. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/CHN/7 
5 October 2011 
 (11-4832) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies from China to Questions Posed by JAPAN1  
Regarding the Semi-Annual Report of CHINA2 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 3 October 2011, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of China.  
_______________ 
  
Question 1 
 
 In the attached document to the public no tice of final determination, issued in 
15 August 2010, the Chinese authority explains the reason of disregarding the data of export volume and price provided by the cooperated expo rter.  According to that document, it was 
disregarded since the authority could not be sati sfied with the information and could not regard 
it as ideal in all respects and accurate.  At the Regular Meeting of the Committee on Anti-
Dumping Practices, Chinese delegate stated that the Chinese Authority was not satisfied with the information provided since it found a big di fference between the information in exporter's 
answer to the questionnaire and the information ob tained at the on-the-spot investigations.   
 
 Our question is based on the facts that th e Chinese Authority pointed out the difference 
at the on-the-spot investigations, and that the exporter explained the reason for it and provided 
all the necessary information requested to the Chin ese Authorities in a timely fashion.  Based on 
the facts above, please explain why the Chinese authority disregarded the information from the 
exporter which has acted to the best of its abilit y and adopted the export price whose source is 
not at all explained to the exporter.   
 
Reply 
 
 Firstly, we would like to point out that the pub lic notice of final determination of the interim 
review of Chloroprene Rubber was issued on 24 August 2010 with the reference number of "No.49 
2010") instead of 15 August 2010 as Japan mentioned in G/ADP/Q2/CHN/6. 
 
In this case, after the on-the-spot investigati on, the investigating authority ("Investigating 
Authority") informed the exporter after finding big differences between the information on export 
quantities and prices contained in the exporter's questionnaire response vis-à-vis the information 
obtained at the on-the-spot verification. Later on, a comment to explain the differences was provided 
by the exporter. However, the comment neither explained the reason clearly nor attached any 
evidence as to why there were so  big differences. According to Article 21 of the Anti-dumping 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q2/CHN/6 
2 G/ADP/N/202/CHN.   G/ADP/Q2/CHN/7 
Page 2  
 
  Regulations of the People's Republic of China, the Investigating Authority decided to disregard the 
information from the exporters and made the final determination on the basis of the facts available 
after carefully consideration,. We believe that, dur ing that process, ample opportunities were given to 
the exporter to defend themselves in its case, however they fail. 
 
Question 2  
 
The Chinese Authority has not yet provided the explanation of their final determination 
to the exporter in writing.  Please specify the date when it will provide the document which 
contains the numerical basis for calculation of the dumping margins as the essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis of the deci sion whether to apply definitive measures. 
 Reply 
 
 According to the Chinese Regulations on An tidumping, the Investigating Authority should 
inform all interested parties of  the essential facts under consideration which form the basis of the 
decision of applying definitive measures before fina l determination and provide sufficient time for the 
parties to defend their interests.  
 
In this case, the Investigating Authority, Bureau  of Fair Trade for Import & Export of Ministry 
of Commerce has provided disclosure of the final dete rmination to the three registered enterprises of 
Japan in writing on 15 July 2010. The reference numbe r of these three documents were "Letter issued 
by Division of Review, Bureau of Fair Trade for Import & Export, Ref. [2010]133"( To DENKI KAGAKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA) , "Letter issued by Division of Review, Bureau of Fair 
Trade for Import & Export, Ref. [2010]134 号"( To TOSOH CORPORATION) and "Letter issued by 
Division of Review, Bureau of Fair Trade for Import & Export, Ref. [2010]135 号" (To SHOWA 
DENKO K.K.). Based on the courier record, all th ese three enterprises acknowledged receipt of the 
documents on 15 July 2010. 
 
Question 3 
 
 When the Chinese authority decided not to accep t the data provided by the exporter, did 
it inform the exporter forthwith of the reaso ns thereof, and gave an opportunity to provide 
further explanation within a reasonable period of time?  Did it give a full opportunity to the exporter to defend its interests?  If China answers that it did, please specify how it did.  
Reply 
 
 On 15 July 2010, the Investigating Authority pr ovided disclosure of the final determination to 
the three registered enterprises of Japan in writing, which contained the essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis of the decision whether to apply definitive measures, and provided 
essential facts including the reasons as to why the I nvestigating Authority decided not to accept the 
data or information provided by the exporters.  
 
 In the disclosure, 10 days commenting peri od was provided, which showed the Authority 
gave full opportunity to the exporters to provide furt her explanation and defend their interests. In fact, 
all of the three exporters have provided comments in  time, and the Investigating Authority gave full 
consideration to these comments before the final dete rmination was made. In the public notice of final 
determination, the Investigating Authority also expl ained the reasons for rejection of such data or 
information provided by the exporters.  
__________