WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/13 
19 July 2005 
 (05-3051) 
Negotiating Group on Rules . 
  
 
NEGOTIATING GROUP ON RULES 
 
Report by the Chairman to the 
 
Trade Negotiations Committee  
 
 
I. ANTI-DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
INCLUDING FISHERIES SUBSIDIES 
A. STATUS OF WORK 
1. Given the nature and timing of this meeting of the TNC, it is appropriate to step back and 
look at the work of the Group, in order to consider  where we started, how far we have come, and how 
to move forward.   
2. The Group has moved through three (overlapping) phases in its work in this area of its 
mandate. 
• The first phase . Description: In a first stage, Participants  submitted formal papers of a 
general nature, indicating those areas wher e they sought changes to the AD and SCM 
Agreements, which were then discussed in formal meetings .  This general issue identification 
or "wish list" process continued up to the Cancun Ministerial. Results:  Shortly before Cancun, 
my predecessor issued a "Compilation of Issu es and Proposals Identified by Participants" on 
the basis of the 141 submissions received as of that time.1  Assessment: While the range of 
issues identified was enormous, these submissions  were in many cases very general and the 
discussion of them limited.  
• The second phase . Description : After Cancun, the Group began meeting in informal sessions  
to consider more detailed and specific "elabor ated proposals", which included in some cases 
draft legal texts.  The goal of this process is to engage in a concrete discussion on the basis of 
precise proposals. Results : Participants have submitted 55  elaborated proposals, of which 45 
relate to trade remedies (anti-dumping and to a lesser extent countervail), four to horizontal 
subsidies disciplines and six to fisheries subs idies.  Many of these submissions contain 
multiple specific proposals.  The elaborat ed proposals on antidumping and countervailing 
measures relate to: dumping margins; existen ce/amount of subsidization; injury; duties; 
procedures; circumvention and dispute settlement. A complete list of the elaborated proposals, organized by subject matter, is annexed.    Assessment : While the range of issues 
discussed is very  broad, this process has neve rtheless proved extremely useful in giving the 
Group a clearer idea as to what proponents ar e seeking and in giving proponents an initial 
sense of the views of other Participants, fee dback which is important to help proponents 
develop a realistic view of what may and may not attract broader support in the Group. 
                                                     
 
1 TN/RL/W/143 TN/RL/13 
Page 2  
 
 • The third phase . Description : While the plenary formal and in formal process continues, in 
the spring of 2005, I proposed to add two instances to this process in order to supplement it with: bilateral and plurilateral consulta tions convoked by myself and an open-ended 
Technical Group that examines the possibility of  a standardized anti-dumping questionnaire, a 
project which could significantly reduce costs and increase predictability for investigating 
authorities and exporters alike.  The consultations  are intended to work on the basis of "third 
generation" submissions proposing specific changes  to Agreement text. This consultation 
process has a variable geometry since the num ber and composition of members consulted 
varies from issue to issue. In order to ensu re transparency, the proposals discussed are 
previously circulated to the Group and discussed in plenary informal sessions before being the 
subject of consultations. I will also repor t to the full Group on any progress made.  
Assessment : As discussed below, I consider that these consultations will play a critical role in 
the negotiations, and I intend to intens ify and develop them after Hong Kong. 
B. 
FUTURE WORK  
1. Anti-dumping/countervailing measures  
3. In planning our future work and charting a course to Hong Kong and - more critically, in my 
view - to the conclusion of the Round, it is extr emely important to take account of the specific 
characteristics of the negotiations on anti-dumping (and countervailing) measures, which are by far 
the most active area of the negotiations: 
• The mandate and the background . The distinctive character of these negotiations arises from 
the combination of the general nature of the ma ndate and the very specific texts to which that 
mandate applies. To understand the dynamics of this Group it is indispensable to keep in 
mind that detailed rules on anti-dumping have alr eady been negotiated in the Kennedy, Tokyo 
and Uruguay Rounds. Present legal texts on anti dumping and countervailing measures reflect 
a succession of different equilibriums painstak ingly reached in at least three multilateral 
rounds.   We thus have before us, as the starti ng point, a highly detailed, painfully negotiated 
and complex text and the broad mandate to "clarify and improve" these rules.  However 
significant the changes proposed, the nature of  the result will depend upon the precise details 
of the drafting.  Concepts such as "first appr oximation" and "modalities" fit awkwardly in this 
context.  Further, we are not dealing with a ve ry restricted number of big picture issues, but 
with a very large number of highly specific questions.  Agreement on individual issues 
outside a global result is thus hard to visualize. 
• Internal trade-offs and external linkages .  The possibilities for internal trade-offs, and thus for 
a balanced and free-standing result within the an ti-dumping area, are limited.  While the anti-
dumping negotiations are not exactly a one-way street, traffic flow moves heavily in one 
direction.  And while other areas of the Rules ma ndate, such as fisheries subsidies, offer some 
limited possibilities for internal balance, an outcome on anti-dumping ultimately will be 
linked closely to other areas of the negotiati ons, such as agriculture and non-agricultural 
market access.  Although history does not necessa rily repeat itself, the evidence of past 
negotiations suggests that, given that any resu lts in anti-dumping must be highly detailed and 
text-based, results are not likely to emerge befo re a comparable level of detail on the external 
trade-offs is clear. 
4. Regarding the expected outcome for Hong Kong  and beyond, while the Participants have 
expressed different views on a number of points, there is a remarkable degree of convergence on 
certain key elements.  First, all Participants agr ee that Rules issues are closely linked to other aspects 
of the DDA, and that results in all areas of th e Rules mandate are an essential component in the 
overall balance of the Round.  Second, I do not believe that any Participant would dispute that as we  TN/RL/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
 move forward we must more clearly define the sc ope of our negotiations.  Third, there is a clear 
consensus that the time available is limited and that we must accelerate and intensify our work.  
Finally, there is a common understanding that we mu st have text-based negotia tions in 2006 in order 
to conclude the negotiations on time.  The diffe rences among Participants relate not to these key 
elements but rather to the precise strategy and timing for achieving our objectives.   
5.  In my view, it is critical to recall as we move forward that this is a negotiation among  
Participants.  My task as Chairman is to organize a framework that allows and stimulate Participants 
to negotiate with each other; not with me.  If at an  appropriate moment it is clear to me and to the 
Participants themselves that they are unable to reac h results, I may be required to step in and propose 
compromises. But that moment has not yet arrived. For the moment, therefore, my duty is to create an 
environment that is conducive to  productive negotiations between de legations and that will, should it 
prove absolutely necessary, provide me with a solid political and technical basis to table a credible 
and balanced Chairman's text which Participants could take as my best assessment of where the final 
compromise might lie.    
6. The consultation process which we have launched in the past few months is a critical element 
in these negotiations.  The pro cess has the following objectives. First , we have a large number of 
issues before us; the consultations must help to identi fy those areas of particular and salient interest to 
Participants.  If we diffuse our energy on too broa d a set of issues, we may undermine our ability to 
make progress in areas that are really key to Participants.  Second , the consultations must encourage a 
concrete and precise discussion involvi ng real engagement with a view to identifying solutions.  This 
will give the Group and myself the most realistic sense possible of areas in which some progress may 
be possible, and of the types of changes that might be acceptable to different Members. 
7. What is necessary between now and Hong Kong is to further develop, intensify and 
supplement this plurilateral consulta tion process.  While we have three meeting clusters in this area 
scheduled between summer break and Hong Kong,  I intend to call additional intersessional 
consultations at the technical and, if necessary, at  the political level.  I also envision sharpening the 
process, by limiting our work to precise textual pr oposals to improve the AD and SCM Agreements.  I 
will intervene where and when I believe that the Group' s work requires greater fo cus or direction.  In 
order to enhance our technical understanding and to seek areas of possible compromise, I expect to 
call upon individuals or groups of individuals to serve  as "Friends of the Chair" to advance work on 
particular issues.  I am not speaking of business as  usual, but of an intense and rigorous process to 
ensure that in Hong Kong we will have a so ld basis for the final stage of the Round. 
8. Alternatives and risks.  I am conscious that some Particip ants, with a legitimate concern that 
we do not "fall behind" other Groups , have urged specific actions to  be taken before Hong Kong: 
some have suggested the early tabling of a comp rehensive text, others have requested a list of 
priorities/objectives.  Of course, I would welc ome any text resulting from consultations among 
delegations and enjoying a minimum le vel of general support.  However,  no such text is at present in 
sight.  As to the development of a list of priority  issues or objectives, although some Participants have 
organized their demands around six objectives, which serve as policy guidelines  for their initiatives,  
to have a common  list of objectives, much less of prioritized issues, would require full-fledged 
negotiations during the few remaining months. It has been pointed out that this could distract the 
Group from the substantive work and coul d present a serious risk of failure.  
9. The main focus of our attention.   I think that we must keep  our focus on the two key 
questions: what is the best way to ensure that anti-dumping makes its contribution to the overall 
conclusion of the Round? How can we make use of the very limited time everyone agrees we have?  
While I cannot predict with certainty the conditions that will prevail in late 2005, the timing of any 
comprehensive Chairman's text inevitably depends  upon conditions being ri pe both within the Group 
and in other areas of the negotiations.  A Chairman 's text that is not politically and technically TN/RL/13 
Page 4  
 
 credible such that it could be accepted as the basi s for final negotiations would be a brief illusion of 
progress, and even a good text, tabled at the wrong time, will be rejected.  
10. I do not pretend that our negotiations in this  area will be easy, and as with any negotiation a 
positive outcome is not guaranteed.  I am however encouraged by the experience in past Rounds, 
which suggests that if we proceed with all deliber ate speed and steady nerves, we will be able to 
achieve satisfactory results. 
2. Horizontal subsidies disciplines 
11. Participants to date have given this area little attention and energy compared to anti-
dump/countervail.  Participants ha ve submitted only a limited number of proposals, most with little 
elaboration.  To the extent that Participants have pa rticular interests in this area, they should not wait 
too long to pursue them via elaborated proposals.  The issues inevitably will be  very technical, so that 
considering such proposals in detail w ill be difficult and time-consuming.   
12. As and when sufficiently detailed proposals ar e submitted to the Group, the same intensified 
negotiation process as is underway for anti-dump/count ervail can be undertaken.  The breadth of such 
a process, and its eventual role in the overall outcome of the Round, would depend on the quantity 
and nature of the inputs provided.  For my part, I stand ready to facilitate in every way possible the 
consideration of proposals in this area.   
3. Fisheries subsidies 
13. In contrast to horizontal subsidies disciplines, negotiations on fisheries subsidies, which are 
covered by a specific negotiating mandate from Doha, have been very active since the outset of the 
Round.  Furthermore, the nature and focus of the de bate have evolved significantly over time, with all 
sides now discussing the structure and content of pos sible new disciplines, rather than whether there 
would be any new disciplines at all.  Submissions are becoming more precise, and seek to analyse the 
types of subsidies that exist in this sector and to identify those which should be prohibited.   
14. That said, important differences remain in respect of the structure and extent of new 
disciplines.  A key issue is whether disciplines would take the form of a broad ban on fisheries 
subsidies, with certain exemptions, or instead w ould take the form of a positive list of prohibited 
subsidies.  Another  issue now being discussed is whether or not any new disciplines would apply to 
aquaculture.  There has also been  an increasing focus on the nature and extent of special and 
differential treatment, including the related issues of artisanal fisheries and access payments, and 
given the diversity of views expressed it is clear th at this issue will be an important and potentially 
complex one to resolve.   
15. I am encouraged by the fact that Participants are now engaged in a very  constructive dialogue, 
and that proponents have been subm itting an increasing number of more pr ecise papers on this issue.  
It is, however, clear that much technical work rema ins to be done.  Thus, the pace of the negotiations 
depends on how quickly the main proponents proceed  from here.  As the necessary elements are 
tabled, I will do all that I can to facilitate an accel erated and intensified negotiating process in respect 
of fisheries subsidies.  
REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS  
C. S
TATUS OF WORK 
16. During the first year of negotiation, substantiv e progress had been made in the initial work of 
the Group regarding regional trade agreements (RTAs).  The fact that controversial issues related to  TN/RL/13 
 Page 5 
 
 
 RTAs had already been extensively debated in  the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(CRTA) facilitated the issue-identification phase of  the negotiations, which by the end of 2002 had 
been virtually completed.2  Supported by a number of submissions, Participants were quickly able to 
distinguish, as a working hypothesis, those issues that were more "procedural" in nature from those 
that had a higher "systemic" or "legal" content. 
17. As from October 2002, the Group primarily focu sed its work on "RTAs transparency" issues 
in open-ended informal meetings , progressing on the basis of various informal notes by the Group's 
Chairman, though by mid-2003, the Group also consider ed Participants' submissions related to some 
systemic issues.  Discussions were also held on  RTA-related S & D proposals, referred to the Group 
by the Chairman of the General Council on 20 May 2003, which represent an integral part of its 
negotiating agenda.  Regarding the application of any new rules to already enforced RTAs, it was 
generally felt that such discussions should be  postponed until the negotiations had progressed 
significantly. 
18. In March 2004, the Group resumed its work from wh ere it had been left in July 2003.  From 
there on, discussions on "RTAs transparency" and sy stemic issues have been held in parallel.  A 
Chairman's roadmap3 and some Participants' submissions serve d as a basis to engage the Group in a 
more in-depth consideration of systemic questi ons; however, the debate only gained momentum as 
from March 2005, once various specific proposals had been tabled by Participants.  "RTAs 
transparency" discussions continued to evolve on the basis of informal notes by the Group's Chairman. 
19. Discussions as of today on "RTAs transparency" i ssues have given shape to a new, reinforced 
mechanism for the consideration of RTAs by the WT O, including a device for early announcement of 
RTAs; a timeframe for notification; the type of information to be submitted by the parties; a 
Secretariat's factual presentation of RTAs;
4 an individual Members' assessment of RTAs' consistency 
(instead of the currently required collective ass essment); and streamlined procedures for RTAs' 
subsequent notifications and reporting. 
20. On systemic issues, technical discussions are progressing on issues singled out in Participants' 
proposals, namely the definition of "substantially al l the trade"; the length of the transition period;  
criteria to measure the incidence of "other regula tions of commerce" on third parties; flexibility for 
developing countries; and the coherence of rules vis-à-vis RTAs involving developing countries. 
D. FUTURE WORK 
21. Following the Group's meeting at the end of Ju ly, I should be in a position to revise my 
informal note on "RTAs transparency", to recapitula te the progress achieved in those discussions and 
to provide Participants with a text that would constitute the basis for engaging, as of early in 
September, in a drafting exercise and technical di scussions on a few elements (such as how to deal 
with RTAs presently under examination in the Co mmittee on Regional Trade Agreements).  Also, the 
Group should further consider the question raised of  the application of any new transparency process 
to RTAs notified under the Enabling Clause.5 
                                                      
2 Upon request, the Secretariat circ ulated a background note summarizing the discussions held in the 
CRTA, TN/RL/W/8/Rev.1 of 1 August 2002 ( Compendium of Issues Related to Regional Trade Agreements ). 
3 Roadmap for Discussions on RTAs' "Systemic" Issues and Rev.1 , dated 26 April 2004 and 
22 June 2004, respectively. 
4 Somewhat inspired in the Trade Policy Review process. 
5 Any redefinition of the role of the Council for Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Services and 
in particular the Committee on Trade and Development within the new transparency process is linked to the 
resolution of that question. TN/RL/13 
Page 6  
 
 22. On systemic issues, the proposals presently on the table need to be further discussed and 
refined, and additional proposals have been announced .  The Group is expected to intensify its work 
in this area in the coming months, so as to define  by Hong Kong the scope and broad parameters of 
the negotiations for clarification and improvements on RTA rules.  TN/RL/13 
 Page 7 
 
 
 ANNEX 
 
ELABORATED PROPOSALS BEARING THE "JOB/GEN" SYMBOL 
SUBMITTED BY PARTICIPANTS TO THE NEGOTIATING GROUP ON 
RULES (AD/SCM INCLUDING FS) 
 
 
MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
I. ANTI-DUMPING AND/OR COUNTERVAILING MEASURES 
A. DUMPING MARGINS 
United States  Exchange Rates 
(ADA Article 2.4.1.) 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/5 
JOB (04)/46 
TN/RL/W/149/Rev.1 
 
 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong,  
China;  Israel; Japan; Korea; Mexico; Norway; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Singapore; 
Switzerland and Thailand  
  Prohibition of Zeroing 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/8 
JOB (04)/57 
Chile; Colombia; Costa 
Rica; Hong Kong,  China;  Japan;  Korea; Norway; the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; Singapore; Switzerland and Thailand    Determination of Normal 
Value 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/9 
JOB (04)/58 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, 
China; Japan; Korea; 
Norway; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Thailand   
 
 Proposals on Model 
Matching 13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/18 
JOB(04)/124 
Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; and Thailand   
 Proposals on Issues 
Related to Affiliated Parties 13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/19 
JOB(04)/125 
 TN/RL/13 
Page 8  
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Norway; Switzerland; and the 
Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  Proposals on Comparison 
at the "Same Level of Trade" 20/10/04 TN/RL/GEN/24 
JOB(04)/153 
Canada   Proposal on Like Product 
and Product under Consideration 30/11/04 TN/RL/GEN/26 
JOB(04)/181 
Brazil, Chile, Israel, Korea, Singapore, Switzerland, and 
Thailand Proposal on Product 
under Consideration  30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/50 
JOB(05)/133 
B. EXISTENCE/AMOUNT OF SUBSIDIZATION 
United States Allocation of Subsidy 
Benefits Over Time  
 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/4 
JOB (04)/45 
TN/RL/W/148/Rev.1 
 
Canada  Specificity 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/6 
JOB (04)/54 
 
Canada  Benefit Pass through 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/7 
JOB (04)/55 
 
United States  Allocation Periods for 
Subsidy Benefits   12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/12 
JOB (04)/61 
TN/RL/W/157/Rev.1 
 
United States  
  Expensing Versus 
Allocating Subsidy 
Benefits 13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/17/Rev.1 
JOB(04)/122/Rev.1 
United States Further Submission on 
When and How to Allocate Subsidy Benefits Over Time 
 03/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/45 
JOB(05)/87 
C. INJURY 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, 
China; Israel; Japan; Korea; 
Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; and Thailand 
 Proposal on the 
Definition of Domestic 
Industry Article 4.1 of the 
Antidumping Agreement (ADA) 
 
 30/11/04 TN/RL/GEN/27 
JOB(04)/182  TN/RL/13 
 Page 9 
 
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Korea; Norway; Singapore; 
Switzerland; the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Thailand  Proposal on Issues 
Relating To the Determination of Injury under Article 3 of the 
ADA 30/11/04 TN/RL/GEN/28 
JOB(04)/183 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Korea; 
Norway; Singapore, 
Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Thailand 
 Second Submission of 
Proposals on the Determination of Injury  22/03/05 TN/RL/GEN/38 
JOB(05)/46 
 
Egypt 
 Proposal on Material 
Retardation  
 12/05/05 TN/RL/GEN/40 
JOB(05)/76 
Japan Illustrative List of 
Benchmarks for  Determinations of Material Injury and Causation 
 12/05/05 TN/RL/GEN/42 
JOB(05)/78 
Brazil, Switzerland, and 
Thailand 
  Proposal on Cumulation 30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/51 
JOB(05)/134 
D. DUTIES 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; 
Costa Rica; Hong Kong,  China; Israel;  Japan; Korea; Mexico; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate 
Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Thailand and Turkey  Lesser Duty Rule 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/1 
JOB (04)/40/Rev.1 
United States All-Others Rate 
(Article 9.4) 13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/16 
JOB(04)/121 
 TN/RL/13 
Page 10  
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Korea; Norway; Singapore; 
Switzerland; the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Thailand and Turkey  Proposal on De Minimis 
Margins of Dumping   07/02/05 TN/RL/GEN/30/Rev.1 
JOB(05)/10/Rev.1 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, 
China; Israel; Japan; Korea; 
Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; Thailand and 
Turkey   Proposal on Negligible 
Imports  07/02/05 TN/RL/GEN/31/Re.1 
JOB(05)/11/Rev.1 
India Proposal on Mandatory 
Application of Lesser Duty Rule  
 22 /03/05 TN/RL/GEN/32 
JOB(05)/38 
 
 
Turkey Proposal on negligible 
Imports 22 /03/05 TN/RL/GEN/33 
JOB(05)/39 
  
Brazil; Chile; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Korea; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the 
Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Thailand  Further Submission of 
Proposals on the Mandatory Application of the Lesser 
Duty Rule 
 12/05/05 TN/RL/GEN/43 
JOB(05)/79 
Brazil; Chile; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Japan; Korea; Norway; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; and Thailand  Issues Related to Article 
6.10, including "Limited Examination", and Article 9.4 "All Other's 
Rate"  
 09/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/46 
JOB(05)/98  TN/RL/13 
 Page 11 
 
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Hong Kong, China;  Israel; Japan;  Korea;  Norway;   Singapore; Switzerland; Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu;  and Thailand   Further Submission on 
Public Interest  30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/53 
JOB(05)/136 
E. PROCEDURES 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong,  China;  Japan; Korea; Norway; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory 
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; and Thailand   Price Undertakings 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/2 
JOB (04)/41/Rev.1 
Canada   Duty Assessment 
Methodologies 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/3 
JOB (04)/42 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong,  China;  Israel; Japan; Korea; 
Norway; the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Singapore; Switzerland; and Thailand   Reviews 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/10 
JOB (04)/59 
United States  
 
 New Shipper Reviews 
(ADA Article 9.5) 12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/11 
JOB (04)/60 
TN/RL/W/156/Rev.1 
 
United States     
 
  Prompt Access to Non-
Confidential Information (Articles 6.4 Agreement on Anti-Dumping Practices 
and 12.3 Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures)  12/07/04 TN/RL/GEN/13 
JOB (04)/89 
TN/RL//W/162/Rev.1 
United States Conduct of Verifications 
(ADA Article 6.7 & Annex I and ASCM 
Article 12.6 & Annex VI) 
 13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/15 
JOB(04)/119 TN/RL/13 
Page 12  
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Brazil; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Norway; Singapore; 
Switzerland; the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Thailand    Proposals on Facts 
Available  13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/20 
JOB(04)/126 
Canada   
 Explanations of  
Determinations and Decisions 
 19/10/04 TN/RL/GEN/21 
JOB(04)/149 
Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; Norway; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu; and Thailand   
 Proposals on Issues 
Relating to the Initiation and Completion of Investigations 20/10/04 TN/RL/GEN/23 
JOB(04)/152 
United States Preliminary 
Determinations (Article 6 ADA & Article 12 ASCM)  20/10/04 TN/RL/GEN/25 
JOB(04)/155 
Chile;  Costa Rica;  Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea; 
Norway;  Switzerland;  Sepa
rate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  Thailand;  and Turkey   Further Submission on 
Proposals on Proceedings 
Under Article 9 
 12/05/05 TN/RL/GEN/44 
JOB(05)/80  
China 
    Proposal on 
Establishment of Responding and Comment Procedure After Initiation   
 30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/55 
JOB(05)/138 
Brazil, Chile, Israel, Japan, 
Korea, Singapore, 
Switzerland, and Thailand  Proposals on Proceedings 
under Article 11.2 30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/52 
JOB(05)/135  TN/RL/13 
 Page 13 
 
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Norway Proposal on Issues 
Relating to Evidence, Public Notice and Explanation of the 
Determinations under 
Articles 6 and 12 of the ADA      30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/49 
JOB(05)/132 
F. OTHER 
United States Circumvention 07/02/05 TN/RL/GEN/29 
JOB(05)/9 
 
Canada    Dispute Settlement  22/03/05 TN/RL/GEN/37 
JOB(05)/45 
 
II. SUBSIDIES 
Canada Serious Prejudice  13/09/04 TN/RL/GEN/14 
JOB(04)/120 
 
Australia  Prohibited Export 
Subsidies 
 19/10/04 TN/RL/GEN/22 
JOB(04)/151 
Australia   Prohibited Export 
Subsidies 22 /03/05 TN/RL/GEN/34 
JOB(05)/40 
 
Australia    Subsidies: Withdrawal of 
a Subsidy 22/03/05 TN/RL/GEN/35 
JOB(05)/41 
III. FISHERIES SUBSIDIES 
New Zealand Fisheries Subsidies to 
Management Services  22/03/05 TN/RL/GEN/36 
JOB(05)/44  
EC Paper on Fisheries 11/05/05 TN/RL/GEN/39 
JOB(05)/75 
 
United States Fisheries Subsidies:  
Programs for 
Decommissioning of 
Vessels and License Retirement 
 12/05/05 TN/RL/GEN/41 
JOB(05)/77 
Japan  
 IUU Fishing and 
Fisheries Subsidies 02/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/47 
JOB(05)/100 
Brazil  Contribution to the 
Discussion on the 
Framework for Disciplines on Fisheries Subsidies 30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/56 
JOB(05)/139 TN/RL/13 
Page 14  
 
 MEMBER COUNTRY SUBJECT DATE  DOCUMENT 
SYMBOL(S) 
Australia, Ecuador, and New Zealand Contribution to the 
Discussion on the Framework for Disciplines on Fisheries 
Subsidies - Aquaculture   30/06/05 TN/RL/GEN/54 
JOB(05)/137 
 
 
__________