RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/33 
28 February 2008 
 (08-0889) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 22-23 OCTOBER 2007 
 
Chairperson
:  Mr. Gareth Meyer (Australia) 
 1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 22-
23 October 2007.   
 2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:   
 
A.
 ALBANIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/1/SUPPL .1) 
(ADP ONLY ) .............................................................................................................................. ...2 
B. ARMENIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/ARM/1/SUPPL .2) 
(ADP ONLY ) .............................................................................................................................. ...2 
C. BANGLADESH – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION 
(G/ADP/N/1/BDG/1/SUPPL .1 & CORR .1) (ADP ONLY )....................................................................2  
D. COLOMBIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/COL/2) 
(ADP ONLY ) .............................................................................................................................. ...3 
E. JAPAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/SUPPL .5 - 
G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/SUPPL .5)...........................................................................................................3  
F. NEW ZEALAND – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION 
(G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/SUPPL .3 - G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/SUPPL .3) ............................................................3  
G. NIGERIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGIS LATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/NGA/1 - 
G/SCM/N/1/NGA/1).......................................................................................................................3  
H. UNITED STATES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGIS LATIVE NOTIFICATION 
(G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL .7 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL .7) ............................................................3  
I. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS .................................................................4  
1. Review of Semi-Annual Reports..............................................................................................4  
2. Draft Revision of Semi-Annual Reporting Format................................................................8  
J. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS ....................................................................8  
K. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ................................9  
L. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION .........16  
M. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION ..................17  
N. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................18  
O. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE  18.6) ...............................18  
 G/ADP/M/33 
Page 2  
 
  A. 
ALBANIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/ALB/1/SUPPL .1) (ADP 
ONLY ) 
3. The Chairperson  noted that items A through H of the agenda concerned the review of new 
legislative notifications not previously reviewed by  the Committee, the first of which, in item A, was 
from Albania.  These notifications would be review ed in accordance with th e pertinent procedures 
adopted by the Committee, found in document G/ADP/W/284.   
4. The Chairperson informed Members that the deadlines for submission of documents for the 
spring 2008 regular meetings of the Committee,  the Working Group on Implementation, and the 
Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had been est ablished, and would be circulated by the 
Secretariat in a reminder document indicating tho se deadlines, as well as the analogous deadlines for 
the spring meetings of the Committees on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and on Safeguards.   
 5. In accordance with the established procedures,  any written questions were to have been 
submitted to the Member concerned, and to the Se cretariat, not later than 1 October 2007.  Oral 
questions could be asked at the meeting, and any Member desiring to receive a written answer to any 
such question would need to submit it in writing not  later than 6 November 2007.  Written answers to 
all written questions were to be submitted to the Me mber posing the question, and to the Secretariat, 
not later than 27 November 2007.    6. The Committee turned to the notification of Albania  (document G/ADP/N/1/ALB/1/Suppl.1).   
 
7. Written questions concerning this notification can be found in the following document:   
 
G/ADP/Q1/ALB/2 Submitted by the European Communities.   
 8. Written answers to these questions can be  found in the following document:   
 
G/ADP/Q1/ALB/3 Replies to the European Communities.   
 9. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers.   
 B. 
ARMENIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/ARM/1/SUPPL .2) (ADP 
ONLY ) 
10. No written or oral questions were raised in respect of the notification of Armenia  (document 
G/ADP/N/1/ARM/1/Suppl.2).    11. The Committee took note
 of the notification.   
 
C. BANGLADESH – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/BDG/1/SUPPL .1 & 
CORR .11) (ADP ONLY ) 
12. No written or oral questions were raised in respect of the notification of Bangladesh  
(documents G/ADP/N/1/BDG/1/Suppl.1 & Corr.12).   
 
13. The Committee took note  of the notification.   
 
                                                      
1 In English only.  
2 In English only.    G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 3 
 
 
  D. COLOMBIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/COL/2) (ADP ONLY ) 
14. Written questions concerning the notification of Colombia (document G/ADP/N/1/COL/2) 
can be found in the following documents:     G/ADP/Q1/COL/1 Submitted by the European Communities.   
 
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/2 Submitted by the United States.    15. Written answers to these questions can be  found in the following document:   
 
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/3 Replies to the European  Communities and the United States.   
 16. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers.   
 E. 
JAPAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/SUPPL .5 - 
G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/SUPPL .5) 
17. No written or oral questions were raised in respect of the notification of Japan  (document 
G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.5 - G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.5).    18. The Committee took note
 of the notification.   
 
F. NEW ZEALAND – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/SUPPL .3 - 
G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/SUPPL .3) 
19. No written or oral questions were raised in respect of the notification of New Zealand  
(document G/ADP/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.3 - G/SCM/N/1/NZL/2/Suppl.3).    
20. The Committee took note
 of the notification.   
 G. 
NIGERIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/NGA/1 - 
G/SCM/N/1/NGA/1) 
21. No written or oral questions were rais ed in respect of the notification of Nigeria  (document 
G/ADP/N/1/NGA/1 - G/SCM/N/1/NGA/1).   
 
22. The Committee took note  of the notification.   
 H. 
UNITED STATES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL .7 - 
G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/SUPPL .7) 
23. Written questions concerning the notification of the United States (document 
G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.7 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.7) can be found in the following document:     G/ADP/Q1/USA/23 Submitted by the European Communities.    24. Written answers to these questions can be  found in the following document:   
 
G/ADP/Q1/USA/24 Replies to the European Communities.   
 25. The Committee took note
 of the notification, questions and answers.   G/ADP/M/33 
Page 4  
 
  26. Concerning previously-reviewed legisl ative notifications, the Chairperson
 noted that, as no 
questions concerning any such notifications had been received by the 13 September 2007 deadline, no 
such notification was on the agenda for review.  Fo r the spring 2008 meeting,  in accordance with the 
Committee's agreed procedures, any Member wishi ng to place any previously-reviewed legislative 
notification on the agenda would need to submit ques tions in writing not later than six weeks before 
the meeting, that is, by 17 March 2008, to the Member  in question, with a copy to the Secretariat.  
Written answers to such questions were also to  be submitted in advance, in particular by 
14 April 2008.    27. The Chairperson further noted in respect of th e spring 2008 regular meeting that, 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 have been  circulated in all three languages not later than 
six weeks before that meeting, i.e., by 17 March 200 8.  Shortly after that date, the Secretariat would 
circulate a document informing Members of all of the legislative notifications to be reviewed at the 
spring meeting.  The Chairperson noted that a new legislative notification from China, received the 
previous week, would be on the agenda of the spri ng meeting.  Written questions concerning that and 
any other new legislative notifications would need to be submitted not less than three weeks before 
the meeting, that is, by 7 April 2008.    28. The Chairperson concluded by drawing attention to the fact that some Members still had not 
submitted any notification concerning legislation.  Th is 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 would be a single nil notification.  For those Members that conducted anti-dumping 
investigations but had not yet notified their legi slation, it was all the more important for the 
Committee to have the opportunity to review and ask  questions about that legislation.  He thus 
encouraged all Members that had not made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.   
 
29. The Committee took note
 of the Chairperson's statement.   
 I. 
SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of Semi-Annual Reports 
30. The Chairperson  recalled that a request for semi-annual reports for the first half of 2007 had 
been circulated in document G/ADP/N/158, date d 4 July 2007.  These reports were due by 
31 August 2007 and it appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping actions during the period in 
question had submitted a semi-annual report.  The Chairperson reminded those Members taking no 
anti-dumping actions that all that was necessary was to  submit a simple letter to that effect twice per 
year.   
 
31. The Chairperson noted that for those Memb ers reporting anti-dumping actions, tardiness 
remained a problem, as many semi-annual reports ha d arrived after the deadline, some significantly 
so.  He encouraged all Members to make an effort  to submit their semi-annual reports on time, as this 
allowed the reports to be translated and circulated  well before the meeting at which they would be 
reviewed, which enhanced transparency, and t hus the quality of the Committee's discussion.   
 
32. The Chairperson also noted that some semi -annual reports for the second half of 2006 had 
been submitted after the spring 2007 meeting, and so had not been reviewed by the Committee.  
Members were free to raise questions about any se mi-annual reports for past periods that had not 
already been reviewed by the Committee.   
 
33. The Committee then turned to  the semi-annual reports for the first half of 2007.  The 
Members who had submitted such reports were  identified in paragraph 1 of document  G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 5 
 
 
  G/ADP/N/158/Add.1, dated 11 October 2007.  Afte r the document was circulated, Israel and 
Costa Rica had submitted their semi-annual reports.  All but the report of Costa Rica had been circulated to the Committee, and were included in  the document package.  Costa Rica's report was 
available in the room.  The reports had been translated to the extent possible, but late submission obviously meant that not all reports were then available in all three languages.   
 
34. 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/158/Add.1, had notified the Committee that 
they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  After the document was 
circulated, Cuba had submitted such a nil notification.   
 
35. The Chairperson pointed out that there remained a significant number of Members that had 
not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, which applied to all Members, whether or not 
they had taken anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  These Members were identified in 
paragraph 3 of the document.  Again, all Member s were urged to comply with this important 
notification requirement.   
 36. The Committee then took up the review of the se mi-annual reports of ac tions taken during the 
first half of 2007.    37. With respect to the notification of Argentina , the delegation of the United States
 noted that in 
this most recent semi-annual report of Argentina,  the previously reported anti-dumping measures on 
imports of polyvinyl chloride from the United States  were absent.  Accordin g to Argentina's semi-
annual report for the period ending December 2006 the measure had been due to expire after three 
years on 23 April 2007.  The United States rec ognized that the delegate from Argentina was not 
present in the room, but sought confirmation that the measures had in fact been terminated.   
 
38. With respect to the semi-annual report of Brazil , the delegation of the United States noted 
that Brazil's semi-annual report did not mention th e 27 June 2007 preliminary determination on pre-
sensitized offset plate from the United States.  The United States sought clarification from the Brazilian delegation as to when this proceeding would be reflected in a semi-annual report.  Similarly, 
Brazil had listed a proceeding involving imports of  polycarbonate resin from the United States, and it 
was the understanding of the United States that this investigation had been in January 2007.  
Nevertheless, this initiati on was not reflected in Brazil's semi -annual report covering the first half 
of 2007.  The United States requested that this investigation be reflecte d in Brazil's semi-annual 
report.    
39. The delegate of Brazil
 indicated that as no officials from the Brazilian investigating authority 
were present, he would take note of the questions posed by the United States, and hoped to provide a 
reply to the United States within a few weeks.    40. Concerning the semi-annual report of the European Communities , the United States
 noted 
that Annex 2 of the European Communities' se mi-annual report indicated that the measure on 
ethanolamines from the United States was in force for a duration of two years from the date of 
continuation of 23 October 2006.  The United States sought an explanation as to the specific factors that had been considered when deciding to extend  the measure for the additional two years.  The 
United States also requested clarification as to whet her the opportunity to request an expiry review for 
a measure with a shorter term differed from that fo r a measure with a five-year duration and if so, how 
such differences were reflected in the semi-annual reporting.   
 41. The delegate of the European Communities
 indicated that he would report to his capital and in 
this connection requested the delegation of the Unite d States to provide the question in writing.  The 
European Communities then would respond as soon as possible.   G/ADP/M/33 
Page 6  
 
  42. Concerning the semi-annual report of India , the delegation of the United States
 expressed 
appreciation for India's submitting its semi-annual report for the first half of 2007 prior to the 
Committee meeting.  The United States had a few questions on that notification as well as on India's previous semi-annual report that had not been  available for review during the Committee's 
spring 2007 meeting.  At the spring 2007 meeting,  the United States had posed a question regarding 
India's measure on oxoalcohols from the United States,  which had been terminated in March 2006 
following an expiry review.  The review had continue d 7 months after the five-year anniversary of the 
measure.  The United States' question, which re mained unanswered, was whether or not the anti-
dumping duties had been collected for the seven-m onth period.  If so, the United States sought 
clarification from India as to whether or not the duties that had been collected beyond the five years 
had been promptly refunded to importers upon termin ation of the measure.  The United States further 
noted that in India's two most recent semi -annual reports the measure involving imports of 
cyclohexanone from the United States with an initia tion date of 7 October 2004 was absent.  The 
United States sought clarification as to whether this was an oversight, or reflected the fact that the 
measure had been terminated.   
 
43. The delegate of India
 replied, concerning the measure on oxoalcohols, that the duty was 
collected during the pendency of the review, and depended on the actual imports that took place 
during that review, as per section 9A (5) of the Cu stoms Tariff Act 1975.  As per Article 11.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, anti-dumping duties conti nued to be collected during the pendency of a 
review.  Regarding the refund of duties, this de pended on whether an application for a refund had 
been made by the concerned importers in India.  Section 9A subsection A of the Customs Tariff 
Act 1975 laid down the entirety of the provision for the refund of duty charged under Section 9A of 
the Customs Tariff Act.    44. Regarding the question about the measure on cycl ohexanone, the delegate of India requested 
the United States to provide the question in writing so that a reply could be obtained from the capital.   
 45. Concerning the semi-annual report of Korea , the United States
 noted that this report 
contained no information on the preliminary determin ations made in March 2007 in the investigations 
on imports of soybean oil from Argentina, Brazil and the United States.  While the United States 
understood that no provisional duties were imposed, it requested that Korea report in its semi-annual 
submissions to the Committee any findings with rega rd to the preliminary margin rates determined.  
The United States also understood that the appli cation had been withdrawn and the investigation 
terminated without the imposition of any duties, an d requested the delegate from Korea to confirm 
this understanding.    
46. The delegate of Korea
 replied that he would consult with the authorities in the capital 
concerning the question posed by the United States.    47. In respect of the semi-annual report of Mexico , the delegate of the United States
 noted that 
the review of hydrogen peroxide from the United States had been terminated with regard to one 
company in February 2007, and asked why this par tial decision was not reported.  The United States 
further understood that on 15 Janua ry 2007, Mexico had initiated an anti-circumvention review of 
stearic acid imports from the United States.  This review did not appear in Mexico's most recent semi-annual report, however.  The Unites States asked the de legate from Mexico to c onfirm that this anti-
circumvention review had been initiated and to provide  an update on the status of that proceeding.   
 
48. The delegate of Mexico
 replied that no one from the anti-dumping authority was present at 
the meeting, so that the answers to the questions on hydrogen peroxide would be provided in writing.  
Concerning the anti-circumvention review, this had been initiated on 15 January, and up to that point 
no final decision had been published.     G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 7 
 
 
  49. Concerning the semi-annual report of South Africa , the representative of Egypt  recalled that 
that report indicated that the sunset review on im ports of carbon black originating in or imported from 
inter alia  Egypt was still undergoing.  This sunset review had been initiated on 23 July 2004, 
almost 39 months in the past.  During this period, and despite the fact that the International Trade 
Administration Commission of South Africa – ITAC – had concluded on three occasions that the 
expiry of the anti-dumping duty on imports of carbon black imported from or originating in Egypt 
was not likely to lead to a continuation or recurre nce of dumping and material injury, the measures 
imposed on the imports from Egypt had been maintained.  Further to the question raised by Egypt at the Committee's previous meeting, Egypt had received information from South Africa on the state of the proceeding.  Nevertheless, Egypt remained una ware of when ITAC intended to conclude its 
investigation and when the Minister was to adopt a decision.  Egypt reiterated its concern with the 
decision of South Africa to maintain anti-dumping measures on Egyptian imports for more than three 
years after the normal termination date without any ju stification.  Egypt had submitted in the past that 
this measure should at least be suspended.    
50. The delegate of South Africa
 replied that initially, earlier in the year, South Africa had 
reported that the authority was in court as the measure was challenged.  As South Africa had 
explained then, under its legislation when a measur e was challenged the duties remained in place.  
Subsequently, the authority had received a judgement indicating that the methodology that the authority had used was wrong.  During the process of correcting that particular judgement a second judgement had been made on a different case, indicati ng that the dates that the authority had applied 
were challenged, and as a result a number of sunset  reviews, including that on carbon black, were 
being re-looked at.  That measure would go befo re the Commission at the end of November and a 
recommendation would be made that the duties on carbon black be withdrawn.  Unfortunately the duties would remain in place until the final decisi on was taken, which would be in November.   
 
51. The delegate of the United States
 expressed concern over the failure of Venezuela  to submit a 
semi-annual report, especially in light of the fact that  Venezuela appeared to be an active user of the 
anti-dumping remedy.  The United States noted that  on 27 April 2005, Venezuela had initiated a 
sunset review on its anti-dumping measures on polyvin yl chloride ("PVC") from the United States.  It 
was the understanding of the United States, ba sed on a notice published on the website for 
Venezuela's administering authority, that one of the measures on PVC had been terminated.  
However, the other measure on PV C had continued.  The United States requested an update on the 
status of this expiry review.    52. The representative of Venezuela
 responded that, as had previous ly been explained, internal 
publication took place every five years.  When the re view was completed intern ally it would be duly 
notified.   
 53. The representative of the United States
 asked when the internal pub lication referred to by the 
Venezuelan delegate would be made available to the Committee.    54. The delegate of Venezuela
 replied that he did not have in formation as to the specific time-
frame and would pass the question to his authorities for response.   
 55. The Chairperson
 recalled his earlier statement that there were a significant number of other 
Members that had not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, although this applied to all 
Members, whether they had taken anti-dumping action or not.  He again urged all Members to comply 
with this important notification requirement.  Thanks very much to the United States.   
 56. No questions or comments were raised with re gard to the semi-annual reports of Australia, 
Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Egypt,  Israel, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, 
Peru, Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, or the United States for G/ADP/M/33 
Page 8  
 
  the period 1 January-30 June 2007.  No questions or comments were in respect of any semi-annual 
reports for prior periods that had not previ ously been reviewed by the Committee.   
 57. The Committee took note
 of the semi-annual reports reviewed, and the questions, replies and 
statements made.   
 
2. Draft Revision of Semi-Annual Reporting Format 
58. The Chairperson  recalled that the previous year, the Committee had engaged in a rather 
intensive consultation process the aim of which was to try to agree on a revised format for semi-
annual reports, with a view to improving transparen cy in respect of Members' anti-dumping actions, 
and at the same time clarifying the reporting re quirements for Members that notify anti-dumping 
actions.  Having reviewed the files recently, it w as clear to the Chairperson that the Committee had 
made very good progress, such that as of the fall 2006 regular meeting all but a couple of points in the 
draft revised format had been resolved.  Since th at time, however, the Committee had not been in a 
position to come back to the format, as certain differe nces of view remained.  Nevertheless, it was that 
Members remained very interested in concluding  this work, and adopting a new, improved reporting 
format, and the Chairperson shared this interest.  To  this end, he intended to  be in touch informally 
with delegations to see what possibilities might ex ist for resolving the outstanding issues, and he 
would keep the Committee informed of  any progress in this regard.   
 59. The representative of Japan
 stated that his delegation attached high importance to this issue 
because the previous year the Committee had had a very good discussion to improve the semi-annual 
report format and was indeed close to concluding th e format and procedures.  Japan agreed with the 
Chairperson's initiative to resume consultations on  this matter.  The issue was one of a balance 
between transparency and the burden on the investig ating authority – a balance needed to be struck 
between the two.  It was Japan's view that  a solution could be found through constructive 
consultation, and Japan thus fully supported the Ch airperson's statement and was certainly interested 
in concluding this issue as soon as possible.    60. The Chairperson thanked the delegation of Japan fo r its interest in resolving this issue, and 
stressed that for the time being his contacts with delegations would be very informal.    
61. The Committee took note
 of the statements made.   
 J. 
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
62. The Committee took up the review of notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions.  The Chairperson  recalled that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions submitted by Members since the Committee's  previous meeting had been circulated to 
Members in documents G/ADP/N/157 and G/ADP/N/ 159-163.  During that period, the following 
Members had notified preliminary and/or final an ti-dumping actions, which had been listed in these 
documents:  Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ch ina, Egypt, European Co mmunities, Japan, Korea, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, South Afri ca, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey, and the 
United States.  In addition, after the circula tion of document N/163, the following Members had 
submitted additional such notifications:  Argentina, China, Canada, the European Communities, India, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States.  All of these notifications would appear in the 
next list circulated by the Secretariat.    63. The Chairperson drew the attention of Members to the apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  In particular, co mparing the semi-annual reports with these lists of 
actions taken, it appeared that some Members had reported anti-dumping actions in progress in their semi-annual reports but had not submitte d reports of preliminary or fina l actions taken.  These reports  G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 9 
 
 
  were a key element of the required transparency  concerning 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.  He ther efore very strongly urged all Members taking anti-
dumping actions to provide these notifications of pr eliminary and final actions, consistently and in a 
timely fashion.  In this regard, the Chairper son reminded Members that the revised minimum 
information format for these notifications, which ha d been adopted by the Committee in October 2006 
(document G/ADP/2/Rev.1), contained important clarif ications as to the kinds of actions that should 
be notified and the information that should be provided.    64. No questions or comments were raised in respect of any of the notifications.   
 
65. The Committee took note
 of the Chairperson's statement.   
 K. 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
66. The Chairperson  recalled that Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization pr ovided that all subsidiary bodies, including this 
Committee, "which have a mandate covering Ch ina's commitments 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 provisions of [the] Protocol."  
China was to provide relevant information in adva nce of the review, including information specified 
in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China also coul d 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 to report the results of 
the review promptly to the Council for Trade in Good s.  The review was 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.   
 67. The Chairperson further recalled that there we re no procedures set out for the conduct of the 
transitional review in the Protocol, except that Chin a was to provide relevant  information in advance 
of the review.  No informati on was specified for submission to the Committee under Annex 1A.   
 
68. The Chairperson noted that the delegations of the United States and Japan had submitted 
questions in the context of the transitional re view which had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/W/462 and G/ADP/W/463, respectively.    69. In response to the Chairperson's invitation for any statements of a general nature, the delegate 
of the United States
 noted that this was the sixth annual re view of China's implementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mechanis m created by China's Protocol of Accession.  
As in the past, the United St ates approached this mechanism with the understanding that the 
Transitional Review Mechanism was designed to  help Members understand and assess the progress 
that China had made in adopting and complying with  WTO disciplines.  From that perspective, the 
Transitional Review Mechanism continued to be a u seful mechanism.  It helped to provide needed 
additional transparency for China's trade re gime, as it allowed Members to seek and obtain 
clarifications regarding China's various trade polici es and practices.  It also provided Members with a 
multilateral forum for conveying their expectations  of China and their concerns with China's 
implementation and compliance efforts.  In that regard, the Transitional Review Mechanism was a 
useful supplement to bilateral discussions with China.   
 
70. Since China's accession to the WTO in December of 2001, China had been incrementally 
improving its compliance efforts in the anti-dumping area.   Yet, nearly six years later, some aspects of 
China's anti-dumping regime remained obscure and a ppeared to fall short of meeting the standards of G/ADP/M/33 
Page 10  
 
  transparency and procedural fairness embodied  within the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.    71. The United States first wished to address China's notification obligation.  In past transitional 
reviews before the Committee, the United States had not ed that China did not appear to have notified 
all relevant legislation to the Co mmittee, and this continued to be a problem.  In fact, regulatory 
measures that the United States had inquired about at  the previous year's transitional review had not 
been notified one year later, nor had any explanation been given for this lack of notification.  These 
regulatory measures appeared to affect key aspects of China's anti-dumping regime, but they had not 
been notified to the Committee.  Lapses in notification denied other WTO Members the opportunity 
to review and comment on the content of new re gulations.  This process allowed WTO Members to 
obtain needed clarifications, and helped to avoi d misunderstandings and conflicts in actual anti-
dumping proceedings.  The United States noted that  China had recently submitted to the Committee 
helpful answers to questions po sed by the United States and the European Communities regarding 
legislation that China had notified the previous y ear.  The United States urged China to build upon 
this step by notifying the regulatory measures a ddressed in the questions that the United States had 
submitted in connection with the present transitional review.    72. Looking at how China had been conducting its  anti-dumping regime, it was clear that China 
continued to be an active user of the anti-dumpi ng remedy.  It also was clear that China was 
continuing to improve its compliance with the dema nding standards of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
However, more needed to be done in this area.   
 73. In past transitional reviews before the Co mmittee, the United States had expressed concern 
that critical arguments or evidence put forward by interested parties had not been addressed 
adequately in either preliminary or final determ inations by China's administering authority, the 
Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM").  As China's anti-dumping regime had matured, many of the 
anti-dumping measures it had put in place would soon reach the five-year mark.  Given the evidentiary problems encountered in China's anti-dumping investigations, it was critical that China 
ensure that the procedures governing the expirati on and review of anti-dumping measures meet the 
high standards of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Full access to critical arguments and evidence 
needed to be provided to interested parties in expiry reviews, as well as full opportunities for due 
process.  Therefore, the United States urged China to continue to develop its expiry review regulations 
and procedures as soon as possible and to notify them promptly to the Committee.    74. The United States noted as well that procedural and substantive deficiencies continued to be 
found, especially in injury and causal link determin ations made by MOFCOM's  Investigation Bureau 
for Industry Injury (IBII).  In  2006, China had continued to remedy some of these problems, 
terminating the anti-dumping investigations of buta nols and octanol due to findings of no injury.  
However, the United States remained concerne d because China had not clearly addressed the 
fundamental issues plaguing its affirmative injury and causal link decisions, which often cited either 
no evidence at all or evidence that did not ad equately address the arguments made.  As the 
United States had previously emph asized, conclusory statements without evidentiary support did not 
constitute "positive evidence" within the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In 
particular, the WTO's anti-dumping rules required the investigating authority to make available to all 
interested parties details of the factual basis a nd reasoning supporting the investigating authority's 
decisions, as well as complete accounts of th e petitioners' allegati ons and briefs.   
 
75. Interested parties, including responding pa rties and US Governme nt representatives, 
continued to be frustrated in thei r attempts to obtain adequate non-c onfidential versions of documents, 
such as Chinese industry responses to IBII questionnaires, reports on the results of on-the-spot 
verifications and disclosure of anti-dumping margin  calculations.  Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement required that non-confidential summaries of confidential documents be in sufficient detail  G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 11 
 
 
  to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.  As 
the United States had explained during previous tr ansitional reviews, without access to confidential 
information submitted to MOFCOM, it was essential that responding parties have comprehensive and 
informative non-confidential summaries in order to be  able to mount an effective defence.  The 
United States urged China to remedy these shortcomings  in order to ensure that the determinations in 
forthcoming proceedings were conducted in acco rdance with the tenets of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.    76. The United States also urged China to ensure the application of fair procedures to all parties 
to an investigation or review as envisioned by th e 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 Arti cle 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  It also 
was important to provide all interested parties with the opportunity to raise issues in an open and transparent setting at an early stage of every proceeding.  While MOFCOM had begun to hold more public hearings, the United States was concerned that  China continued to resort to meetings with 
selected parties as a principal means to obtain the vi ews of parties.  The United States reiterated that 
interested parties not present for such meetings needed  to be quickly informed of matters discussed at 
these meetings and to be given an opportunity to present their rebutta ls, in accordance with Article 6.3 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.    77. Finally, the United States continued to urge Ch ina to put in place 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 Ch ina's attention Article 5.9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, which provided that anti-dumping proceedings shall not hinder customs clearance.  
The US Government had received 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 these customs problems 
once raised by interested parties, these situations  were needlessly hindered by the lack of uniform 
procedures to resolve this type of dispute.    
78. In sum, the United States recognized the progress that China had made in developing a legal 
framework for its anti-dumping regime, which took into account the principl es 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-dump ing proceedings in order to complement that 
progress.  The United States looked forward to seeing continued improve ment, and offered its 
assistance to China in pursuit of that goal.   
 79. The delegate of Japan
 noted that his delegation generally shared the views in the statement by 
the United States concerning the objectives of the Tr ansitional Review Mechanism and the usefulness 
of the review in terms of transparency and the assess ment of China's consiste ncy with its obligations 
under the Protocol of Accession.  Concerning Japan's particular questions, one concerned procedures, 
and one concerned an individual case.   
 80. Japan considered the answers that China had pr ovided to its questions the previous year to 
have been very helpful in showing how China's system worked.  Having studied those responses, 
Japan still had a specific question on China's use of adverse facts available.   
 
81. The question as presented in writing had two part s, and Japan wished to provide additional 
explanation as to the point of the question, which co ncerned the application of adverse facts available 
to unknown exporters or non-registered exporters.  The previous year, China' s answer was very clear 
that it had a specific procedure on its website and specific time periods, and that answer was G/ADP/M/33 
Page 12  
 
  appreciated.  Nevertheless, the question still remain ed concerning the uniform application of adverse 
facts available.  The spirit of the Appellate Body's  ruling in the Mexico – Rice case appeared relevant.  
The Appellate Body had stated that the investigati ng authorities should ensure that an interested party 
was aware that if it did not supply the required info rmation within a reasonable period, the authorities 
would be free to make determinati ons on the basis of facts available, including those contained in the 
application for the initiation of the investigation.  The Appellate Body had gone on to say, however, 
that an exporter that was unknown to the investigatin g authority - and, therefore, was not notified of 
the information required to be submitted to the investigating authority - was denied such an 
opportunity.  Therefore, if the authority used the f acts available in the application for the initiation of 
the investigation against an exporter that had not been given notice of the information the 
investigating authority required, th e authority acted inconsistently with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 82. Japan's concern was that although China had a website notification process, there were still 
exporters that were not known to the investigating au thority.  There could be two such situations:  
one, an exporter that had not registered as a participan t in the investigation; and the other, an exporter 
that knew nothing about the website.  For example, on e very small exporter might not be aware at all 
of the website, and of course it would not receive  any questionnaire.  Where there was uniform 
application of adverse facts availa ble, that very small exporter woul d still be subject to the adverse 
facts available.  It thus seemed to Japan that  the Chinese implementation was uniformly to apply 
adverse facts available in all cases.  In this regard, it might be helpful to consider the practices of other 
investigating authorities, which distinguished among several types of situations.  In some cases in 
China, exporters were aware of the website, but did not respond to it and thus did not receive 
questionnaires.  In other cases, however, exporters are not aware of the website and then they did not 
know anything about the investigation.  There were thus several cases in the context of application of 
adverse facts available.  For the small exporter th at was not aware of the website, and thus had no 
chance of participating in the investigation, the uniform application of adverse facts available was 
adverse to its interests.  For Japan , this meant that a careful distinction of cases was called for, in light 
of the spirit of the Appellate Body's decision in Mexico – Rice.    83. Japan's second concern had to do with China' s final determination on electrolytic capacitor 
paper from Japan.  While this concer n could have been raised in anot her format, such as a review of 
semi-annual reports, Japan had decided to raise it in the transitional review, because it related to the 
regulation itself, and because there was some urgency in obtaining clarification on this matter.  The 
issue was the injury finding, and in particular the non-attribution requirement, pursuant to Articles 3.1 
and 3.5.  In the view of Japan, Chinese practice fell short of the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement in the light of the Appellate Body jurispr udence.  In particular, Article 3.5 stipulated that 
injury caused by factors other than the investigated  imports should not be attributed to the imports.  
The Appellate Body had ruled that this meant that  investigating authorities needed to separate and 
distinguish the injurious effect of imports and other factors.    84. This requirement to separate and distinguish the various causes of injury was, in Japan's view, 
a very strong requirement under Article 3.5.  In th e particular case at hand, there had been a rapid 
increase of imports from Members other than Japan , while the Japanese market share had remained 
the same.  Under these circumstances, the investig ating authority of China had not separated and 
distinguished clearly the injurious effect of the imports from the other sources.  Japan had a very 
strong concern over this practice of China, and thus took the present opportunity to clarify this matter 
with China.    
85. The delegate of China
 stated, by way of general remarks, that this was the sixth transitional 
review by the Committee on China's anti-dumping re gime.  In the preceding five years the Committee 
had already had quite a number of discussions with  regard to China's anti-dumping regime in its 
framework of legislation review and in the process of review of China's anti-dumping actions.  As a 
result, Members must already have a very clear  understanding of China's anti-dumping regime.    G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 13 
 
 
  86. Concerning China's legislative framework, Chin a had notified the Committee of dozens of 
rules and regulations to show the transparency of its anti-dumping regime.  China also had made tremendous efforts to improve th e information disclosure procedures, as embodied in its newly-
promulgated legislation in this regard.  China t hus believed that the anti-dumping regime of China 
was fully consistent with th e Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 
87. Concerning the questions that China had receive d prior to the meeting, China would provide 
answers to the questions one-by-one, starting with those posed by the United States.   
 88. Starting with Section 1 of the questions, on "Notif ications", in answer to the first question, 
China had notified to the WTO, the previous w eek, the Regulations on Information Accession and 
Information Disclosure in Industry Injury Investigations.    89. Regarding the question concerning the Regula tions on Responding to Anti-Dumping Cases of 
Export Products, China believed that these Regulations did not fall within the scope of the notification 
requirement under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Pu rsuant to Article 1 and Article 18.5 of the 
Agreement, WTO Members were required to notify only their laws and regulations relating to anti-
dumping measures or investigations taken by th e Members themselves.  The Regulations on 
Responding to Anti-Dumping Cases of Export Produc ts of China were used to provide Chinese 
exporters with directions on how to respond to anti-dumping i nvestigations initiated by WTO 
Members other than China, and thus were not re lated to anti-dumping measures or investigations 
taken or initiated by China.  Considering these reasons, China believed that these Regulations were 
not subject to the notification requirement under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.    90. Regarding the question on notification proce dures for expiry reviews, China had not 
formulated specific regulations on procedures for expiry reviews.  As to Announcement No. 62 
referred to in the written questions from the United States, this was just a notice of anti-dumping 
measures expected to be subject to expiry reviews in the near future.  The notice was not a regulation 
with regard to procedures for expiry reviews, but a description of China's current practice.   
 91. China then took up Section 2 of the questions, on information disclosure.  Regarding 
disclosure of factual information mentioned in the written questions of the United States, China 
believed that its legislative regime and the practi cal measures it took in this regard were totally 
consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  With  regard to investigations on the incidence of 
dumping and dumping margins, according to the pr ovisional rules of MOFCOM on disclosure of 
information in anti-dumping investigations, MOFC OM not only would disclose to a responding 
foreign exporter or producer all data, evidence, in formation and reasons used to establish the dumping 
case and the determined dumping margin for that comp any, by which the exporter or producer can 
duplicate the calculation process for the dumping marg in;  MOFCOM also would disclose relevant 
essential facts to other interested parties, in cluding the governments of  the exporting Members 
concerned about how the determin ation was made.  MOFCOM had always treated transparency as 
one of the principles of crucial importance in  conducting its anti-dumping investigations.   
 
92. In injury investigations, MOFCOM informed a ll interested parties of the essential facts under 
consideration pursuant to the Regulations on Info rmation Accession and Information Disclosure in 
Industry Injury Investigations.  Basically, three approaches could be identified.  First, MOFCOM 
transferred all received non-confidential information to the public reading room within seven working 
days.  Any interested parties could have access to  these materials.  Second, MOFCOM disclosed to 
the interested parties, generally 30 days before th e final determination, the essential facts that formed 
the basis for its decisions whether to apply definitiv e measures.  Third, in each final determination, 
MOFCOM published a report concerning the anti-du mping decision.  In each report, MOFCOM 
explained the facts and the reasons for the injury find ing in detail.  China beli eved that such efforts 
ensured the transparency of its injury investigation process and determinations.   G/ADP/M/33 
Page 14  
 
  93. China then presented answers to the questions on expiry reviews.  Regarding the protection of 
the rights of interested parties, China responded that it always gave  interested parties opportunities to 
participate in investigations, and to have access to critical documents and information necessary to 
protect their interests in the spirit and principal of  being fair, just and open.  MOFCOM had enacted a 
provisional rule on access to non-confidential informa tion in anti-dumping inves tigations according to 
Article 6 of the AD Agreement, which had taken ef fect in April 2002  The requirement on access to 
non-confidential information specified in this rule was applied equally in expiry review investigations.  
In injury investigations, the Regulations on In formation Accession and Information Disclosure in 
Industry Injury Investigations had been applied to  expiry reviews so that interested parties had 
adequate access to public information, including evidence submitted by the domestic industry, to 
defend their interests.  In the past, for anti-dumpi ng expiry reviews, the Chinese authorities had given 
sufficient opportunities to interested parties to expr ess their views.  In practice, the authorities would 
formally notify the exporting country's embassy in Ch ina about the receipt of an application from the 
domestic industry before initiation.  After initiation, in terested parties were given 20 days to register 
and to make comments.  During the process of the i nvestigation, interested parties had the right to 
apply for hearings.  Before making decisions, the authority disclosed both the legal basis and the facts 
to the interested parties, and gave them the right to comment.  Throughout the course of an 
investigation, the authorities could meet with inte rested parties on request to learn their views and 
comments.    94. Regarding the refund of anti-dumping duties, there was no such problem in the current 
practice of China.  Article 11.3 of the Agreement pr ovided that the duty could remain in force pending 
the outcome of expiry reviews.  China's anti-dumpi ng duties were assessed on a prospective basis, and 
review decisions entered into force from the date of their publication and di d not have retrospective 
effect.  The Chinese believed that this rule maintained stability and predictability.   
 
95. Concerning the questions on registration procedures, the delegate of China indicated that 
China conducted anti-dumping investigations st rictly in accordance with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement as well as with China's laws and regula tions.  The investigating authority informed all 
interested parties of the information required and, th roughout an investigation, interested parties were 
given ample opportunity to submit evidence and materi als, and to make relevant comments.  As had 
been indicated in previous transitional revi ews, the Chinese anti-dumping practices were not 
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  China's anti-dumping investigation respondent-
registration procedure was based on the provisions of China's anti-dumping law,  and gave a period of 
time for interested parties to express their willingness to participate in the investigation.  This period 
of time was not included in the 37 days which was specifically granted for respondents to answer the questionnaire.  All interested parties, includi ng the unregistered parties could, through their 
governments or from the Chinese official website or other means, gain access to  the questionnaire and 
then submit it.  On the date of initiation, the Ch inese authorities sent the initiation notice as well as the 
non-confidential version of the application and other related documents to all known foreign 
enterprises and their embassies in China and inform ed, as relevant, interested parties through the 
involved governments.  In the initiation notice the Chinese authorities stated cl early the consequences 
of not participating in anti-dumping investigations and the right of the authorities to make decisions 
based on the facts and information available.   
 96. According to Article 6.1 and Article 6.8 of  the Agreement, the authorities could make 
decisions based on facts available in cases where any in terested parties refused to give access to or did 
not provide the necessary information within a reasona ble period of time.  According to paragraphs 1 
and 7 of Annex 2 of the Agreement, there would be  a less favourable result to the party who was not 
cooperative.  China's practice was consistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 97. With regard to the question on the final an ti-dumping determination against electrolytic 
capacity paper ("ECP") from Japan, the delegate of China responded that in that case, pursuant to  G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement MOFC OM had made an objective examination of the 
volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices and the consequent impact on the domestic industry based on positive eviden ce.  Members could find the examinations in 
the final determination report on pages 29-34.  Pursuant to Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, MOFCOM had analyzed the causality be tween dumped imports and injury, and then had 
addressed all other factors that might have caused injury.  After this analysis, MOFCOM found that 
other factors were not the reason for the material in jury.  This analysis could be found on pages 35-38 
of the final report.  Therefore, China belie ved that the anti-dumping determination was not 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1 an d 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  At the same time, MOFCOM 
had separated and distinguished the injurious e ffects of the imports from countries and areas other 
than Japan.  Members could find this analysis on pages 36-37 of the final report.  Neither the Anti-
Dumping Agreement nor the Appellate Body in the US – Hot-Rolled Steel  case provided a specific 
methodology to separate and distinguish injurious effects.  Nevertheless, MOFCOM had made a 
specific disclosure to Japan's embassy in China con cerning this issue.  In that disclosure MOFCOM 
had made a detailed explanation in response to Japan's  argument.  After the final determination in the 
case, the responding party had applied for an admini strative review.  The review tribunal had upheld 
the original determination of the investigating aut hority.  After the administrative review, no rebuttal 
arguments had been received.    98. The representative of Japan
 thanked the delegation of China fo r the informative explanations.  
On the question of the registration procedure, while  the explanation was better than that provided the 
previous year, Japan was still wondering about the uni form application of adverse facts available.  
Indeed, Japan had provided a supplementary explan ation to its own question on this subject, and 
perhaps to catch up with that on the spot would be a bit burdensome, but Japan remained unsure of the 
exact practice of China in this regard.  In par ticular, Japan wished to know whether under China's 
system there could be a uniform application of adverse facts available in a normal case.   
 
99. Concerning the investigation on ECP, Japan appr eciated China's explanation, which had been 
detailed and informative, and had e xplained the current state of play of the cases, i.e., the original 
investigation and the follow-up administrative re view requested by the Japanese firms.  The 
information was quite useful, and Japan therefore re quested China to provide a written explanation or 
a copy of the statement itself, which woul d allow Japan to better assess the case.   
 
100. The delegate of China  stated that his delegation had gi ven a very detailed explanation in 
China's statement, to which there was nothing to add.  Further views and comments could be exchanged after the meeting.    
101. The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chinese delegation for its very detailed 
responses.  It was difficult, however, to ask coge nt follow-up questions when the responses were not 
available in writing in advance, and when the r esponses were read so rapidly it was even more 
difficult.  The United States would look at the minut es of the meeting and consider additional avenues 
of inquiry at that time.  The United States had tw o follow-up questions, the first in respect of US 
question 2, asking whether China would notify the Regulations on Responding to Anti-Dumping 
Cases of Export Products.  The United States underst ood China's explanation, and might disagree with 
China on whether or not this measure should be notif ied.  As far as the United States was aware this 
was a very unique measure in the anti-dumping area and for that reason alone the United States urged China to notify it, so that all Members could understand it.    
102. The second point related to US question 4, asking China to explain what specific steps 
MOFCOM had taken since the previous year's tran sitional review to improve its disclosure of anti-
dumping margin calculations.  China's response seemed to have been a simple description of the rules 
that were in place, and did not address whether or not MOFCOM had taken steps in the past year to G/ADP/M/33 
Page 16  
 
  improve how it handled disclosures of anti-dumping margin calculations.  The United States would 
appreciate hearing from China about any such specific steps.    103. The delegate of China
 responded that his delegation had provided detailed responses to the 
questions, to which it had nothing to add.   
 
104. The delegate of the United States  indicated that the responses had been read rapidly, and he 
was not certain that he had heard all of the deta ils.  The Chairperson asked whether China would be 
willing to re-read the portion of its statement that re sponded to US question 4, in view of the speed at 
which the answers had been read, to ensure that  the minutes of the meeting would be accurate.   
 
105. The delegate of China  indicated that his delegation had given a very detailed explanation, to 
which it had nothing to add, and that any additional questions could be sent to China before the next 
transitional review.    
106. The delegate of Japan
 stated that while China's explan ation regarding Japan's procedural 
question on the uniform application of adverse fact s available had been very helpful, Japan was not 
sure that the question had been fully addressed.  Jap an wished to express its concern over this matter, 
and noted that his delegation w ould reflect on how to proceed on future occasions.  Concerning 
the ECP case, the Chinese explanation had been ve ry comprehensive on the facts and the legal 
implications.  Japan particularly appreciated China's mentioning the concept of separating and 
distinguishing causes of injury, and how this had been done in the particular case, but was still not 
sure whether this analysis had been adequate.  Jap an therefore reiterated its concern over this issue, 
and would reflect on how to proceed.  Japan asked China to take note of this point for future 
proceedings.  Again, accurate minutes would be very much appreciated.    
107. The delegate of the United States
 stated that his delegation found it regrettable that China 
would not respond to a simple request from the Un ited States and the Chairperson to repeat its 
response to question 4.    108. The representative of China
 stated that his delegation's position was quite clear.  China had 
provided a very detailed explanation to every question by Members.   
 
109. The Chairperson  thanked the delegation of China for the detailed information and answers 
that it had provided.  The Chairperson also than ked the Members that had undertaken to submit 
written questions.  He urged all de legations to help to ensure the accuracy of the minutes.   
 
110. Concerning the report that the Committee was requi red to provide to the Council for Trade in 
Goods concerning the transitional review, the Chai rperson recalled that the Protocol contained no 
guidelines for this report, and furt her recalled that in the past th e Chairperson of the Committee, 
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 that related to the 
transitional review.  The Chairperson suggested pro ceeding on the same basis for the 2007 report.   
 
111. The Committee so decided .  This report was subsequently circulated in document G/ADP/16.   
 L. 
CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
112. The Chairperson recalled  that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met that 
morning.  As always, the discussions had been c onducted in accordance with th e agreed framework in 
respect of what constituted circumvention, what was being done by Members confronted by what they 
considered to be circumvention, to what extent circumvention could or could not be dealt with under 
the relevant WTO rules, and what other options might be deemed necessary.    G/ADP/M/33 
 Page 17 
 
 
  113. At them meeting, Members had continued the interesting discussion on the papers submitted 
by New Zealand at the Group's previous meeting.  A number of possible approaches to addressing the problem identified by New Zealand – the so-calle d bundling of invoices – had been raised.  The 
Group had requested the Secretariat to prepare a br ief summary of Members' comments up to that 
point on the subject raised by New Zealand, to assi st Members in preparing for further discussion of 
that subject at the Group's next meeting.   
 114. The Chairperson welcomed the interest that Me mbers had shown in this  topic, and urged all 
Members to follow the good example of New Zeal and to make the best use of the Group by 
submitting papers and participating actively in the discussions.  He especially urged Members to think 
about the particular issue raised by New Zealand and to share their comments and experiences at the 
next meeting of the Group orally, if not in writing.    115. Concerning the date for the next meeting of th e Informal Group, this had been set for the 
week of 28 April 2008, with the exact date to be confirmed in due course.  The deadline for 
submissions for that meeting was 17 March 2008.   
 116. The Committee took note
 of the Chairperson's report.   
 M. 
CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
117. The Chairperson  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met that morning 
and had continued its discussions on a draft recommendation on the conduc t of verifications, 
Article 6.7, on the basis of a revised draft prepar ed by the Secretariat pursuant to the Group's third 
round of discussions during its spring 2007 meeting.    118. A number of Members had made comments on the revised draft, which the Chairperson 
considered very useful in clarifying matters.  The Group, however, remained confronted with a 
number of square brackets, in particular rela ting to time periods, and New Zealand had proposed 
following a different approach, i.e., not to refer to specific time periods but rather to provide, in the 
draft recommendation, for each Member to indicat e the relevant time peri ods mandated by its own 
legal framework.  To the Chairperson it had seemed , based on the discussion, that Members preferred 
to consider another revised version of the draf t recommendation before taking up New Zealand's 
proposal in more detail.  The Group therefore had requ ested the Secretariat to revise the text with the 
view of identifying areas in which consensus seeme d to be emerging, and indicating the rationale 
behind the proposed drafting changes.    119. The Chairperson recalled that as it had seemed at the Group's previous meeting that the Group 
had exhausted the other three topics before it, the previous Chairperson had encouraged Members to 
start the process of considering identifying new topics for discussion to be put forward to the Committee.  The European Commun ities had submitted a proposed list of three topics for discussion, 
circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/176.  A number  of Members observed that two of the three 
topics proposed in that document – (1) export pri ces to third countries or constructed normal value, 
Article 2.2; and (2) foreign excha nge fluctuations, Article 2.4.1 – were actually already before the 
Group.   
 120. Members had expressed the view that it would be useful to continue discussing these two 
topics.  In particular, those Members that had not  yet done so were encouraged to submit papers on 
their practices and/or experiences regarding these topics.   
 
121. Concerning the third topic proposed by the Eu ropean Communities, on the determination of 
price undercutting, the Chairperson noted that a c onsensus had emerged in the Group that the topic 
should be referred to the Group for discussion, fo rmulated as follows:  "How do Members determine G/ADP/M/33 
Page 18  
 
  whether there has been a significant price undercutti ng by the dumped imports?", Article 3.2.  The 
Chairperson therefore proposed that the Comm ittee refer that topic to the Working Group on 
Implementation for discussion; and further proposed that the Committee request those Members that 
had not yet done so to submit papers on the other topics currently before the Group, in particular 
"How do Members decide when to use export prices to third countries and when to use constructed 
normal value?", Article 2.2;  and "Foreign ex change fluctuations", Article 2.4.1.   
 122. The Committee so decided
.   
 123. The Chairperson
 informed Members that the next meeting of the Working Group was 
scheduled for the week of 28 April 2008, with the exact date to be confirmed in due course.   
 124. The Chairperson hoped, as the Committee had ag reed on a new topic to be referred to the 
Working Group on Implementation, that Members would fully engage in the process by making 
submissions concerning this topic.  Furthermore, he again strongly encouraged those Members that 
had not yet done so to submit papers on the ot her topics before the Group.  The deadline for 
submissions for the spring 2008 meeting was 17 Ma rch 2008.  In the meantime, Members were 
encouraged to continue with the process of id entifying additional new topics for discussion.   
 125. The Committee took note
 of the Chairperson's report and statements.   
 
N. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
126. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 
that regular meetings normally would be held in the l ast week of April and the last week of October.  
Accordingly the next regular meeting of the Committee, along with the meetings of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group on An ti-Circumvention would be scheduled for the 
week of 28 April 2008.   The exact dates of tho se meetings would be communicated to Members in 
due course.    O. 
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE  18.6) 
127. The Committee adopted  its annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods.  This report was 
subsequently circulated in document G/L/830.   
 
128. The meeting was closed .   
  
__________