideration of hearing requests, 
as embodied in Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement.  The United States was concerned about 
continuing resort to private meetings with selected  parties as a principal means to obtain views of 
parties.  The United States continued to urge that  interested parties not present at such private 
meetings be quickly informed of matters discussed at  such meetings and be given an opportunity to 
present their rebuttal, in accordance with Article 6.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Having said 
that, the United States was encour aged by IBII's decision to hold a public hearing regarding its 
investigation of butanols in June of 2006, prior to the preliminary determination.  The United States 
urged China to provide all interested parties with  the opportunity to raise issues in an open and 
transparent setting at an early  stage of every proceeding. 
53. Poor interaction between the administering au thorities and the customs authorities that assess 
the anti-dumping duties at the border undermine even the most objective and transparent 
investigation.  In a growing number of cases, th e US government continued to receive reports from 
responding parties of Chinese customs authorities either assessing anti-dumping duties on 
merchandise not subject to a measure, or imposing seemingly unreasonable burdens of proof before 
allowing entry of non-subject merchandise.  Although MOFCOM had shown improvement in 
responding in a timely manner to those customs probl ems when raised by interested parties, these 
situations were needlessly complicated by the lack of uniform procedures for importers to resolve this 
type of dispute.  The United States urged Chin a to put in place such governing procedures and to 
refine the process by which MOFCOM and Chinese cu stoms officials at China's ports confirmed the 
precise merchandise subject to each anti-dumping measu re and the anti-dumping duty rates applicable 
to each importer.  The United States called to China's attention in this regard Article 5.9 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, which provides that anti-dumping proceedings shall not hinder customs clearance. 
54. In previous years the United States had also not ed that China did not appear to have notified 
all relevant legislation to the Committee and, in particular, had asked China to clarify which rules 
applied to its prosecution of anti-dumping actions.  The same problem still persisted.  Key pieces of 
China's legislation still appeared not to have b een notified to the Anti-Dumping Committee, leaving 
considerable uncertainty as to the rules being used by China to conduct its anti-dumping actions.  
Some of the questions filed by the United States in this year's review were aimed at legislation which 
could directly or indirectly shape China's anti-dumping regime, but which had not been notified to the G/ADP/M/31 
Page 10  
 
  Committee.  Such lapses in notifi cation denied other WTO Members  the opportunity to review and 
comment on the content of these new regulations in order to further clarify key aspects  of their 
implementation.  The United States urged China to clarify in detail to the Committee the full set of 
rules, regulations and laws that govern its anti-dumping regime. 
55. In conclusion, the United States recognized the efforts China had made to develop 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 Agreemen t.  With much of that legal framework now in 
place, China needed to continue focusing its efforts on conducting its anti-dumping actions in the 
manner consistent with that frame work, and in conformity with WTO rules.  The United States looked 
forward to seeing continued improvement in the very n ear future and offered its assistance to China in 
pursuit of that goal.  
56. The Chair
 offered the floor to China to respond.   
57. Taking note of the comments made, the delegate of China  pointed out that this was the fifth 
transitional review by the Committee of the Chinese anti-dumping regime.  In the past five years, the Committee had held a number of discussions on Chin a's anti-dumping regime in the framework of the 
legislation review process, the review of China' s anti-dumping actions, and also in the transitional 
review framework in the last three years.  It w as, therefore, China's conviction that Members had 
already a clear understanding of the matter and in pa rticular of China's legislative framework, given 
that China had notified the Committee of a dozen  relevant anti-dumping rules and regulations.  
Conversely, three pieces of legislation as identified in the written questions by the US had not been 
notified.  China confirmed that it would address t hose regulations in turn as part of its oral 
presentation at the meeting. 
58. As an opening remark, China stated that it be lieved its anti-dumping regime to be consistent 
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  China did not sh are the view of the United States that the issues 
the latter had identified in its questions and the oral  statement were actually significant.  Given that 
the comments by the US referred to the perfect functioning of the anti-dumping instrument, China 
questioned whether the United States would be able  to function in such perfect circumstances any 
time soon.  Indeed, various Members had been raising similar concerns during the Committee 
meetings with regard to each other's anti-dumping instrument functionalities.  Consequently, China 
believed it had made its utmost efforts to establish a transparent anti-dumping regime with a view to 
further the information disclosure procedures embodi ed in the extensions of the new regulations. 
59. Turning to answers to all questions raised by Members, the delegate of China noted that he 
would address the issue of notification of the th ree anti-dumping related regulations, questioned by 
the United States, while his colleagues would respond in detail to rest of the technical questions.  
60. Speaking on the matter of non-notification of  three anti-dumping related regulations, the 
delegate of China noted first that the first regula tion was essentially a judicial interpretation adopted 
by the China Supreme Court.  Ch ina's Permanent Mission to the WTO had been notified about it and 
was expected to submit it to the Secretariat for notification shortly. 
61. The second regulation in question concerned access to information and information disclosure 
in industry injury investigations.  The delegate of China pointed out that this was a fairly new 
regulation intended to further perfect China's inform ation disclosure procedures.  The translation of 
that regulation was being proofread and notification thereof would be made to the Committee within a 
couple of weeks.   
62. The third regulation in question concerned responses to anti-dumping cases against Chinese 
exported products.  Because of the internal dive rgence in views among the relevant authorities in  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Beijing as to whether that particular regulation fe ll within the scope of notification under the anti-
dumping agreement, no formal notification had been ma de yet.  However, this specific issue was in 
the process of clarification and advice on it was also being sought from the WTO Secretariat. 
63. Having addressed the relevant notification questions, the floor was passed to the experts from 
Beijing to address other concerns and question of the Members.   
64. Turning to the questions concerning transpar ency of the Chinese anti-dumping procedures, 
the delegate from China informed Members that China had promulgated a series of regulations and 
rules on transparency, including on information discl osure, e.g. anti-dumping regulations, provisional 
rules on information disclosure in anti-dumping inv estigations, and provisional rules on access to non-
confidential information of anti-dumping investigatio ns.  China's investigating authority had applied 
the above rules and regulations to ensure complia nce with the transparency requirements in anti-
dumping proceedings.  According to these regulations, after a preliminary determination, the Chinese 
authority disclosed to the companies concerning th e essential facts under consideration, which formed 
the basis for the decision.  Such  essential facts included determination of export price and normal 
value, adjustments for differences in conditions a nd terms of sales, and dumping margin calculations.  
Disclosure of dumping margin calculations containe d an explanation of the factual basis for the 
dumping findings and a table with the relevant cal culations.  This information assisted the parties 
concerned to understand the findings of the author ities, enabling them to make comments on a given 
determination and calculation of the dumping margin.  Prior to publication of the final determination, 
compliant with the transparency requirements , Chinese authorities issued a separate document 
disclosing the information on the basis of which the final determination would be made.  The parties 
concerned were given ten days to make comments on the essential facts. 
65. The second set of questions concerned methodology for comparing export price and the 
normal value.  The delegate of China informed  Members that China's investigating authority 
determined the export price and the normal value based on the information submitted in the companies' questionnaire replies.  In addition, due adjustments would be made for differences in price 
comparability at the ex-factory level in order to ma ke a fair comparison between the export price and 
normal value.  The dumping margin was normally calculated on the basis of comparison of the 
weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price. 
66. The delegate of China further clarified that according to the Chinese anti-dumping regulations 
two other methodologies for the comparison of normal va lue and export price were available, i.e. the 
transaction-to-transaction comparison and a comparis on of weighted average normal value with an 
individual export price.  Nevertheless, the latter two methods had not been used yet. 
67. The next set of issues concerned implementati on of anti-dumping measures.  According to the 
anti-dumping regulation, the Ministry of Commerce of China, MOFCOM, published the determination and informed the customs administra tion.  The decision entered into force from the 
effective date set forth in the public notice.  In the process of implementation, the customs 
administration also gave public notice on collection of the anti-dumping duties.  The delegate of 
China assured Members that any technical problems encountered during implementation would be addressed by MOFCOM and the custom administrati on through mutual consultations at the working 
level. 
68. Concerning the scope and tariff line of the product subject to an anti-dumping measure, 
MOFCOM contacted the customs administration immediately after initiation of the anti-dumping 
investigation in order to ascertain that the tariff line and the scope of the subject products were correct 
and accurate.  Again, the delegate of China assured Members that mutual consultations would be held 
to solve other potential problems regarding implementation of the anti-dumping measures. G/ADP/M/31 
Page 12  
 
  69. As regards the deposit amount, the delegate of China clarified that this was established by 
reference to two figures.  The first figure repr esented the anti-dumping deposit collected according to 
the anti-dumping regulation, i.e. the duty paid pri ce multiplied by the anti-dumping deposit rate.  In 
China's view, such calculation of the anti-dumpi ng deposit amount was consistent with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  The second figure represen ted the VAT deposit collected, according to the 
China's domestic VAT regulations, when the anti-du mping duty rate was lower than the anti-dumping 
deposit rate.  Furthermore, where any such cash deposit exceeded the anti-dumping duty rate, the amounts in excess were to be refunded to the importers. 
70. Concerning the questions on the responding pro cedure, the anti-dumping regulation of China 
allowed for a procedure of setting aside an extra 20 days for potential respondents to express their 
intention to co-operate to a given investigation.   This 20-day registration procedure did not count 
against the 37-day time-limit for answering the questionnaire.  It was further explained that MOFCOM made the questionnaires available on its offi cial website for all the interested parties, 
including those that did not express interest in a 20-day registration procedure, to have easy access to 
them and to participate in a given investiga tion by answering and submitting their questionnaire 
replies.  The delegate of China pointed out that only companies which submitted questionnaire replies 
to MOFCOM received individual dumping margin s.  If a company did not respond to the 
questionnaire, MOFCOM based its determination on the best information available.  By way of 
explanation, the delegate of China clarified that  the given procedure was set up with a view to 
facilitate companies' efforts to participate in th e anti-dumping procedures.  As for sampling, that 
MOFCOM determined whether or not sampling should be applied in a given procedure.  This would 
depend on the number of potential respondents, but  the registration procedure did not concern 
sampling, which was only addressed by Article 9.4. 
71. The fifth set of issues concerned application of de minimis  rates.  In this connection the 
delegate of China noted that the use and practice of application of the de minimis  rule differed among 
WTO Members.  The Chinese authority was in the pro cess of studying this issue and intended to keep 
contact and exchange opinions with other WTO Members in this matter. 
72. Another set of questions concerned injury i nvestigations.  The first group of questions 
focused on disclosure.  Indeed, the IBII disclosed to the interested parties the essential facts which 
form the basis of the injury decisions as provided in  Articles 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On 
4 August 2006, MOFCOM had promulgated rules on access to information and information 
disclosure on industry injury investigation.  The delegate of China had confirmed that these rules 
would be notified to the Committee as soon as the tran slation thereof was completed.  In a nutshell, 
the rules in question stipulated the specific contents  and procedures of information disclosure, as well 
as the interested parties' rights in respect of access  to such information.  According to the rules, 
information disclosure should normally be made within 30 days before the final determinations.  IBII 
was under an obligation to inform all interested parti es, including the exporters, of the essential facts.  
Interested parties who had not made themselves known to the authorities would find such disclosure 
materials in the public notices by MOFCOM. 
73. Turning to the issue of confidentiality, it was generally recognized that determining whether 
non-confidential summaries of information were pr ovided in sufficient detail to permit reasonable 
understanding of the subject of the information s ubmitted in confidence was at the discretion of the 
investigating authorities.  This assessment was made on a case-by-case basis.  If non-confidential 
summaries submitted by interested parties were not provided in sufficient deta il to permit reasonable 
understanding of the substance of the information provided in confidence, IBII would then ask the party concerned to withdraw its request for confiden tiality.  Otherwise, IBII could also disregard such 
information unless its accuracy was demonstrated  from appropriate sources.  In exceptional 
circumstances where interested parties did not provide non-confidential summaries, they had to 
include a statement of the reasons why such su mmarisation was not possible based on the rules for  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 13 
 
 
  access to information and information disclosure in industry injury investigations and the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. 
74. Concerning the use of aggregate figures versus  indexed figures, the aggregate figures had to 
be used as long as due regard was given to protec tion of confidential information.  As a general 
matter, it was considered more meaningful to use aggregate figures instead of indexed figures where 
more than two petitioners or respondents we re involved in a given investigation. 
75. The next question concerned initiations of inves tigations, in particular whether volumes and 
prices of imports from other countries had to be exam ined prior to the initiation.  The delegate of 
China recalled that this matter was clearly addresse d in Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
The Chinese authority carefully examined accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the 
applications lodged by the domestic industry, in full compliance with the provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and the relevant legislation of China. 
76. Finally, the last issue concerned dumped impor ts in the spandex case. In that case, IBII had 
received comments from interested parties on the preliminary determination of dumped imports as well as further investigations.  More specifically, the delegate of China explained that the final 
determination of the injury in the spandex case did not include data of dumped imports, market share, 
or import price of the subject product of those producers or exporters whose dumping margin was de 
minimis .  Further details on this case were availabl e from the respective notice of the definitive 
determination published by MOFCOM on 12 October 2006.  By way of general remark, the delegate 
of China urged Members to submit case-specific ques tions to the respective case handlers during the 
course of the investigations to allow them to deal  with any such matters in a more efficient and 
effective way. 
77. The Chair
 thanked China, and opened the floor for any additional or follow-up questions, or 
other comments. 
78. The delegate of the United States thanked Chin a for its replies to the questions from the 
United States, and asked for further clarification in a few areas.   
79. First, on the issue of VAT, the United States appreciated China's description of its two 
separate calculations:  its calculation of the duty depo sit rate and its calculation of the VAT deposit.  
Although there was some detail given in the res ponse with regard to how the anti-dumping deposit 
was calculated, there was not much description given as to how the VAT deposit was calculated and, specifically, whether the VAT deposit was calculate d on the basis of a price to which the anti-
dumping duty had already been added, thus increasing the anti-dumping duty by the amount of the 
VAT rate. 
80. In addition, the delegate of the United Stat ed noted that China had not answers the US 
question 10, i.e., whether VAT assessed on anti-dumpi ng duties or other duty collected in excess of 
the margin of dumping had ever been refunded by China, following a request by an importer as required under Article 9.3.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
81. Another follow-up question related to US questi on 5, which dealt with responding parties that 
received de minimis  rates.  Currently, under Chinese practice, China did not exclude them from the 
anti-dumping order.  The United States understood the Chinese delegate to say that China was 
studying this issue in light of the Appellate Body's decision in the report on Mexican Rice, and expressed that hope that China would complete its review quickly.  The Unite d States was interested 
in consulting with China on that matter. G/ADP/M/31 
Page 14  
 
  82. With regard to US question 7 dealing with non-confidential summaries by the Ministry of 
Commerce's injury arm, the IIBI, the Chinese delegate  had explained the rights that the administering 
authority had.  The United States recalled that this had been a problem area that it had focussed on for 
several years now and asked Chine to elaborate on what specific steps IIBI was taking to address this 
problem. 
83. Lastly, the US delegate wanted to confirm its understanding of China's response to US 
question 8(a), which dealt with the situation where there was some conflict between the administering 
authority – the Ministry of Commerce – and the cust oms authorities.  Was it Ch ina's response, in fact, 
that there were no written procedures governing ways  to handle that situation but rather the two 
agencies simply consulted?   
84. The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked China for its clarifications and extensive 
answers to questions, one-by-one in an individual way.  The EC was looking forward to the announced notifications of the new rules a nd to their application in future cases. 
85. As regards the use of aggregate figures, the EC was pleased to hear that China also considered 
that this method should get preference over the use of indexed figures and was looking forward to 
seeing such practice being applied in concrete cases.  The EC would continue to study the rest of the 
answers given and would come back to China at a later stage if further questions arose.   
86. The delegate of Japan
 echoed the United States and the EC in thanking China for its replies.  
Japan appreciated the steady improvements in China's anti-dumping law and practice and believed 
that the Transitional Review Mechanism was a good opportunity to review those improvements.  The 
replies to specific questions were being studied and would be addressed later.  
87. Regarding the follow-up questions, the delegate of China  stated, first, with regard to the VAT 
issue, that it was his personal understanding that, un der the existing or current textual framework in 
China, the tariff which included duties in th e cases of anti-dumping, safeguards and others was subject 
to VAT in China.  China recalled that the Anti- Dumping Agreement itself did not have very clear 
provisions on this particular issue, and was willi ng to exchange further views with Members on this 
matter.  
88. Concerning the US question 5, the delegate from China reiterated that the WTO itself did not 
agree on what should be the final policy in respect of application of de minimis rates.  However,  
China confirmed its willingness to further di scuss this technical issue with Members. 
89. On the question concerning the information di sclosure, the up-coming notifications reflected 
the actual and concrete steps taken by China in th is regard.  Underlying the immense work already 
done, China would make further efforts to draft ot her regulations on information disclosure.   
90. In respect of US question 8(a), China did not have a written procedure for settling the issues 
of implementation of specific anti-dumping measures.  Because of the variety of implementation issues that could potentially arise, the actions ta ken to address them would differ accordingly.  In 
China's view, the mechanism curren tly used to address implementation problems by the investigation 
authorities in China, on one hand, and the customs administration, on the other, was effective and 
efficient. 
91. The delegation of China confirmed that the sp ecific responses provided by its experts during 
the Committee meeting would be made available to the Secretariat, as well as to the Members, in 
writing.  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 15 
 
 
  92. The United States  thanked the delegation of China for its answers and indicated that it had 
found the exchange during the mee ting to have been particularly  helpful and the responses quite 
useful. 
93. On the VAT issue, the United States draw Ch ina's attention to Article 18.1 which provided 
that "no specific action against dumping of exports  can be taken except in accordance with this 
agreement".  It was the view of the United States th at application of the VAT rate to a number which 
included the dumping duty meant that, by virtue of an affirmative finding of dumping, the result would not only be the amount of duty owed, i.e. the dumping duty, but that there would be the secondary effect of an increase in the amount of th e VAT.  The United States viewed this as a clear 
example of a specific action against dumping inconsis tent with the provisions of the agreement, in 
particular Article 18.1, and expressed willingn ess to discuss this further with China.   
94. The Chair
 thanked all delegations for their particip ation in the exchange, and especially the 
delegation of China for its preparation and for th e information and answers provided.  She equally 
thanked those Members that had undertaken to su bmit written questions and to participate in the 
discussion. 
95. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods concerning this transitional 
review, the Chair  noted that there were no guidelines for the report contained in the Protocol, and 
recalled that previously the Committee Chair, acting on his or her own responsibility, had prepared a brief factual report, with references to the docum ents concerned, and attaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which related to the tran sitional review.  She suggested proceeding on the 
same basis for the 2006 report. 
96. The Committee so agreed
. 
E. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
97. The Chairperson  recalled that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met that 
morning.  No new papers had been submitted, and re flecting the fact that anti-circumvention had been 
raised as one of the issues in the negotiation contex t, it hade turned out to be a short meeting.  
Members had confirmed that they had no objecti on to continuing to operate along the lines the 
Informal Group had been following up to that point.  The Chairperson looked forward to receiving new papers as soon as Members f ound the situation to be ripe.  
F. C
HAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
98. The Chairperson  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met that morning, 
and had continued its discussions on a draft recommendation on Conduct of Verifications – 
Article 6.7, on the basis of a revised draft prepared by the Secretariat pursuant to the Group's first 
round of discussions during its Spring 2006 meeting, a nd a draft made available by New Zealand as a 
room document.  The Group had asked the Secretariat to prepare a further revision of the draft, based 
on its discussions that morning.   
99. As it seemed that the Group had reached the stage where it was close to exhausting its 
discussions on the three other topics before it, the Chairperson suggested that Members reflect on the 
future work of the Group, par ticularly keeping in mind the possi bility of starting the process of 
developing a further list of topics to be proposed to the Committee for discussion.  She suggested that 
delegations be in a position to discuss this matter at the next meeting of the Group.  
100. The next meeting was scheduled for the week of 23 April 2007, with the exact date to be 
confirmed later.  Should Members wish to submit an y papers on the four topics then before the Group, G/ADP/M/31 
Page 16  
 
  the deadline for submissions for that meeting was 9 March 2007.  The Chairperson urged Members to 
respect this deadline, to allow th e Secretariat sufficient time to translate and circulate the submissions 
before the meeting.  In this way, delegations a nd capital-based experts would be able to study the 
submissions in their preferred WTO language a nd prepare considered responses, which would 
enhance the discussions at the meeting.  
G. 
DENIM FABRICS – AD MEASURE BY PERU – ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  
101. The Chairperson  recalled that Brazil had submitted wr itten questions to Peru concerning 
Peru's measure on denim fabrics from Brazil.  These questions could be found in document 
G/ADP/Q2/PER/1.   
102. The delegate of Brazil  stated that in the case at issue, th e Peruvian investigating authority had 
determined that the request for imposition of measu res was unfounded, but that after an administrative 
review, the authority had changed its decision and imposed definitive duties.  Brazil asked Peru to 
respond to its questions.   
103. The representative of Peru  indicated that his delegation had submitted written replies, 
available in the room, to the questions raised by Brazil.3  Peru was ready to respond to any follow-up 
questions that Members might have after reviewing these replies.   
104. The Committee  took note of the questions, answers and comments. 
H. WOVEN FABRICS OF COTTON AND POLYESTER /COTTON MIXES (DRILL ) – AD MEASURE BY PERU 
– ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  
105. The Chairperson  recalled that Brazil had submitted wr itten questions to Peru concerning 
Peru's measure on woven fabrics of cotton and poly ester/cotton mixes, and that these could be found 
in document G/ADP/Q2/PER/2.   
106. The representative of Brazil  stated that the definitive anti-dumping measures on cotton and 
cotton polyester fabric imported from Brazil raised si milar issues to those in the denim case.  After an 
administrative review, the Peruvian authority had made a decision to increase the number of Brazilian 
companies subject to definitive anti-dumping duties and the amount of duties charged.  Brazil asked 
Peru to reply to its questions.   
107. The delegate of Peru  indicated that his delegation ha d received the questions two weeks 
before the meeting, and that his authorities were s till preparing the replies.  As soon as they were in 
hand, Peru would transmit the replies to the delegati on of Brazil and to the Secretariat, so that they 
could be circulated among the Members.4 
108. The Committee  took note of the questions, answers and comments. 
I. MULTI -LAYER PAPER SACKS FOR LIME AND CONCRETE – AD MEASURE BY MEXICO – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  
109. The Chairperson  noted that Brazil had submitted written questions to Mexico which could be 
found in document G/ADP/Q2/MEX/1.   
                                                      
3 These replies were subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/PER/3. 
4 These replies were subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/PER/4.  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 17 
 
 
  110. The delegate of Brazil  stated that in this case the definitive anti-dumping duty on lime and 
concrete sacks imported form Brazil had a different basis than the preliminary determination.  Brazil 
sought answers to the written questions it had posed in this respect.   
111. The representative of Mexico  noted that the information re quested in Brazil's questions 
already had been provided by Mexico in detail during informal consultations between the two 
governments held on 30 June 2006.  For this reason his answers would address the general aspects.   
112. On question 1(a), concerning the inconsistency on costs of production and the fact that the 
authority did not take that information into account, and question 1(b), on how the decision to disregard all of the data provided by the main Braz ilian exporter was consiste nt with Article 6.8 and 
Annex II of the Agreement, Mexico's position was that in the particular circumstances of this 
investigation, the investigating authority had cons idered that the discrepancies found during the on-
the-spot investigation were such that the authorit y had to disregard entirely the information provided 
by the Brazilian exporter. 
113. Concerning question 2 on the decision to apply the known facts to calculate the margin of 
dumping of the main Brazilian exporter, Mexico believed that mentioning an illegal provision as 
applicable did not necessarily mean that the d ecision was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, since the calculation of the margin of dumping was done in a correct fashion, including in 
paragraph 151 – mentioned by Braz il – in which Mexico indicated that Article 6.8 of the Agreement 
was the basis.  Mexico disagreed with Brazil's a pproach that there was an inconsistency with the 
WTO Agreements for the simple fact that Mexico  had mentioned Article 64 of the Foreign Trade 
Law.   
114. With regard to question 3, on the factual b asis for the preliminary determination and the 
relation with the final determin ation and final measure, Mexico  considered that the final 
determination of the investigation contained a su fficient factual basis for a decision to apply anti-
dumping duties.   
115. In respect of question 4(a), which concerned wh ether the disclosure of information relating to 
the preliminary determination was sufficient to comp ly with Article 6.9, the essential facts were not 
limited to the preliminary determination.  The deta ils had been explained to the representatives of the 
government of Brazil during the informal consultations held on 30 June 2006.   
116. Concerning question 4(b), on whether Mexico prese nted to the interested parties the essential 
facts under consideration in accordance with Article 6.9 of the Agreement, and if so when and in what 
format, Mexico considered that the essential facts under considerati on for the final decision had been 
disclosed to the interested parties.   
117. On question 4(c), concerning the decision to disreg ard all data related to  the determination of 
normal value and whether Mexico considered that this was an essential fact that needed to be 
disclosed to the interested parti es, in Mexico's view the essential facts on which the investigating 
authority had based its determination had been duly disclosed to the interested parties.   
118. In respect of question 5, concerning the methodologies used in the preliminary and final 
determinations, Mexico considered that the differe nces in the underselling margins found were due to 
changes in information, which were described in  detail in the final and preliminary decisions.  
Because the explanations were technical and thus would require a lot of time to present, Mexico 
considered that it would be better for the two governments to take them up bilaterally.  The 
representative thanked the government of Brazil for its interest. G/ADP/M/31 
Page 18  
 
  119. The delegate of Brazil
 thanked Mexico and indicated he would transmit Mexico's replies to 
capital for careful analysis and checking agains t the information that Brazil already had. 
120. The Committee took note  of the questions, answers and comments. 
J. OTHER BUSINESS  
• AD measure of Brazil on polyvinyl chloride from Mexico –– Item requested by Mexico 
121. The Chairperson  recalled that Mexico had submitted wr itten questions to Brazil concerning 
the latter's anti-dumping measure on PVC from Mexico.  These questions could be found in document 
G/ADP/Q2/BRA/1.  
122. The delegate of Mexico  indicated that the Brazilian measure on PVC from Mexico had been 
revoked in its second five-year review, that the re vocation had been challenged by two Brazilian 
enterprises, and that this challenge had confirmed the correctness of the methodology that had led to 
the revocation, but that nevertheless anti-dumpi ng duties were reimposed on the grounds that 
dumping might continue.  Mexico sought clarificatio n from Brazil on:  the fact ual basis for changing 
the decision to revoke the anti-dumping measures; wh ether the document disclosing the essential facts 
contained all of the factual circumstances relied upon by the Brazilian investigating authority or only 
part of them, and how the arguments submitted by th e Mexican exporter had been evaluated; and how 
the Brazilian investigating authority had determined  that the Mexican product would be directed to 
the Brazilian market, given that that the Mexican export markets for the product traditionally had been 
the United States, the United Kingdom, Chile, and the Dominican Republic.   
123. The delegate of Brazil  noted that the questions had been received by the Secretariat one day 
after the deadline, and that his delegation was still working on them and would provide written 
answers as soon as they were finalized.5  By way of preliminary responses, the factual basis for 
changing the decision to revoke the measures, whic h was Mexico's first question, was the data 
provided by the Mexican exporter which demonstrated  that if the anti-dumping were terminated, the 
Mexican export prices were likely to be lower than  the prices of the Brazilian domestic industry.  
Concerning the disclosure of the essential facts, Me xico's second question, Brazil wished to assure 
Mexico that all of the facts considered essentia l by the Brazilian investigating authority, which 
included the points raised by the Mexican exporter, we re reflected in the report of the essential facts.  
In the final report elaborated by the Brazilian au thority, which was fully accessible to all interested 
parties, there were comments from the authority about each relevant point raised by the Mexican 
exporter. 
124. Regarding the question of Mexican available cap acity being directed would to the Brazilian 
market, Mexico's third question, the availabl e data showed that the Mexican excess production 
capacity over the period of analysis had constituted nearly 20 per cent of Brazilian production, that 
this excess along with the likelihood of the recurrenc e of the dumping if the duty were terminated, led 
to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny the possibility that Brazil would become a probable 
destination of Mexican exports.   
125. The delegate of the United States  indicated that his delegation ha d many of the same concerns 
and questions as Mexico had raised with respect to this case. 
126. The Mexican  delegate thanked Brazil for the prel iminary replies and looked forward to 
receiving the written answers.  
                                                      
5 These replies were subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/BRA/2.  G/ADP/M/31 
 Page 19 
 
 
  127. The Committee took note  of the questions and answers.   
• AD measure of Turkey on iron and steel pipe fittings from Bulgaria – item requested by 
Bulgaria 
128. The delegate of Bulgaria  expressed concern over the recent introduction of an anti-dumping 
measure by Turkey on iron and steel pipe fittings  from Bulgaria.  The measure had been applied 
pursuant to a decision of the Board of the Federa tion of Unfair Competition in Imports of Turkey, 
published in a communiqué dated 7 September 2006, on the effects of imports of iron and steel and 
pipe fittings originating in Bulgar ia.  This action had not yet been notified to the Committee.  The 
Bulgarian authorities considered that imports into Turkey of the product in question originating in 
Bulgaria did not cause injury to the sole Turkish producer.  They believed that there was no evidence 
of a causal link between imports from Bulgaria and the injury to the Turkish domestic industry.  
Bulgaria would follow the developments in the case very closely. 
129. The representative of Turkey  indicated that his country had taken the anti-dumping measures 
on pipe fittings originating in Bu lgaria on 7 September 2006, and that  the notification regarding the 
measures had been prepared and would be submit ted as soon as possible, subject to translation 
problems and some other factors.  Turkey had consulted with Bulgaria on these issues during the 
investigation and had explained th e findings and other related issues in the investigation.  Those 
issues also were addressed in the final notice, published in the Official Gazette. 
130. The Committee took note  of the questions, answers and comments. 
K. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
131. The Chairperson  recalled the Committee's agreement at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that 
regular meetings normally would be held in the last  week of April and the last week of October.  
Accordingly, it was proposed that the next regular meeting of the Committee, along with the meetings 
of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, be held 
during the week of 23 April 2007.  The exact scheduling of these meetings would be communicated to Members in due course.   
L. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)  
132. The Committee adopted  its 2006 annual report, which was subsequently circulated in 
document G/L/791. 
__________