. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/W/475 
9 October 2009 
 (09-4921) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 18 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION 
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions from JAPAN to CHINA
 
 
  The following communication, dated 7 October 2009, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Japan.    
_______________ 
  
 For the eighth Transitional Review Mechanism for the People's Republic of China (China), 
Japan hereby submits the following questions in a dvance of the regular meeting of the Committee on 
Anti-Dumping Practices.  Japan looks forward to  receiving clear and full responses from China. 
 1. Application of the facts available (FA) 
 
 In the seventh transitional review, the represen tative of China stated that China was puzzled 
by the questions put forward by Japan, specifically the sentence in the document saying that "parties 
who can gain access to the questionnaire from China's official website or other means are limited to 
those exporters or producers that have already been known to the investigating authority".  Japan 
understands that this sentence means that the exporters or producers that are unknown to the 
investigating authority and that are not provided the notice of initiation cannot follow the movement 
of the investigating authority, so they would not access the website, register with the authority, or 
confirm the questionnaire.  That is, the exporters or producers that were unknown to the investigating 
authority and that were not provided the notice of  initiation could exist.  Then the investigation 
authorities could fail to ensure that such unknown ex porters or producers are aware that if information 
is not supplied within a reasonable time, the investigating authority would be free to make 
determinations on the basis of the FA.  In fact, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) applied the FA 
in the calculation of a margin of dumping for such exporters or producers.  Please explain how China justifies MOFCOM's practice, in the light of Artic le 6.8 and paragraph 1 of  Annex II of the ADA and 
international practice.  Japan was not able to obt ain an adequate answer from China in the seventh 
transitional review.  Therefore, Japan asks the question again.  2. Injury Determinations  
 
 In the seventh transitional review, Japan request ed an explanation regarding the details of the 
analytical methodology for the injury determina tions of MOFCOM as to how the investigation 
authority separated and distinguished the injurious  effects of the imports from countries and areas 
other than Japan, taking into account the Appellate  Body's ruling in United States – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products fro m Japan (WT/DS184/AB/R).  China answered 
that, in the electrolytic capacitor paper case, the co mpetent authority had an alyzed the causality and G/ADP/W/475 
Page 2  
 
  that it was found that other factors were not the major reason for the material injury, as the final 
determination report (issued on 17 April 2007) had shown.    However, in the final determination report, MOFCOM merely concluded that the volume of 
imports from Germany and the United States had little  effect on the injury without rational and 
adequate explanations as to how the investigation authority separated and distinguished the injurious 
effects of the imports from countries and areas other than Japan.  Again, Japan requires the explanation of the details of the analytical methodology.   
__________