WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/18 
28 October 2009 
 (09-5377) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
CHAIR'S REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
ON TRANSITIONAL REVIEW OF CHINA 
 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices undertook the eighth Transitional Review of 
China pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China 
(WT/L/432) at its meeting of 21 October 2009.  2. There is no information specified for subm ission to the Committee under Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  Members submitted questions in the cont ext of the Transitional Review relating to China's 
implementation of the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-dumping Agreement) .  These questions can be found in documents 
G/ADP/W/475 (submitted by Japan) and G/ADP/W/474 (submitted by the United States).    3. The statements made at the meeting of 21 October 2009, at which the Transitional Review 
was item E of the agenda, are reflected in the minut es of the meeting, which will be circulated as 
document G/ADP/M/37.  The relevant paragraphs of  the minutes, which reflect the statements made 
and the discussion at the meeting, are annexed.    G/ADP/18 
Page 2  
 
  Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
 
held on 21 October 2009, to be circulated as document G/ADP/M/37  
  E. TRANSITIONAL
 REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'S  REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  TRADE  
ORGANIZATION 
1. The Chair  recalled that pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization,  all subsidiary bodies, including the Committee, 
"which have a mandate covering China's commitme nts under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol 
shall, within one year after accession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by 
China of the WTO Agreement and of the related provis ions of [the] Protocol".  China was to provide 
relevant information in advance of the review, in cluding information specified in Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  China could also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to any other 
specific commitments made by other Members in the Protocol, in subsidiary bodies which had a 
relevant mandate.  The Committee was required promp tly to report the results of the review to the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  The review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an ea rlier date decided by the General Council.   
 2. There were no procedures set out for the conduct of the transitional review in the Protocol, 
except that China was to provide relevant informati on in advance of the review.  In this regard the 
Chair noted that there was no information sp ecified for submission to the Committee under 
Annex 1A.    3. The Chair noted that the delegations of Japan and the United States had submitted questions in 
the context of the transitional re view (documents G/ADP/W/475 and W/474, respectively).  The Chair 
invited Members to make any general statements.   
 4. The representative of the United States
 noted this was the eighth annual review of China's 
implementation of its anti-dumping regime, under the Transitional Review Mechanism of China's 
Protocol of Accession, to be undertaken by the Committee.  These reviews provided Members with an 
important opportunity to consider China's effort s to meet its obligations under the Anti-dumping 
Agreement.  As in prior reviews, the United St ates observed that China had been incrementally 
improving its compliance efforts, but there remain ed aspects of China's anti-dumping regime that 
were  obscure, thereby making it difficult for Members to confirm whether China was meeting the 
standard of procedural fairness reflected  in the Anti-dumping Agreement.    
5. China had developed into a substantial user  of the anti-dumping remedy and had initiated 
over 160 investigations since joining the WTO in 2 001, including 15 this year, which placed it among 
the top ten users of the remedy.  Given that China was an active user of trade remedies, it would be 
essential that China conduct anti-dumping inves tigations in a responsible manner.  
6. The United States used this opportunity to highlight certain concerns that it shared with its 
respondent companies that were subject to Ch inese anti-dumping proceedings regarding significant 
lapses in transparency on the part  of China's administering authority, the Ministry of Commerce 
("MOFCOM").  Such concerns were characterized  in large part by the Chinese petitioning company 
not providing MOFCOM with adequate non-c onfidential summaries of its submissions, and 
MOFCOM's subsequent failure to require that reasonable non-confidential summaries be provided.  
As a result, interested parties had been unable to adequately defend their interests in several recent 
anti-dumping proceedings, while MOFCOM had been de prived of key rebuttal information needed to 
render a fair and objective determination, as re quired by the Anti-dumping Agreement.  The 
United States urged China to review the adequacy of its non-confidential investigative records to  G/ADP/18 
 Page 3 
 
 
  ensure that all interested parties were provided with adequate non-confidential summaries that allow 
for meaningful comments, well in advance of MO FCOM's final determination, and in a manner 
consistent with the provisions of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
7. According to Article 22 of the Antidumping Regul ations of the People's Republic of China 
and Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement,  it would be the investigating authority's 
responsibility to ensure that proper non-confiden tial summaries were provided for any information 
considered to be proprietary in nature.  This w as particularly important given that in China's anti-
dumping practice, non-confidential summaries were th e only means by which interested parties might 
examine and evaluate submissions made by ot her parties and documen ts generated by the 
administering authority.  Accordingly, the United States urged China to thoroughly review requests 
for confidential treatment of information made by  all parties, particularly requests by petitioning 
Chinese companies, and provide as soon as possibl e non-confidential summaries that allow for 
adequate understanding of the submitted information a nd rebuttal of allegations based on such data.   
8. Similarly, the United States urged China to improve the level of detail provided by 
MOFCOM in its disclosure of dumping margin cal culations and of the essential facts supporting the 
positions taken in the preliminary determination, an other aspect of China's investigative process often 
criticized by responding parties.  The United Stat es urged China to provide parties with such 
improved disclosures with sufficient time to allow for the preparation of rebuttal arguments prior to a 
final determination.  In this way,  China could ensure that all parties were afforded the procedural 
fairness to which they were entitled. 
9. Furthermore, the United States noted that as China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many 
of the measures it had put in place have now reached the five-year mark.  Given the evidentiary 
problems the United States had encountered in prior anti-dumping proceedings conducted by 
MOFCOM, it was critical that when drafting its e xpiry review regulations and procedures, China 
should ensure that those regulations and procedur es would meet the high standards of the Anti-
dumping Agreement.  Under the Anti-dumping Agreement, full access to critical arguments and 
evidence must be provided to interested parties in  expiry reviews, as well as full opportunities for due 
process.  In particular, details of the factual basis and the reasoning supporting the investigating 
authority's decisions, as well as complete accounts of  the petitioners' allegations and briefs, must be 
made available to all interested parties.  Therefor e, the United States urged China to finalize its expiry 
review regulations and procedures as soon as possible and to notify them promptly to this Committee. 
10. The United States also urged China to apply fair  procedures to all parties involved in an anti-
dumping proceeding as envisioned by the Anti-dumping Agreement.  This would include, but would 
not be limited to, timely access to administrators a nd favourable consideration of hearing requests.  
The United States urged China to provide all interest ed parties with the opportunity to raise issues in 
an open and transparent setting at an early stage of every proceeding, rather than resorting to private 
meetings with selected parties as a principal means to  obtain views of parties.  The United States 
reiterated that interested parties not present for private meetings should be quickly informed of 
matters discussed at these meetings and be given an opportunity to present their rebuttal comments.   
11. The United States recognized the progress China had made to date in developing a legal 
framework for its anti-dumping regime and in pu rsuing the principles of transparency and fair 
procedures set forth in the Anti-dumping Agreement.   As a significant user of the anti-dumping 
remedy, China had a responsibility to demonstrate it s commitment to the principles set forth in the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  In that regard, the Unite d States strongly encouraged China to complete 
the transition to make its anti-dumping investiga tive and decision-making processes fully transparent 
and procedurally fair for all parties.  The United States noted that it was looking forward to seeing continued improvement and offered its assistan ce to China in pursuit of that goal. G/ADP/18 
Page 4  
 
  12. The representative of Japan
 referred to the technical questions posed by Japan in document 
G/ADP/W/475 and indicated that the two issues pertai ning to the application of facts available and 
injury determinations, on which the questions focused , were follow-up questions posed by Japan last 
year. 
13. On facts available, Jap an's central concern was the treatme nt of the exporters/producers who 
were unknown to the investigating authority and who we re not provided with a notice of initiation, did 
not have an opportunity to have access to the inve stigating authority's website or its questionnaires, 
nor were they able to register with that author ity.  Japan expressed its appreciation to the responses 
provided by China last year as reflected mainly in  paragraph 96 as well as other paragraphs of the 
October 2008 minutes contained in document G/ADP/M/35.   However, this did not respond to Japan's 
concern regarding the treatment of unknown exporters /producers and that if certain information was 
not supplied within a reasonable time, the investigating authority would be free to make determinations on the basis of the facts available. 
14. On injury determinations, Japan referred to  the WTO jurisprudence with respect to the 
investigating authority's obligation to separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the imports 
from countries other than the Japan.  This was clea r in Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
Although Japan appreciated the detailed responses pr ovided by China on this issue last year and 
reflected in paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Octobe r 2008 minutes contained in document G/ADP/M/35 
and the provision of the information to the Embassy of Japan in Beijing, China had not yet provided a clear answer on its practice in this regard.  The stat ement provided by China simply stated that "other 
factors were not the major reason for the material injury", without providing any further explanation 
on how the authority would "separate and distinguish".  
15. The representative of th e European Communities
 thanked Japan and the United States for 
their submissions and statements and indicated that the European Communities was looking forward 
to hearing China's comments on them.  In the past, the European Communities expressed concern 
with respect to, inter alia , the disclosure issue and that such concerns had remained and overlapped to 
some extent with what was raised in the submissi ons and statements of the United States and Japan.  
The European Communities, therefore, shared othe r Members' concerns expressed in this regard. 
16. Before responding to the specific points made by  Members, which were also reflected in the 
written questions addressed to Chin a, the representative of China  made some general observations. 
China indicated that the anti-dumping regime it ha d developed in the course of the great progress it 
achieved in opening the market, was comprehensiv e, detailed and fully consistent with the 
requirement of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  The practice of the Chinese authorities in this respect 
had been fair and rule-based pursu ant to China's anti-dumping regulations and rules, and the Anti-
dumping Agreement's requirements.  In initiati ng anti-dumping cases, China had always taken a 
serious, prudent and responsible attitude and exercised  great restraint.  On the contrary, China had 
become the largest victim of trade remedy measures imposed by other Members.  China indicated that 
the number of cases initiated by other Members was al so available and was reflected in the documents 
of the meeting.  The number of cases was sel f-explanatory and reflected that China was not a 
substantial user of trade remedy measures.  The number of cases initia ted by China was quite 
moderate taking into considerati on China's huge volume of imports. 
17. Turning to specific questions posed by Memb ers, China indicated that it would like to 
respond to these questions.  Regarding non-confiden tial summaries, the Investigating Authority of 
China had dealt with the confidential information in anti-dumping proceedings in a way that was in 
compliance with the Anti-dumping Agreement  and the domestic laws, re gulations and rules. 
According to the Provisional Rules on Access to Public In formation of Antidumping Investigations,  
the authority would request interested parties to provide non-confidential summaries which would present an appropriate understandi ng of the substance of the confidential information.  The non- G/ADP/18 
 Page 5 
 
 
  confidential summaries had always been made public in a timely manner and interested parties had no 
obstacle in obtaining such summaries.  Taking th e recent injury investigations as an example, 
interested parties submitted ar guments and comments on the issue of non-confidential summaries and 
these arguments and comments were addressed in the dete rminations by the authority at a later stage. 
18. Regarding application of facts ava ilable, according to Article 40 of Provisional Rules on 
Initiation of Antidumping Investigations , upon the issuance of the Public Notice of initiation, the 
Ministry of Commerce should provide the non-confidential text of the application to the known exporters and the governments of the exporting countr ies (regions), which would be consistent with 
WTO agreements.  China believed that its practice w as in line with this rule and with international 
practice. 
19. According to Article 6 of Provisional Rules on Questionnaire in Antidumping Investigations , 
the producers or exporters of the countries (regions ) concerned have 20 days to register with the 
Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM and respond to the investigation after the date of initiation of an 
anti-dumping case.  Compared with relative WTO rules and the practice by other Members, this rule and practice by China was more favourable for exporter s to cooperate with the investigating authority, 
and reduce the possibility of application of facts available.  
20. Regarding the question on injury determina tions raised by Japan, during the injury 
investigation of the electrolytic paper case, the Japanese Embassy in Beijing raised the argument on 
the effects of imports from countries other th an Japan.  The petitioner submitted comments in 
response to that and the authority examined the issue.   An analytical paragraph was dedicated to this 
issue in the final determination which illustrated that the volume and market share of imports from 
Japan was more than ten-fold or twenty-fold of those from Germany and the United States, 
respectively.  The effects of imports from Germ any and the United States on the domestic industry 
were just minor.  Following the determination,  a Japanese company posed the application for 
administrative review.  Determination of the admi nistrative review confirmed that the authority's 
finding on the effects of imports from other count ries was based on facts and properly reasoned.  The 
applying Japanese company clearly indicated that it  would not put further petitions or arguments for 
the case.  During the above-mentioned process and af terwards, the authority had made explanations 
on the issue repeatedly under various occasions upon the request of the Japan ese Government.  China 
believed that it had already provi ded sufficient details in the explanation of the issue. 
21. Regarding regulations or rules for expiry revi ews, China currently conducted expiry reviews 
pursuant to Anti-dumping Regulation of the P.R.C.  Yet to further perfect China's expiry review 
system, China indicated that it was working on a preliminary draft of rules on expiry review.  
22. On the 20 days registration period, the representative of Turkey
 inquired whether China 
would send the questionnaire and provide  20 days for registration, or w ould it just provide 20 days for 
interested parties to register after the initiation of an investigation.       
23. The representative of China  clarified that after the initiation of the case, there would be 
20 days for the interested parties to register and that this was a separate procedure.  
24. The representative of the United States  thanked China for the answers provided and posed a 
follow-up question pertaining to expiry review regul ations.  The United States was pleased to hear 
that China was in the process of drafting these regul ations, but requested China to indicate when it 
would expect to actually have those re gulations finalized and promulgated.  
25. The representative of China  explained that the work on this i ssue was in its final stages.  In 
addition, there would be an internal procedure to  ratify that regulation.  Although China could not 
specify an exact date, it indicated that this would take place very soon. G/ADP/18 
Page 6  
 
  26. The representative of Japan
 thanked China for the detailed responses, but indicated that 
Japan's question with respect to facts available remained unanswered.  Japan requested China to 
explain its practice with respect to the treatment  of unknown exporters who would not receive any 
questionnaire and who would have no opportunity to have access to the website. 
27. The representative of China  stated that this was a long-standing question which had been 
posed in the context of previous reviews.  China in dicated that this question was two-fold.  The first 
had to do with whether such unknown exporters/pro ducers exist and the second had to do with their 
treatment.  China explained that as already indicated, the investigating authority – upon initiation - pursuant to the anti-dumping regulation and in lin e with the Anti-dumping Agreement, would notify 
all the companies known to the authority, publish the notice and the application, and place it on the 
website.  It would also provide the public version of  the application and the notice to the Embassies of 
the relevant governments to provide potential unknown interested parties with the necessary 
opportunity. 
28. As for the unknown interested parties that exist,  the investigating authority would exhaust all 
ways to provide the necessary oppor tunities.  However, there were no clear rules about that in the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  The authority could ca lculate an anti-dumping margin based on facts 
available in line with the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
29. The representative of Japan
 thanked China for the clear and structured answer, but indicated 
that Japan would analyse the response and come back if necessary.  
30. The Chair  thanked delegations for their participation in  the exchange.  He especially thanked the 
delegation of China for its preparation and for the information and answers that it had provided.  He 
equally thanked those Members that  had undertaken to submit written questions and had taken part in 
the discussion.    31. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods in respect of the 
Transitional Review, the Chair noted that the Prot ocol contained no guidelines for these reports.  He 
recalled that in the past, the Chair of the Comm ittee, acting on his or her own responsibility, had 
prepared a brief, factual report, with references to the documents concerned, and attaching the portion 
of the minutes of the meeting which related to the Transitional Review.  The Chair suggested 
proceeding again on that basis.    32. The Committee so decided
.   
 
__________