WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/15 
13 November 2006 
 
 (06-5466) 
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 fourth 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 25-26 October 2006.    2. There is no information specified for subm ission to the Committee under Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  Members submitted questions and comment s in the context of the Transitional Review 
relating to China's implementation of the Agr eement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-dumping Agreement).  These can be found in 
documents G/ADP/W/457 (submitted by Japan), G/ADP/W/458 (submitted by the European Communities), and G/ADP/W/459 and /461 (submitted by the United States).    3. The statements made at the meeting of 25- 26 October 2006, at which the Transitional Review 
was item D of the agenda, are reflected in the mi nutes of the meeting, which will be circulated as 
document G/ADP/M/31.  The relevant paragraphs of  the minutes, which reflect the statements made 
and the discussion at the meeting, are annexed. G/ADP/15 
Page 2  
 
  Excerpt from the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
 
held 25-26 October 2006, to be circulated as document G/ADP/M/31  
 D. 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 Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of 
China to the World Trade Organization provides that  all subsidiary bodies, including this 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 provi sions of [the] Protocol."  China is to provide 
relevant information in advance of the review, in cluding information specified in Annex 1A to the 
Protocol.  China can also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to any other specific commitments made by other Members in th e Protocol, in subsidiary bodies which have a 
relevant mandate.  This Committee must report the results of the review promptly to the Council for 
Trade in Goods.  The review is 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. 
 2. The Chair
 further recalled that there are no procedures set out for the conduct of the transitional 
review in the Protocol, except that China is to provi de relevant information in  advance of the review.  
No information is specified for subm ission to the Committee under Annex 1A. 
 3. The Chair
 noted that the delegations of the Japan , the European Communities and the United 
States submitted questions and comments in the context of the transitional review, which have been circulated in documents G/ADP/W/457,  W/458, and W/459, respectively.   
 
4. In response to the Chair's invitation for any stat ements of a general nature, the delegate of the 
United States
1 noted that this was the fifth annual revi ew of China's implementation of its anti-
dumping regime under the Transitional Review Mechan ism of China's Protocol of Accession, the goal 
of which is to provide Members with an opportunity to examine China's efforts to meet its obligations 
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as well as to give China the opportunity to clarify its policies 
and practices. Similarly to prior reviews, the United States had voiced concerns about China's 
conducts its anti-dumping actions but also had noted incremental improvements in China's 
compliance efforts.  Unfortunately, five years and many anti-dumping actions after its accession, China appeared to still face many hurdles in maki ng its anti-dumping regime reach the standards of 
transparency and procedural fairness  fully  commensurate with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
 5. One needed only to  turn to the statements made by the United States during the previous years' 
Transitional Review in the Committee and note how  the circumstances described then remained 
largely unchanged.  More specifically, in past re views the United States had raised serious concerns 
about the availability of information from China's ad ministering authority, the Ministry of Commerce 
("MOFCOM"), and its injury arm in particular, the I nvestigation Bureau for Industry Injury ("IBII").  
As was seen from the questions submitted by th e United States for this transitional review 
(G/ADP/W/459), many of these problems persisted.  Interested parties, including responding parties and officials of the US Government, continued to be  frustrated in their attempts to obtain adequate 
non-confidential versions of documents, such as Chinese industry responses to IBII questionnaires. 
 
 
                                                     
 
1 The statement by the United States was circulated in document G/ADP/W/461.  G/ADP/15 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. As the number of anti-dumping measures being im posed by China grew, there were a growing 
number of complaints by responding parties about  the quality of the non-confidential summaries 
China had made available.  Article 6.5 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement required that non-confidential 
summaries of confidential documents be in suffi cient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of 
the substance of the information submitted in confid ence.  As the United States pointed out again this 
year, without access to confidential informa tion submitted to MOFCOM, it was essential to 
responding parties to have comprehensive and info rmative non-confidential summaries in order to be 
able to mount an effective defence.  The govern ment of the United States had received continued 
complaints from responding parties that non-confidential summaries, when they were finally made available, contained insufficient factual informati on to permit development of effective arguments.  
 
7. Furthermore, the United States continued to be c oncerned that, in a growing number of cases,  
critical arguments or evidence put forward by inter ested parties had not been addressed adequately in 
either preliminary or final determinations.  This  had been a problem the previous year and still 
remained a problem, especially in injury determinati ons.  Similarly, many of the conclusions reached 
by MOFCOM in its determinations did not appear to be supported by adequate evidence.  In many 
instances, either no evidence was cited at all, or the evidence cited was not available to anyone except 
the administering authority.  As the United St ates had emphasized previous years, conclusory 
statements without evidentiary support did not cons titute "positive evidence" within the meaning of 
Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In pa rticular, details of the factual basis and reasoning 
supporting the investigating authority's decisions, as well as petitioners' allegati ons and briefs, had to 
be made available to all interested parties.    
 8. The United States again urged China to apply fair pr ocedures to all parties to an investigation as 
envisioned by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  For inv estigations and reviews, this included, but was 
not limited to, timely access to administrators and fa vourable consideration of hearing requests, as 
embodied in Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The United States was concerned about 
continuing resort to private meetings with selected  parties as a principal means to obtain views of 
parties.  The United States continued to urge that  interested parties not present at such private 
meetings be quickly informed of matters discussed at  such meetings and be given an opportunity to 
present their rebuttal, in accordance with Article 6.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Having said 
that, the United States was encouraged by IBII’s decision to hold a public hearing regarding its 
investigation of butanols in June of 2006, prior to the preliminary determination.  The United States 
urged China to provide all interested parties with  the opportunity to raise issues in an open and 
transparent setting at an early  stage of every proceeding. 
 9. Poor interaction between the administering aut horities and the customs authorities that assess 
the anti-dumping duties at the border undermine even the most objective and transparent 
investigation.  In a growing number of cases, th e US government continued to receive 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 those customs probl ems when raised by interested parties, these 
situations were needlessly complicated by the lack of uniform procedures for importers to resolve this 
type of dispute.  The United States urged Chin a to put in place such 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 China's attention in this regard Article 5.9 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, which provides that anti-dumping proceedings shall not hinder customs 
clearance.   G/ADP/15 
Page 4  
 
  10. In previous years the United States had also noted  that China did not appear to have notified all 
relevant legislation to the Committee and, in partic ular, had asked China to clarify which rules applied 
to its prosecution of anti-dumping actions.  The same  problem still persisted.  Key pieces of China's 
legislation still appeared not to have been notified to the Anti-Dumping Committee, leaving 
considerable uncertainty as to the rules being used by China to conduct its anti-dumping actions.  
Some of the questions filed by the United States in this year’s review were aimed at legislation which 
could directly or indirectly shape China’s anti-dum ping regime, but which had not been notified to the 
Committee.  Such lapses in notifi cation denied other WTO Members  the opportunity to review and 
comment on the content of these new regulations in order to further clarify key aspects  of their 
implementation.  The United States urged China to clarify in detail to the Committee the full set of 
rules, regulations and laws that govern its anti-dumping regime. 
 11. In conclusion, the United States recognized the efforts China had made to develop 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 Agreemen t.  With much of that legal framework now in 
place, China needed to continue focusing its efforts on conducting its anti-dumping actions in the 
manner consistent with that frame work, and in conformity with WTO rules.  The United States looked 
forward to seeing continued improvement in the very n ear future and offered its assistance to China in 
pursuit of that goal.   12. The Chair
 offered the floor to China to respond.  
 
13. Taking note of the comments made, the delegate of China  pointed out that this was the fifth 
transitional review by the Committee of the Chinese anti-dumping regime.  In the past five years the 
Committee had held a number of discussions on Chin a's anti-dumping regime in the framework of the 
legislation review process, the review of China' s anti-dumping actions, and also in the transitional 
review framework in the last three years.  It w as, therefore, China's conviction that Members had 
already a clear understanding of the matter and in pa rticular of China's legislative framework, given 
that China had notified the Committee of a dozen  relevant anti-dumping rules and regulations.  
Conversely, three pieces of legislation as identified in the written questions by the US had not been 
notified.  China confirmed that it would address t hose regulations in turn as part of its oral 
presentation at the meeting. 
 
14. As an opening remark, China stated that it be lieved its anti-dumping regi me to be consistent 
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  China did not sh are the view of the United States that the issues 
the latter had identified in its questions and the oral  statement were actually significant.  Given that 
the comments by the US referred to the perfect functioning of the anti-dumping instrument, China 
questioned whether the United States would be able  to function in such perfect circumstances any 
time soon.  Indeed, various Members had been raising similar concerns during the Committee 
meetings with regard to each other's anti-dumping instrument functionalities.  Consequently, China 
believed it had made its utmost efforts to establish a transparent anti-dumping regime with a view to 
further the information disclosure procedures embodi ed in the extensions of the new regulations. 
 
15. Turning to answers to all questions raised by Members, the delegate of China noted that he 
would address the issue of notification of the th ree anti-dumping related regulations, questioned by 
the United States, while his colleagues would respond in detail to rest of the technical questions.  
 16. Speaking on the matter of non-notification of three anti-dumping related regulations, the 
delegate of China noted first that the first regula tion was essentially a judicial interpretation adopted 
by the China Supreme Court.  Ch ina's Permanent Mission to the WTO had been notified about it and 
was expected to submit it to the Secretariat for notification shortly.    G/ADP/15 
 Page 5 
 
 
  17. The second regulation in question concerned access  to information and information disclosure 
in industry injury investigations.  The delegate of China pointed out that this was a fairly new 
regulation intended to further perfect China's inform ation disclosure procedures.  The translation of 
that regulation was being proofread and notification thereof would be made to the Committee within a 
couple of weeks.   
 
18. The third regulation in question concerned responses to anti-dumping cases against Chinese 
exported products.  Because of the internal dive rgence in views among the relevant authorities in 
Beijing as to whether that particular regulation fe ll within the scope of notification under the anti-
dumping agreement, no formal notification had been ma de yet.  However, this specific issue was in 
the process of clarification and advice on it was also being sought from the WTO Secretariat. 
 19. Having addressed the relevant notification questio ns,  the floor was passed to the experts from 
Beijing to address other concerns and question of the Members.    
20. Turning to the questions concerning transparen cy of the Chinese anti-dumping procedures, the 
delegate from China informed Memb ers that China had promulgated a series of regulations and rules 
on transparency, including on information disclosure, e.g. anti-dumping regulations, provisional rules on information disclosure in anti-dumping investig ations, and provisional rules on access to non-
confidential information of anti-dumping investigatio ns.  China's investigating authority had applied 
the above rules and regulations to ensure complia nce with the transparency requirements in anti-
dumping proceedings.  According to these regulations, after a preliminary determination, the Chinese 
authority disclosed to the companies concerning th e essential facts under consideration, which formed 
the basis for the decision.  Such  essential facts included determination of export price and normal 
value, adjustments for differences in conditions a nd terms of sales, and dumping margin calculations.  
Disclosure of dumping margin calculations containe d an explanation of the factual basis for the 
dumping findings and a table with the relevant cal culations.  This information assisted the parties 
concerned to understand the findings of the author ities, enabling them to make comments on a given 
determination and calculation of the dumping margin.  Prior to publication of the final determination, 
compliant with the transparency requirements , Chinese authorities issued a separate document 
disclosing the information on the basis of which the final determination would be made.  The parties 
concerned were given ten days to make comments on the essential facts. 
 
21. The second set of questions concerned methodolog y for comparing export price and the normal 
value.  The delegate of China informed Members th at China's investigating authority determined the 
export price and the normal value based on the info rmation submitted in the companies' questionnaire 
replies.  In addition, due adjustments would be ma de for differences in price comparability at the ex-
factory level in order to make a fair comparis on between the export price and normal value.  The 
dumping margin was normally calculated on the basis of comparison of the weighted average normal 
value and the weighted average export price.  22. The delegate of China further clarified that according to the Chinese anti-dumping regulations 
two other methodologies for the comparison of normal va lue and export price were available, i.e. the 
transaction-to-transaction comparison and a comparis on of weighted average normal value with an 
individual export price.  Nevertheless, the latter two methods had not been used yet. 
 23. The next set of issues concerned implementati on of anti-dumping measures.  According to the 
anti-dumping regulation, the Ministry of Commerce of China, MOFCOM, published the 
determination and informed the customs administra tion.  The decision entered into force from the 
effective date set forth in the public notice.  In the process of implementation, the customs 
administration also gave public notice on collection of the anti-dumping duties.  The delegate of 
China assured Members that any technical problems encountered during implementation would be G/ADP/15 
Page 6  
 
  addressed by MOFCOM and the custom administrati on through mutual consultations at the working 
level.  24. Concerning the scope and tariff line of the product subject to an anti-dumping measure, 
MOFCOM contacted the customs administration immediately after initiation of the anti-dumping 
investigation in order to ascertain that the tariff line and the scope of the subject products were correct 
and accurate.  Again, the delegate of China assured Members that mutual consultations would be held 
to solve other potential problems regarding implementation of the anti-dumping measures. 
 25. As regards the deposit amount, the delegate of China clarified that this was established by 
reference to two figures.  The first figure repr esented the anti-dumping deposit collected according to 
the anti-dumping regulation, i.e. the duty paid pri ce multiplied by the anti-dumping deposit rate.  In 
China's view, such calculation of the anti-dumpi ng deposit amount was consistent with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  The second figure represen ted the VAT deposit collected, according to the 
China's domestic VAT regulations, when the anti-du mping duty rate was lower than the anti-dumping 
deposit rate.  Furthermore, where any such cash deposit exceeded the anti-dumping duty rate, the 
amounts in excess  were to be refunded to the importers.  26. Concerning the questions on the responding pro cedure, the anti-dumping regulation of China 
allowed for a procedure of setting aside an extra 20 days for potential respondents to express their 
intention to co-operate to a given investigation.   This 20-day registration procedure did not count 
against the 37-day time-limit for answering the questionnaire.  It was further explained that 
MOFCOM made the questionnaires available on its offi cial website for all the interested parties, 
including those that did not express interest in a 20-day registration procedure, to have easy access to 
them and to participate in a given investiga tion by answering and submitting their questionnaire 
replies.  The delegate of China pointed out that only companies which submitted questionnaire replies 
to MOFCOM received individual dumping margin s.  If a company did not respond to the 
questionnaire, MOFCOM based its determination on the best information available.  By way of 
explanation, the delegate of China clarified that  the given procedure was set up with a view to 
facilitate companies' efforts to participate in th e anti-dumping procedures.  As for sampling, that 
MOFCOM determined whether or not sampling should be applied in a given procedure.  This would 
depend on the number of potential respondents, but  the registration procedure did not concern 
sampling, which was only addressed by Article 9.4. 
 27. The fifth set of issues concerned application of de minimis  rates.  In this connection the 
delegate of China noted that the use and practice of application of the de minimis  rule differed among 
WTO Members.  The Chinese authority was in the pro cess of studying this issue and intended to keep 
contact and exchange opinions with other WTO Members in this matter. 
 28. Another set of questions concerned injury inves tigations.  The first group of questions focused 
on disclosure.  Indeed, the IBII disclosed to the in terested parties the essential facts which form the 
basis of the injury decisions as provided in Ar ticles 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On 
4 August 2006, MOFCOM had promulgated rul es on access to information and information 
disclosure on industry injury investigation.  The delegate of China had confirmed that these rules 
would be notified to the Committee as soon as the tran slation thereof was completed.  In a nutshell, 
the rules in question stipulated the specific contents  and procedures of information disclosure, as well 
as the interested parties' rights in respect of access  to such information.  According to the rules, 
information disclosure should normally be made within 30 days before the final determinations.  IBII 
was under an obligation to inform all interested parti es, including the exporters, of the essential facts.  
Interested parties who had not made themselves known to the authorities would find such disclosure 
materials in the public notices by MOFCOM.   G/ADP/15 
 Page 7 
 
 
  29. Turning to the issue of confidentiality, it was generally recognized that  determining whether 
non-confidential summaries of information were pr ovided in sufficient detail to permit reasonable 
understanding of the subject of the information s ubmitted in confidence was at the discretion of the 
investigating authorities.  This assessment was made on a case-by-case basis.  If non-confidential 
summaries submitted by interested parties were not provided in sufficient deta il to permit reasonable 
understanding of the substance of the information provided in confidence, IBII would then ask the 
party concerned to withdraw its request for confiden tiality.  Otherwise, IBII could also disregard such 
information unless its accuracy was demonstrated  from appropriate sources.  In exceptional 
circumstances where interested parties did not provide non-confidential summaries, they had to 
include a statement of the reasons why such su mmarisation was not possible based on the rules for 
access to information and information disclosure in industry injury investigations and the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  30. Concerning the use of aggregate figures versus indexed figures, the aggregate figures had to be 
used as long as due regard was given to protection of confidential information.  As a general matter, it 
was considered more meaningful to use aggregate figures instead of indexed figures where more than 
two petitioners or respondents were i nvolved in a given investigation. 
 31. The next question concerned initiations of inv estigations, in particular whether volumes and 
prices of imports from other countries had to be exam ined prior to the initiation.  The delegate of 
China recalled that this matter was clearly addressed in Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
The Chinese authority carefully examined accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the 
applications lodged by the domestic industry, in full compliance with the provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and the relevant legislation of China.  32. Finally, the last issue concerned dumped impor ts in the spandex case. In that case, IBII had 
received comments from interested parties on the preliminary determination of dumped imports as 
well as further investigations.  More specifically, the delegate of China explained that the final 
determination of the injury in the spandex case did not include data of dumped imports, market share, 
or import price of the subject product of those producers or exporters whose dumping margin was de 
minimis .  Further details on this case were availabl e from the respective notice of the definitive 
determination published by MOFCOM on 12 October 2006.  By way of general remark, the delegate 
of China urged Members to submit case-specific ques tions to the respective case handlers during the 
course of the investigations to allow them to deal  with any such matters in a more efficient and 
effective way.  33. The Chair
 thanked China, and opened the floor for any additional or follow-up questions, or 
other comments. 
 34. The delegate of the United States thanked China for its replies to the questions from the United 
States, and asked for further clarification in a few areas.    35. First, on the issue of VAT, the United States a ppreciated China's description of its two separate 
calculations:  its calculation of the duty deposit rate  and its calculation of the VAT deposit.  Although 
there was some detail given in the response w ith regard to how the anti-dumping deposit was 
calculated, there was not much description given as to how the VAT deposit was calculated and, 
specifically, whether the VAT deposit was calculate d on the basis of a price to which the anti-
dumping duty had already been added, thus increasing the anti-dumping duty by the amount of the 
VAT rate. 
   G/ADP/15 
Page 8  
 
  36. In addition, the delegate of the United Stat ed noted that China had not answers the US 
question 10, i.e., whether VAT assessed on anti-dumpi ng duties or other duty collected in excess of 
the margin of dumping had ever been refunded by China, following a request by an importer as required under Article 9.3.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  
37. Another follow-up question related to US question 5, which dealt with responding parties that 
received de minimis  rates.  Currently, under Chinese practice, China did not exclude them from the 
anti-dumping order.  The United States understood the Chinese delegate to say that China was 
studying this issue in light of the Appellate Body's decision in the report on Mexican Rice, and expressed that hope that China would complete its review quickly.  The Unite d States was interested 
in consulting with China on that matter. 
 38. With regard to US question 7 dealing with non-confidential summaries by the Ministry of 
Commerce's injury arm, the IIBI, the Chinese delegate  had explained the rights that the administering 
authority had.  The United States recalled that this had been a problem area that it had focussed on for 
several years now and asked Chine to elaborate on what specific steps IIBI was taking to address this 
problem.  39. Lastly, the US delegate wanted to confirm its understanding of China's response to US 
question 8(a), which dealt with the situation where there was some conflict between the administering 
authority – the Ministry of Commerce – and the cust oms authorities.  Was it Ch ina's response, in fact, 
that there were no written procedures governing ways  to handle that situation but rather the two 
agencies simply consulted?  40. The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked China for its clarifications and extensive 
answers to questions, one-by-one in an individual way.  The EC was looking forward to the 
announced notifications of the new rules a nd to their application in future cases. 
 41. As regards the use of aggregate figures, the EC was pleased to hear that China also considered 
that this method should get preference over the use of indexed figures and was looking forward to 
seeing such practice being applied in concrete cases.  The EC would continue to study the rest of the 
answers given and would come back to China at a later stage if further questions arose.   
 
42. The delegate of Japan
 echoed the United States and the EC in thanking China for its replies.  
Japan appreciated the steady improvements in China's anti-dumping law and practice and believed 
that the Transitional Review Mechanism was a good opportunity to review those improvements.  The 
replies to specific questions were being studied and would be addressed later.  
 
43. Regarding the follow-up questions, the delegate of China  stated, first, with regard to the VAT 
issue, that it was his personal understanding that, un der the existing or current textual framework in 
China, the tariff which included duties in th e cases of anti-dumping, safeguards and others was subject 
to VAT in China.  China recalled that the Anti- Dumping Agreement itself did not have very clear 
provisions on this particular issue, and was willi ng to exchange further views with Members on this 
matter.  
 44. Concerning the US question 5, the delegate fro m China reiterated that the WTO itself did not 
agree on what should be the final policy in respect of application of de minimis rates.  However,  
China confirmed its willingness to further di scuss this technical issue with Members. 
 
45. On the question concerning the information discl osure, the up-coming notifications reflected 
the actual and concrete steps taken by China in th is regard.  Underlying the immense work already 
done, China would make further efforts to draft ot her regulations on information disclosure.   
  G/ADP/15 
 Page 9 
 
 
  46. In respect of US question 8(a), China did not have a written procedure for settling the issues of 
implementation of specific anti-dumping measures.  Because of the variety of implementation issues that could potentially arise, the actions  taken to  address them would differ accordingly.  In China's 
view, the mechanism currently used to address implementation problems by the investigation 
authorities in China, on one hand, and the customs administration, on the other, was effective and 
efficient. 
 47. The delegation of China confirmed that the sp ecific responses provided by its experts during 
the Committee meeting would be made available to the Secretariat, as well as to the Members, in 
writing. 
 
48. The United States
 thanked the delegation of China for its answers and indicated that it had 
found the exchange during the mee ting to have been particularly  helpful and the responses quite 
useful.  
49. On the VAT issue
, the United States draw China's atten tion to Article 18.1 which provided that 
'no specific action against dumping of exports can be taken except in accordance with this agreement.'  
It was the view of the United States that applica tion of the VAT rate to a number which included the 
dumping duty meant that, by virtue of an affirma tive finding of dumping, the result would not only be 
the amount of duty owed, i.e. the dumping duty, but that there would be the secondary effect of an increase in the amount of the VAT.  The United States viewed this as a clear example of a specific 
action against dumping inconsistent with the provisions  of the agreement, in particular Article 18.1., 
and expressed willingness to discuss this further with China   50. The Chair
 thanked all delegations for their particip ation in the exchange, and especially the 
delegation of China for its preparation and for th e information and answers provided.  She equally 
thanked those Members that had undertaken to su bmit written questions and to participate in the 
discussion.  51. Concerning the required report to the Council for Trade in Goods concerning this transitional 
review, the Chair
 noted that there were no guidelines for the report contained in the Protocol, and 
recalled that previously the Committee Chair, acting on his or her own responsibility, had prepared a 
brief factual report, with references to the docum ents concerned, and attaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which related to the tran sitional review.  She suggested proceeding on the 
same basis for the 2006 report.  52. The Committee so agreed
. 
 
__________