. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/149 
29 June 2007 
 (07-2766) 
Negotiating Group on Rules Original:   English 
  
 
 
PROPOSAL ON SUNSET REVIEW 
 
Communication from China
1 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 28 June 2007,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of China.    
_______________ 
 
 
Issues and Recommendations
 
 
 From the point of view of China, there exist certain ambiguities in Article 11.3 of the ADA:   
 
 First, the timing requirement for the initiation of the review is not clear .  Under Article 11.3, it 
is provided that a review shall be "i nitiated before that date", i.e. a date not later than five years from 
the imposition of any definitive anti-dumping duty (or from the date of the most recent review under 
paragraph 2 if that review has covered both dumping and injury, or under this paragraph).  A related 
problem is how to define "a reas onable period of time prior to that date" for request made by or on 
behalf of the domestic industry.  Such ambiguities contribute in most cases to the easy initiation of a 
review and subsequently a prolonge d imposition of the definitive duty beyond five year period.  China 
considers that such ambiguities should be clarified by setting a time limit to file a request for review, 
e.g. at least seven months before the date of expiry of five year period.     Second, the relation between the first sent ence "…any definitive anti-dumping duty shall be 
terminated…" and the last sentence "the duty may remain in force pending the outcome of such a 
review" in Article 11.3 is not clear .  The effectiveness of the first sentence is undermined to a large 
extent by the fact that many anti-dumping duti es, in serious contradiction with the spirit of 
Article 11.3, have been in force much beyond five  years as provided in the first sentence without 
sufficient justification.  Therefore, China is of th e view that the duty should be suspended or imposed 
only on a provisional basis pursuant to Articles 7 and 10  pending the outcome of such a review and 
there should be in any case a time limit for the duration of the anti-dumping duty.     China proposes to amend Article 11.3 as follows:   
 
Proposed Text
 
 
 Article 11.3:  Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, any definitive 
anti-dumping duty shall be terminated on a date not  later than five years from its imposition (or from 
the date of the most recent review under paragra ph 2 if that review has covered both dumping and 
                                                      
1 This paper does not purport to represent China’s fi nal position on this matter and China reserves the 
right to make further proposals.   TN/RL/GEN/149 
Page 2  
 
  injury, or under this paragraph), unless the authorities determine, in a review initiated be
fore that date 
on their own initiative or  upon a duly substantiated request made  by or on behalf of the domestic 
industry within a reasonable period time  at least seven months  prior to that date, that the expiry of 
the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.22 The duty may 
remain in force  shall be suspended or imposed provision ally pursuant to Articles 7 and 10, where 
appropriate, from the date of expiry  pending the outcome of such a review. In no event, shall such 
a review be initiated more than one time and any definitive anti-dumping duty be applied for a 
period longer than 10 years from the date of its imposition . 
  
__________ 
 
 
                                                     
 
 22 When the amount of the anti-dumping duty is assessed on a retrospective basis, a finding in the most 
recent assessment proceeding under subpar agraph 3.1 of Article 9 that no duty is  to be levied shall not by itself 
require the authorities to terminate the definitive duty.