WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/17 
4 November 2008 
 (08-5359) 
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 seventh 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 27-28 October 2008.  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/467 (submitted by the United States) and G/ADP/W/468 (submitted by Japan).    3. The statements made at the meeting of 27- 28 October 2008, 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/35.  The relevant paragraphs of  the minutes, which reflect the statements made 
and the discussion at the meeting, are annexed.    G/ADP/17 
Page 2  
 
  Excerpt from the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
 
held on 27 October 2008, to be circulated as document G/ADP/M/35  
  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 the United States and Japan had submitted questions in 
the context of the transitional re view (documents G/ADP/W/467 and W/468, respectively).  The Chair 
invited Members to make any general statements.   
 4. The representative of the United States
 noted that this was the seventh annual Transitional 
Review of China, and that the Transitional Review Mechanism continued to be useful in helping to 
provide needed additional transparency on China' s trade regime so that Members could better 
understand and assess China's progr ess in implementing and complyi ng with its WTO obligations.  
Regarding anti-dumping, this was the seventh annual  review of China's impl ementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mechan ism of China's Protocol of Accession.  These 
reviews provided Members an opportunity  to consider China's efforts to  meet its obligations under the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.    
5. As it had in prior reviews, the United States  observed that China had been incrementally 
moving forward in meeting its obligat ions.  There remained aspects of China's anti-dumping regime that 
were obscure, however, making it difficult for Memb ers to confirm whether China was meeting the 
standards of transparency and pr ocedural fairness embodied within  the requirements of the Anti-
dumping Agreement.    
6. China continued to be an active user of the anti-dumping remedy.  In past Transitional Reviews 
before the Committee, the United States had expresse d concerns that critical arguments or evidence put 
forward by interested parties ha d not been addressed adequately in either preliminary or final 
determinations by China's administering authorit y, the Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM.  As 
China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many of th e measures it had put in place had now reached 
the five-year mark, with several more reaching that  point in the coming year.  Given the procedural 
fairness issues that the United States had encoun tered in prior Chinese anti -dumping proceedings, it was 
critical that China ensure that the procedures gove rning the expiration and revi ew of measures met the 
high standards of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Full access to critical argume nts and evidence had to  G/ADP/17 
 Page 3 
 
 
  be provided to interested parties in  sunset reviews, as well as full opportunities for due process.  In 
particular, details of the factual basis and reasoning supporting the inves tigating authority's decisions as 
well as complete accounts of the pet itioners' arguments and briefs had to  be available to all interested 
parties.  While China had a basic regulation pr oviding for the conduct of sunset reviews, the 
United States urged China to continue to develop those regulations and proce dures as soon as possible 
and notify them promptly to the Committee.   
 7. The United States also urged China to apply fair  procedures to all part ies involved in a sunset 
review as envisioned by the Anti-dumping Agreemen t.  This included but was not limited to timely 
access to administrators, and favoura ble consideration of hearing requests , as embodied in Article 6.2 of 
the AD Agreement.  The United States urged China to provide all interested parties with the opportunity 
to raise issues in an open and transparent setting and at an early stage of every proceeding, rather than relying on private meetings with sele cted parties as the principal means of listening to the concerns and 
arguments of all of the parties.  The United States reiterated that interested parties not present for private meetings should be quickly informed  of the matters discussed at thos e meetings, and should be given an 
opportunity to present their rebuttals  in accordance with Article 6.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.   
 8. The United States also again urged China to  refine the process by which MOFCOM and 
Chinese customs officials at China's ports confirmed the precise merchandise subject to each anti-dumping measure and the anti-dumping duty rates applicable to each importer.  The United States called 
to China's attention Article 5.9 of the Anti-dum ping Agreement, which provided that anti-dumping 
proceedings were not to hinder cust oms clearance.  In prior Transi tional Reviews, the US government 
had described reports from respond ing parties regarding Chinese cust oms 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 th ese customs problems once raised by interested 
parties, these situations seemed needlessly hindered by the lack of uniform procedures to resolve such 
disputes.    9. The United States recognised the progress that China had made in developing 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 Agreement.  The United  States urged China to continue to improve the 
conduct of its anti-dumping proceedings in order to complement that progress.   
 10. The United States looked forward to seeing con tinued improvements and offered its assistance 
to China in pursuit of that goal.    
11. The representative of Japan
 drew attention to the document submitted by his delegation 
(G/ADP/W/468), which raised two specific questions regarding China's anti-dumping practices.  The 
first question concerned the application of facts av ailable by MOFCOM.  The previous year, Japan had 
voiced its concern about this issue.  The key ques tion was whether the investigating authority could 
make determinations based on the fa cts available when it had failed to ensure that so-called unknown 
exporters or producers were aware of the consequences of not suppl ying relevant information.  The 
explanation from China the previous year indicated th at all interested parties could gain access to the 
questionnaires from the official website and thereby could be aware of their consequences.  In many 
cases, however, parties who gained access to the que stionnaires from the websit e were limited to those 
exporters or producers that were  already known to the investiga ting authorities.  Under these 
circumstances, Japan queried why MOFCOM could apply facts available to the so-called unknown 
exporters or producers, in the light of Article 6. 8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-dumping 
Agreement.  Japan noted that other WTO Members seemed to apply a more reasonable average rate or indicative rate under such circumstances  for unknown exporters or producers.   
 G/ADP/17 
Page 4  
 
  12. Turning to the second question, about injury dete rminations, the previous year Japan had voiced 
its concern that MOFCOM's injury determination in  the investigation on electrolytic capacitor paper 
originating in Japan might run counter to Article 3. 1 and 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  The final 
determination of that case had simp ly concluded that imports from Ge rmany and the United States had 
had little effect on injury, without providing suffic ient and reasonable explan ations as to how the 
investigating authority had separate d and distinguished the injurious ef fects of those imports and of the 
imports from Japan.  Japan needed an explanation regarding the details of the analytical methodology 
for the injury determinations of MOFCOM in respec t of the injurious effects of imports from countries 
other than Japan.    
13. The representative of China
 indicated that his delegation had taken note of the statement that 
had just been made by the United States.  With re gard to the transparency of China's anti-dumping 
regime, including also the transparency regarding customs clearance procedures, China noted that transparency was the funda mental principle of the Organization, and was actually a continuous process 
of each and every Member of the WTO.  In the pa st seven years, with China's notifications and the 
reviews and the exchange of questions under the agen da items of the legislati on review and others, and 
also China's efforts made under the Transitional Re view Mechanism, China's anti-dumping regime had 
been quite transparent to Members.  It was also Chin a's belief that this regime was consistent with the 
Anti-dumping Agreement.  Turning to the detailed re sponses to the specific que stions raised in the two 
documents, the first one, from Japan, concerned the a pplication of facts available.  China believed that 
its practices in this regard were in line with th e requirement of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
Those practices were that China would inform the Members concerned in due time after receiving an 
application for initiation of an anti-dumping investiga tion.  At the initiation of the investigation, the 
notice of initiation would be publishe d and notified to all the known e xporters and producers and also to 
the Members concerned.  China's anti-dumping legisl ation provided 20 days to potential respondents to 
register with its an ti-dumping authority to respond to the inves tigation, and questionna ires would also be 
available on the official website of the Ministry of Commerce for all interested parties, including those 
that had not registered with the an ti-dumping authority in the 20 days provided.  China was puzzled by 
the question of Japan, specifically the sentence in  the document saying that the "parties who can gain 
access to the questionnaire from China's official webs ite or other means are limited to those exporters or 
producers that have already been kno wn to the investigating authority".   China had no secret code for 
the interested parties to gain acce ss to the questionnaire.  It was pu blic, it was accessible by everyone, 
China did not see why there was any limitation on any parties interested in a case to gain access to the 
questionnaire.    14. It was only for those enterprises not havi ng responded to the questionnaire that the 
determination would be based on in formation or facts available.  Therefore in China's view these 
practices were consistent with Ar ticle 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-dumping Agreement, 
and it seemed to China that the practices  of other WTO Members were the same.   
 15. Regarding the question from Japan on injury de terminations, as China had explained in the 
previous Transitional Review, in the electrolytic ca pacitor paper case, the competent authority had made 
examinations on the volume of the dumped imports, th e effect of the dumped imports on prices and the 
consequent impact on the domestic  industry, based on positive eviden ce, which was consistent with 
Article 3.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Memb ers could find these examinations in the final 
determination report on pages 29 to 34.  Also, in lin e with Article 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, 
the competent authority had analyzed the causality between dumped imports an d injury, and then had 
addressed all other factors which mi ght have caused injury.  After the analysis, it was found that other 
factors were not the major reason fo r the material injury, as indicated  on pages 35 to 38 in the final 
report.  China therefore did not think in this regard  that there was an incons istency with Articles 3.1 
and 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.     G/ADP/17 
 Page 5 
 
 
  16. Furthermore, the injurious effect s of those imports from countri es and areas other than Japan 
also had been separately distinguished .  Members could find this on pages 36 to 37 in the final report.  In 
this respect, the Anti-dumping Agreement did not pr ovide for specific method ologies to separate and 
distinguish injurious effects.  Nevertheless, in this  particular case, the comp etent authority had made a 
specific disclosure to the Japanese embassy in Beijin g concerning this issue, and in that disclosure had 
made a detailed explanation in response to the argument of Japan.  After receiving the final 
determination in this case, the re sponding party had applied for an ad ministrative review.  The review 
tribunal had upheld the original determination by th e investigating authority.  After the administrative 
review, no rebuttal arguments had been received.    
17. With regard to the questions on expiry review s raised by the United States, Chapter V of the 
Regulations on Anti-dumping of Ch ina, namely Duration and Review of Anti-dumping Duties and Price 
Undertakings, specifically provide d for how anti-dumping reviews, in cluding expiry reviews, were 
conducted.  The Regulations had first been promulgated on 26 November 2001, and had later been 
revised and promulgated on 31 March 2004.  The Regulations had been notified to the WTO 
(document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Supp1.3).   
 18. The representative of the United States
 stated that concerning expiry reviews, the United States 
understood that the Chinese Ministry  of Commerce might be in the process of preparing additional 
regulations or rules on the conduct of expiry reviews.  The United States asked if this was the case, and 
if so, when China envisioned finishing the developm ent of these regulations or rules and notifying them 
to the Committee.   
 19. The representative of Japan
 stated that his delegation had take n note of the explanation, and had 
a supplementary comment for the record.  Japan still wondered whether the mere posting of the 
questionnaire on the website would be  consistent or not in light of  Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of 
Annex I of the Anti-dumping Agreement, noting that other Members applied a more reasonable average 
rate or indicative ra te not based on the adverse facts available.  In the light of those Members' practices, 
Japan would pursue this question in due course.    20. The representative of China
 responded to the question of th e United States that China was 
internally discussing the possibility of having separa te rules on expiry reviews, but that the work was 
still at a very early stage.  If the separate rules were finalized and formally  promulgated, China would 
certainly fulfil its notificati on obligations and provide those rules to the Committee.   
 21. With regard to the question from Japan, China di d not have much to add, but had taken note of 
the points made for the record by Japan.   
 
22. 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.    
23. 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.   
 24. The Committee so decided
.   
 
__________