RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/39 
17 December 2010 
 (10-6797) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 26-27 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Chair:  Mr. Adrián Serra (Argentina)
 
 
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 26-
27 October 2010.    2. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3638:   
 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ).............................................................................................................1  
1. Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/3)................................................................................................1  
2. Croatia (G/ADP/N/1/HRV/2/Corr.1–G/SCM/N/1/HRV/2/Corr.1).......................................2  
3. Guyana (G/ADP/N/1/GUY/1)...................................................................................................2  
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE .............................................................................2  
1. Bahrain (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/2–G/SCM /N/1/BHR/1–G/SG/N/1/BHR/2) ................................2  
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4).....................................3  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ...............................................................15  
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION .......................................................................................................................16  
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION .............16  
G. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................17  
H. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................................17  
I. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6).............................17  
  A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION 
OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUS LY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING 
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) 
1. Colombia (G/ADP/N/1/COL/3) 
3. The written questions concerning the notification of Colombia  could be found in the 
following document: G/ADP/M/39 
Page 2  
 
  G/ADP/Q1/COL/4–G/SCM/Q1/COL/4 – Submitted by the United States 
 4. The written answers to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/COL/5–G/SCM/Q1/COL/5 – Replies to the United States 
 2. Croatia (G/ADP/N/1/HRV/2/Corr.1–G/SCM/N/1/HRV/2/Corr.1) 
5. No written questions concerning the notification of Croatia  were posed by any Member. 
3. Guyana (G/ADP/N/1/GUY/1) 
6. No written questions concerning the notification of Guyana  were posed by any Member. 
B. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
1. Bahrain (G/ADP/N/1/BHR/2–G/SCM /N/1/BHR/1–G/SG/N/1/BHR/2) 
7. The written questions concerning the notification of Bahrain  could be found in the following 
document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/3–G/SCM/Q1/BHR/3–G/SG/Q1/BHR/3 – Submitted by the United States 
 
8. The written answers to these questions could be found in the following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/4–G/SCM/Q1/BHR/4–G/SG/Q1/B HR/4 – Replies to the United States 
 9. The written follow-up questions posed orally by the United States at the meeting were 
circulated in document G/ADP/Q1/BH R/5–G/SCM/Q1/BHR/5–G/SG/Q1/BHR/5.  
10. The written answer to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/BHR/6–G/SCM/Q1/BHR/6–G/SG/Q1/B HR/6 – Replies to the United States 
 11. The Chair
 reminded Members that any questions concerning the reviewed legislations at this 
meeting, for which a written answer was desired,  had to be submitted in writing to the Member 
concerned with a copy to the Secretariat not later than close of business on Monday, 
15 November 2010.  Written answers to all questio ns posed in writing had to be submitted not later 
than close of business on Monday, 6 December 2010.   
12. For the Spring 2011 meeting, in accordance with  the Committee's agreed procedures, all new 
legislative notifications which would be circulated in all three languages at least six weeks before the 
meeting, i.e., by 21 March 2011, w ould be placed on the agenda for re view.  Shortly after this date, 
the Secretariat would circulate a document informing Me mbers of all of the legislative notifications to 
be reviewed at the spring meeting.   
13. The Chair noted that three new legislative notif ications were submitted by Brazil, Gabon, and 
Oman.  As these notifications were received after the deadline for review at this meeting, they would 
be placed on the agenda of the spring 2011 Co mmittee meeting for review.  Written questions 
concerning those and any other new  legislative notifications would n eed to be submitted not later than 
three weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 11 April 2011.    G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 3 
 
 
  14. The Chair further noted that Members wishing to place any previously-reviewed legislative 
notifications on the agenda would need to submit ques tions in writing to the Member in question, with 
a copy to the Secretariat, not later than six weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 21 March 2011.  Written 
answers should also be submitted in  advance, i.e. by 18 April 2011.1   
15. Furthermore, the Chair drew attention to the fact that some Members had yet to submit any 
notification concerning legislation.  This was a matt er of concern to all Members, from the point of 
view of transparency and better understanding.  For many Members, a single nil notification would be 
required.  For Members that conducted anti-dumping investigations, but had not yet notified their 
legislation, it was all the more important for the Committee to have the opportu nity to review and ask 
questions about that legislation.  Thus, the Chai r encouraged all Members that had not yet made a 
legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.   
16. In addition, the Chair referred to the delegati ons' contact details list consolidated by the 
Secretariat and urged Members, that had not yet done  so, to provide their contact details as soon as 
possible and encouraged those Members that provided  such contact details to provide any updates, as 
necessary.  
17. Finally, the Chair drew Members' attention to  the list of Competent Authorities, the latest 
revision of which was circulated in document G/ ADP/N/14/Add.30.  The Chair invited all Members 
that have such an authority to submit the require d notification pursuant to Article 16.5 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  He also invited those Member s that had already submitted such a notification 
some time ago and had not provided recent updates to the information contained within, to review the 
data pertaining to their own competent authoriti es and report to the Secretariat any changes, 
modifications, or updates, as necessary.   
18. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.   
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
 - Review of Semi-Annual Reports (G/ADP/N/202) 
 19. The Chair
 recalled that a request for semi-annual re ports for the first half of 2010 and a 
reminder in this respect, with a due date of 31 August 2010, had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/202 and G/ADP/N/202/Suppl.1 dated 1 Ju ly and 16 August 2010, respectively.  He 
indicated that it appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping actions during the period in question had submitted a semi-annual report.  He  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.  He 
clarified that this would not apply to tho se Members that had already submitted a one-time 
notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
20. For those Members reporting anti-dumping actions, the Chair emphasized the importance of 
submitting these notifications on a timely basis.  He added that many of the reports for this period 
arrived after the deadline, some significantly so .  He explained that although circulating and 
translating such late reports had always been pr oblematic in the past, it became certainly more so 
since Members started using the new semi-a nnual reports format c ontained in document 
G/ADP/1/Rev.1.  He clarified that certain technical  problems pertaining to the data provided or lack 
thereof arose, and Members - even those providing th eir reports by the deadline - had to be requested 
to revise their reports and resubmit them once more .  Needless to say, if the reports were already 
arriving long after the set deadline, this would certa inly have a negative impact on the translation and 
                                                     
 
1 All deadlines are contained in document G/ADP/W/483–G/SCM/W/553–G/SG/W/215 dated 
5 November 2010. G/ADP/M/39 
Page 4  
 
  circulation of such documents.  He emphasized that  circulating the semi-annual reports in all three 
languages - sufficiently before the meeting at which such reports were to be reviewed - would allow 
Members to study them, and to formulate any questio ns which would in turn contribute to the quality 
of the Committee's discussion.  It would also constitu te an important part of the transparency function 
that these reports were intended to fulfil.  The Chai r, therefore, encouraged all Members to make an 
effort to submit their semi-annual reports on time.  
21. The Chair noted that Members that notified taki ng actions were identified in paragraph 1 of 
document G/ADP/N/202/Add.1, dated 20 October 2010 and that the semi-annual reports submitted 
were translated to the extent po ssible, but late submission obviously meant that not all such reports 
were yet available in all three languages.  He added that following the circulation of document 
G/ADP/N/202/Add.1, Indonesia submitted its semi-annua l report.  He added that in addition to the 
Members that submitted semi-annual reports of acti ons taken, a number of Members, listed in 
paragraph 2 of that document, had notified the Co mmittee that they had not taken any anti-dumping 
actions during the period in question.  
22. The Chair also drew Members' attention to  paragraph 5 of docum ent G/ADP/N/202/Add.1, 
which reflected the list of Members that had submitte d a one-time notification pursuant to the format 
adopted by the Committee on 21 October 2009 a nd circulated in document G/ADP/19 dated 
3 November 2009, and had indicated that they had neither established an investigating authority nor 
taken any anti-dumping actions.  In this context,  the Chair informed Members that, as mandated by 
the Committee, the Secretariat had contacted all Me mbers that fall in this category to explain the 
background of the adopted one-time notification format and had provided the necessary technical 
assistance on how to use it.  So far, 29 Members lis ted in paragraph 5 of the document had provided 
this notification.  All such notifications were contained in the G/ADP/N/193 document series.  He 
added that the Secretariat would remain in constant contact with the rest of the Members that fall in 
this category to provide any necessary assistance th at could facilitate the submission of the said 
notification.   
23. The Chair pointed out that a considerable number of Members, as identified in paragraphs 3 
and 4 of document G/ADP/N/202/Add.1, had not yet responded to the request for semi-annual reports.  
He reiterated that this notificati on requirement applied to all Member s, whether or not they had taken 
anti-dumping actions during the period in questio n, except for those Members that had already 
submitted a one-time notification.  He urged Member s to comply with this important notification 
requirement.   
24. The Committee conducted the review of the se mi-annual reports which were submitted and 
circulated for the first half of 2010.  No Member raised questions or made  comments concerning the 
semi-annual reports of the following Members:  Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Egypt, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Chinese Ta ipei, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine and 
Venezuela.   
25. Concerning the semi-annual report of Brazil , the representative of Chile
 referred to the 
investigation initiated by Brazil on sea salt from Chile in March 2010.  He indicated that the Chilean 
authorities were carefully following the course of this investigation and the assessment which was 
made of its background.  He added that Chile tr usted that this investigation would follow the 
principles and disciplines of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
26. The representative of the United States  noted that with respect to the recently completed anti-
dumping review of ethylene glycol from the United States, Brazil's semi-annual report referred to this 
review as an Article 11.3 expiry review.  She added that the initiation notice also appeared to suggest 
that this review was initiated under Article 11.3.   However, the final determination which was  G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 5 
 
 
  published on 7 October 2010 indicated that this  review was conducted under both Articles 11.2 
and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement resulting in not only an extension of the measure, but also 
an increase in the level of the anti-dumping duty.  She requested Brazil to clarify at which point of the 
review were interested parties made aware that the review was conducted under Articles 11.2 
and 11.3, which could potentially result in a revision of the level of the anti-dumping duty.  She also 
requested Brazil to explain why the dual nature of  the review was not reflected in the semi-annual 
report.  
27. On the comments made by Chile, the representative of Brazil  thanked the Chilean delegation 
for sharing its concerns in advance with Brazil and indicated that she would di scuss the issue with the 
Brazilian investigating authority and might be able to provide additional information on the 
investigation to the Chilean delegation.  She assu red Chile that due process would be observed and 
respected by the investigating authority.  She expl ained that the investigation on sea salt was initiated 
in March 2010 following some attempts to solve this  issue bilaterally.  The investigating authority 
should have received responses to the questionnaires from the Chilean producers and that the on-spot-
investigation would be carried out for the Brazilian producers for the purpose of injury analysis in the 
week of 25 October 2010.  She stated that it was the investigating authority's intention to carry out on-
spot-investigation for the Chilean producers in the month of November 2010.  She added that during the process of the investigation, the parties involve d might refer their concerns to the investigating 
authority where they would be properly analyzed befo re the final decision in this investigation could 
be taken.   
28. With respect to the questions posed by the United States, the representative of Brazil thanked 
the United States for sharing with Brazil its concerns  in advance.  She stat ed that according to the 
Brazilian investigating authority the circular that in itiated the sunset review;  i.e. Circular SECEX 
No. 51 of 8 October 2009, not only had it indicated the initiation of a sunset review, but had also 
indicated the possibility of anti-dumping duty reviews in  this case.  This circular was published in the 
National Gazette and it was also sent to all interest ed parties including the United States' Government 
according to the Brazilian records.  She explained that the Brazilian practice had always been to 
conduct Article 11.2 reviews simultaneously with s unset reviews.  Upon the initiation of a sunset 
review, Brazil would notify it to the WTO under Ar ticle 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, but 
Brazil would have no problem making it clear in the notifications that during these kinds of reviews, 
Brazil also would conduct a review of anti-dumping du ties.  She added that since Brazil was sure that 
in the circular that was sent to all interested par ties that was already made clear, Brazil had not felt the 
need to make it so specific in its semi-annual report.   
29. On the semi-annual report of China , the representative of Japan
 posed questions pertaining to 
the change of circumstances review or interim review in page 7 of that report, the anti-dumping margins on chloroprene rubber, and comme nted on China's sunset reviews.  
30. Firstly, on the chloroprene rubber investigation,  the Chinese authority had explained, in the 
document attached to the public notice of the fi nal determination issued on 15 August 2010, the 
reason for disregarding the data for export volume and price provided by the cooperating exporter was 
that such data had not been ideal in all resp ects and not accurate.  The representative of Japan 
requested China to explain why it believed the data provided by the exporter had not been ideal in all 
respects and not accurate.   
31. Secondly, the Chinese authority informed the e xporter that it would provide the explanation 
for their final decision in writing, but the exporter had never received it.  The representative of Japan 
requested China to specify the date at  which it would provide that document. 
32. Thirdly, the representative of Japan inquired wh ether the Chinese authority, when it decided 
not to accept the data provided by the exporter, ha d informed the exporter of the reasons thereof and G/ADP/M/39 
Page 6  
 
  gave that exporter an opportunity to provide furt her explanation and defend his interests within a 
reasonable period.  She requested China to speci fy if that had or had not happened and how.  
33. Lastly, the representative of Japan made a comment  on China's sunset reviews.  She explained 
that definitive anti-dumping measures in force, cont ained in the annex to China's semi-annual report, 
referred to 23 anti-dumping measures imposed on Japa nese products.  Among those, the product cold 
rolled stainless steel sheet and strip would soon be subject to a second sunset review, in addition to 
7 other measures which would soon be subject to a first sunset review.  She noted Japan's strong interest in these sunset reviews, especi ally from a due process perspective.  
34. The representative of the United States
 referred to the answers provided by China to the 
United States' questions2 contained in document G/ADP/Q2/CHN/4.  She thanked China for the 
replies, but indicated that the replies provide d no clear understanding of the basis for China's 
calculations for the all-others rate than previous e xplanations which had been provided by China.  She 
added that a response which simply stated that the al l-others rate was based on facts available was in 
the view of the United States insuffici ent and lacking in transparency.  
35. The representative of the United states indicated  that in the investigation of polyamide-6 
from the United States, China's semi-annual report identified the range of provisional dumping 
margins as 29.3 to 36.2 per cent and the provisional all-others rate as 96.5 per cent.  The preliminary 
determination issued on 19 October 2009, announced provisional dumping margins ranging from 
30.4 to 36.2 per cent and an all-othe rs rate of 36.2 per cent.  The United States raised this discrepancy 
at the Spring Committee meeting and China sub sequently submitted a corrected semi-annual report 
(G/ADP/N/195/CHN/Corr.1).  This correction was also  included in China's recently submitted revised 
report for the period July through December 2009 (G /ADP/N/195/CHN/Rev.1), but the error appeared 
in China's semi-annual report for the period January  through June 2010.  She inquired whether China 
had the intention to revise its current semi-annual report to correct provisional dumping margins and 
all-others rate in the anti-dumping investigation involving polyamide-6.  
36. The representative of the United States added that in June 2010, China announced the 
initiation of an expiry review of anti-dumping duties on hydrazine hydrate from the United States, 
Japan, Korea and France.  However, China's semi-a nnual report did not reflect this initiation.  She 
requested China to confirm that the initiation of this expiry review occurred during the reporting 
period and if so, she inquired whether China had the intention to revise its semi-annual report to 
reflect the initiation of the expiry review of hydrazine hydrate. 
37. With regard to the anti-dumping investigation of imports of optical fibre from the 
United States, the representative of the United States noted that on 1 January 2010, China terminated 
an anti-dumping order on imports of optical fibr e from the United States.  However, less than 
four months later, on 22 April 2010, China in itiated a new anti-dumping investigation on the same 
optical fibre imports from the United States.  This initiation occurred even though the petition itself acknowledged that, between 2006 and 2009, the domes tic industry's performance dramatically 
improved in terms of capacity, out put, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share, sales revenue, 
before-tax profit, rate of return, cash flow, employm ent, and labour productivity.  In an attempt to 
overcome this evidence of the domestic industry's ro bust performance, the petition vaguely referred to 
certain unspecified "hidden troubles" and speculated th at "[s]ubject imports will flow into China at an 
extremely low price in the near future".  Yet, th ere was no evidence in the petition that subject imports 
had any significant adverse impact on the domestic industry during the 2006-2 009 period.  Petitioners 
also provided no evidence that a continuation of the trends exhibited by subject imports over the 
2006-2009 period would impact the domestic industry any differently in the imminent future, or that 
these trends were likely to change in the imminent futu re so as to create a threat of material injury.  In 
                                                     
 
2 G/ADP/Q2/CHN/3.   G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 7 
 
 
  light of the compelling evidence contradicting the pe titioners' injury allegations, the representative of 
the United States urged China to terminate the inves tigation at the preliminary determination stage.  
38. The representative of the United States was also concerned by the lack of transparency in 
China's procedures thus far in the pending anti-dumpi ng investigation of imports of optical fibre from 
the United States.  Many of the petitioners' injury al legations appeared to rely largely on information 
presented in a report "issued by a prestigious do mestic fibre industry association", but neither 
petitioners nor the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") disclosed 
sufficient details of the report to enable responde nts to understand the data or the methodologies used 
in the compilation of the report.  Indeed, they had not even identified the associ ation that authored the 
report.  He added that the United States' responde nts were entitled to "a full opportunity for the 
defence of their interests", under Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and "timely 
opportunities to see all information that is rele vant to the presentation of their cases", under 
Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  He re minded China of its obliga tion, under Article 6.6 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that is, "to satisfy  [itself] as to the accur acy of the information 
supplied y interested parties upon which their findings are based".  He requested China to explain how 
MOFCOM would adhere to its transparency obl igations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 
particularly with regard to the report relied on by  petitioners to support their injury allegations3.  
39. The representative of the European Union  commented on the optical fibre investigation.  She 
noted that the European Union was very concerned by the initiation of this investigation as it seemed 
to be based on a threat of injury  which might not have been sufficien tly substantiated.  She indicated 
that the European Union would monitor this inves tigation closely and requested China to explain how 
it would consider that it was complying with the WTO standards in terms of initiation.  She also 
hoped that China would comply with the WTO standa rds with respect to transparency and all the 
substantive obligations in this case.   
40. The representative of China  thanked the various delegations for their questions.  On the 
replies provided by China to the questions posed by  the United States at the last Committee meeting, 
she assured the United States that China was still open to any comments on the issue of all-others rate.  
She indicated that China would wish to continue its  exchange with the United States on this issue.   
41. On Japan's question pertaining to the interim re view initiated by China in 2009 on the product 
of chloroprene rubber, the representative of China indicated that China had recently publicized the 
determination in the Public Notice No. 49 for the year 2010.  In this case, one of the Japanese 
responding companies received a higher dumping margin , which was explained in the public notice.  
He added that the reason for such higher margin w as that the information provided by that company – 
in its answers to the MOFCOM's questionnaire regarding the quantity and the price of the exports – 
were very different from the information fou nd by the MOFCOM's officials during the on-site-
verification and that the company failed to provi de the reason justifying such a big difference.  
Accordingly, the MOFCOM had to disregard the in formation regarding the exports and calculated the 
margin for this company on f acts available basis.    
42. On the other issues raised by Japan, the represen tative of China explained that they were of a 
more technical nature.  He request ed Japan to provide the questions in writing so that he could convey 
them to the authorities in Beijing and reply promp tly.  He expressed China's readiness to continue 
exchanging views with the Japanese counterparts on this issue.   
43. On the issues raised by the United States with respect to China's semi-annual report for the 
first half of 2010, the representative of China stat ed that his delegation would check the questions 
posed by the United States following the meeting a nd reply to the United States as soon as possible.  
                                                      
3 The questions posed by the United States we re circulated in docu ment G/ADP/Q2/CHN/5. G/ADP/M/39 
Page 8  
 
  He added that if there were any revisions to the semi-annual report, China would notify the 
Committee.   
44. On the concerns raised by the United States a nd the European Union with respect to the 
optical fibre investigation, the representative of China indicated that China had fully respected the 
WTO rules on trade remedy measures.  He stated that according to the WTO statistics, China had 
been the prime target of Members in anti-dumping investigations for more than 14 years and was 
targeted by countervailing investigations for more than 4 years.  He added that even under certain 
circumstances, China had been prudent in usin g trade remedy measures and that China's trade 
remedies measures were consistent with the WTO ru les.  The purpose of using trade remedy measures 
was to maintain order in the area of international trade and to protect the legitimate rights and interests 
of the Chinese domestic industries.  He added th at China would not use trade remedy measures to 
restrain any imports that would be imported in the ordinary course of trade.   
45. With respect to the specific qu estions on the optical fibre case, the representative of China 
reminded Members that this case was under investig ation and that the Chinese investigating authority 
would encourage and welcome all in terested parties to submit their comments during the investigation 
and that China would take into account their comments when making any decision.  He explained that 
all the anti-dumping investigations opened by Chin a were initiated following a written complaint 
submitted by the domestic industry and that China' s investigating authority would review the 
complaint carefully and closely in order to ensure  that the initiation of the investigation standards 
were respected, pursuant to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   With respect to the transparency issue, he 
added that China had always attached great importa nce to this issue and w ould ensure that the anti-
dumping investigations were conducte d in an objective, open, fair and transparent manner.  All the 
decisions pertaining to the initiation, preliminary a nd final determinations we re posted on the Chinese 
Government's official website and would be conveye d to the interested parties and notified to the 
WTO, without delay.  He explained that on the da y this particular investigation was initiated, the 
investigating authority would provide a non-confid ential version of the compliant to the exporting 
Member and the known exporters and producers.  In addition, China had rules on information 
disclosure and on the access to non-confidential information.   
46. Regarding the injury questions, the representative of China stated that since such questions 
were of a more technical nature, he would refer th em to Beijing for a detailed answer to be provided 
as soon as possible.  He reiterated that all the practic es of China were consistent with WTO rules and 
that China had learnt a lot, from some WTO Members, as to how to conduct anti-dumping 
investigations.  He mentioned that since this w as an ongoing investigation, China would welcome 
exchanging views on this case with other interest ed parties such as the European Union.   
47. The representative of Japan
 took the floor to thank China for the preliminary response to 
Japan's first question.  She indicated that the e xporter had explained why the difference occurred in 
his answers to the questionnaire and the facts found in  the on-site-investigation.  She indicated that 
Japan would submit the questions in writing for circulation4.   
48. On the semi-annual report of the European Union , the representative of China  expressed 
concerns with respect to two investigations.  Firstl y, he indicated that in its most recent semi-annual 
report, document G/ADP/N/202/EEC, the European Union notified the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation on imports of wireless wide area ne tworking (WWAN) modems from China.  This case 
was initiated on 30 June 2010, in parallel with a safeguard investigation and followed on 
16 September 2010 by an anti-subsidy investigation.   He added that it was the first time in 
European Union's history and possibly in the history of the WTO that a country had carried out three simultaneous trade defense investig ations on the same product.  He requested the European Union to 
                                                     
 
4 Circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/CHN/6.  G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 9 
 
 
  indicate how it would carry out the three different i nvestigations against the same product at the same 
time.  He inquired whether the European Union ha d been extremely cautious in the initiation of these 
three investigations, and whether this case should be taken to signal a shift in the European Union's 
trade defense policy in general, especially as it related to the notion of self-restraint.  
49. The representative of China added that the Eu ropean Union had initiated an investigation 
affecting billions of dollars in trade on behalf  of a sole company claiming to be the only 
European Union's producer of the product concerned.  This company which employed around 250 individuals worldwide, had publicly admitted th at it had outsourced 100 per cent of its production 
to China.  China inquired whether the compla inant had the necessary standing to represent the 
domestic industry.  He further submitted that in this investigation, the group of products considered to 
be "like" consisted of the "PC card", – an obsol ete and expensive-to-make technology product – and 
its technological successor, namely the made-fo r-personal-use "USB modem".  He requested the 
European Union to clarify how these different pr oducts could be treated as "a product".  Of a 
particular concern to China was the potential for th e investigation to expand the use of the trade 
remedy instrument to protect obsolete technologies and the companies which produce them by placing 
tariffs on the next generation of these technologies.   
50. Secondly, the representative of China indicat ed that in the same semi-annual report, the 
European Union notified the initiation of an anti- dumping investigation on imports of ironing board 
from a company in China.  He inquired about the European Union's position with respect to companies assigned a zero margin of dumping.  On  2 October 2009, the European Union initiated a 
new investigation against an individual company which was assigned a zero dumping margin in the 
preliminary investigation on ironing board from Chin a.  Despite the circulation of the Appellate 
Body's report pertaining to the anti-dumping investigation on Mexico – Beef and Rice from the United States, the European Commission still review ed companies to which a zero dumping margin 
was assigned, as had been the case with respect to  electronic compact fluorescent discharge lamps 
(CFL) from China.  This would indicate that there were re-examinations and at the same time new 
investigations against companies assigned a zero margin of dumping.  He requested the 
European Union to clarify whether these two cases could be a reflection of the European Union's 
position and practice with respect to the companies assigned zero dumping margins.   
51. The representative of China also inquired whether a separate anti-dumping investigation 
targeting a certain enterprise contradicted the de finition of dumping accord ing to the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  He requested the European Union to explain how it would determine the injury of the 
domestic industry in a separate anti-dumping investiga tion with respect to a certain enterprise.  He 
explained that the injury caused by dumping should be the injury caused by the imports to the domestic like product industries.  He requested the Eu ropean Union to explain the manner in which it 
had determined  the injury to the domestic industr y in case of the initiation of a separate investigation 
targeting a company and whether the injury to th e industry would be caused by the products of the 
importing country or just limited to the pr oducts of the subject exporting enterprise. 
52. The representative of China further inquired whether the effects could be cumulatively 
assessed in such a separate anti-dumping investigation.   According to Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, only when the margin of dumping establis hed in relation to the imports from each country 
would be more than de minimis , the volume of imports from each country would not be negligible, 
and a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports would be appropriate in light of the 
conditions of competition between the imported products and the c onditions of competition between 
the imported products and the like domestic product, the investigating authority might cumulatively 
assess the effects of such imports.  He inquired wh ether cumulative assessment of injury could be 
carried out, if the investigation was carried out with  respect to a certain enterprise, and simultaneously 
there was dumping by other enterprises from other c ountries.  He also requested the European Union 
to explain how it determined the causal link betw een dumping and injury.  He added that in the G/ADP/M/39 
Page 10  
 
  process of demonstrating the causal link, the author ities should also examine factors other than the 
dumped imports which might cause injury to the domestic industry and that when the relevant authorities initiate a separate anti-dumping investigation pertaining to a certain company, the determination of the causal link between the dumping and the injury would be more complex.  First, 
the subject imports should be defined as the whole exports of the exporting country or that of the 
enterprise itself.  Second, the e ffects of other factors or dumping activities of other countries should 
be separated and eliminated.  Finally, he requested the European Union to explain the impact of the 
new investigation on the former determination of injury, when a new investigation had been initiated 
with respect to the zero dumping margin companies;   i.e. the company was excluded from the former 
investigation.  And in such circumstance, whether the former investigation should be re-examined in 
order to exclude the injurious e ffects caused by this company.  
53. The representative of the European Union
 indicated that she would try to answer the 
questions to the extent possible, but as some of the i ssues were subject to current investigations or that 
some of the details were being dealt with in Bru ssels, she requested China to pose the questions in 
writing.  On the case of the WWAN modems, she confir med that the European Union had initiated the 
three types of investigations as it had received re quests pertaining to safeguards, anti-dumping, and 
anti-subsidy investigations and in line with the WTO law provisions and the provisions of the 
European Union's legislation, if the complaints  were considered to be  well substantiated and 
contained all the relevant information, the Europ ean Union would be under an obligation to initiate 
the investigations and that was why all three types of  investigations were initiated, as all the initiations 
requirements were complied with.  She added that the issues raised by Chin a with respect to these 
investigations would be dealt with directly in the context of the investigations.  However, she 
confirmed that WTO law was and would be fully comp lied with and that indeed if injury should be 
found, it would only be remedied once in line with the European Union's regulations, so there would 
be no double remedy as required by law.  In term s of standing, she indicated that she needed a 
feedback from Brussels on the issue, but she reite rated that all the requirements were carefully 
assessed, the standing requirements were met and ac cordingly these cases were  initiated.  However, 
she would welcome addressing China's questions in more  detail.  The same applied to the issue of the 
like product as she had no detailed information on this issue, and that since the investigations were 
still ongoing, it might be too early to  comment on this in any event, but she reiterated that the rules for 
initiations were complied with.  
54. On the case of ironing boards, the representative of the European Union indicated that as was 
explained in the notice of initiation of this case, the case was opened in comp liance with the Appellate 
Body's rulings in Mexico – Beef and Rice which ruled that exporting producers who got a zero or de 
minimis  margin in the original investigation, should not  be subject to reviews.  For this purpose, the 
European Union opened this case for a single compan y.  She added that although the European Union 
was not obliged to comply with such a ruling as the dispute concerned Mexico and the US, the 
European Union believed it to be correct to change its practice in this regard to comply with WTO 
jurisprudence.  In terms of the specific question on this case, she requested to receive the written 
version of the questions as they concern an ongoing investigation.  She requ ested China to raise its 
questions in the context of the investigation, an i ssue which was carefully explained to the interested 
parties, the company and the Chinese authorities in th e context of the investigation.  She reiterated 
that the WTO rules were complied with fully and any follow-up inquiries should be addressed in 
writing.  
55. The representative of China  confirmed that China would provide the European Union with the 
questions in writing and that China would appreciate to receive the answers in writing too.    G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 11 
 
 
  56. Concerning the semi-annual report of India , the representative of the United States  posed 
four questions.5  First, she indicated that for several of India's anti-dumping duty measures involving 
imports from the United States, the United States noted that India's semi-annual report listed a 
different period of investigation for injury than w as reported in India's Official Gazette notices.  For 
styrene butadiene rubber, propylene glycol and certain  rubber chemicals, the Official Gazette listed an 
entire year as the first year under consideration, wh ile the semi-annual report listed only a partial year.  
She requested India to clarify which period would be examined, i.e. all of 2005 instead of beginning with 1 April 2005.   
57. Second, regarding the sunset review of the anti-dumping duty measure on imports of styrene 
butadiene rubber from the United States, the represen tative of the United States noted that the final 
determination in the sunset review was issued by India's Directorate General of Allied and Anti-
Dumping Duties ("DGAD") on 30 June 2010 and that, as of 21 October 2010, to the best of the United States' knowledge, the final Customs notice with the imposition of duties had not yet been 
issued.  She requested India to explain whethe r final duties had been announced by Customs or 
whether the measure had been terminated.   
58. Third, the representative of the Un ited States stated that with resp ect to the sunset review of 
the anti-dumping duty on imports of propylene glycol from the United States, India' DGAD issued its final determination in this re view on 29 June 2010, which noted that the measure was being 
terminated due to discontinued injury to the domest ic industry.  However, th is determination and the 
termination of the measure had not appeared on Indi a's semi-annual report.  She requested India to 
clarify this omission from India's semi-annual report. 
59. Lastly, the representative of the United States referred to India's anti-dumping investigation 
on imports of polypropylene from Singapore, Oman a nd Saudi Arabia.  She noted that India's final 
determination and imposition of duties applied to imports from investigated countries, as well as 
imports produced in countries not under investiga tion.  She requested India to explain how this 
practice would be consistent with Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agre ement, read in conjunction with 
Article VI of the GATT 1994 which precluded WT O Members from imposing anti-dumping duties on 
merchandise produced in countries not subject to an investigation.   
60. The representative of Japan
 referred to page 19 of India's semi-annual report and pointed out 
that as it was indicated in the 4th column of page 9 that cold rolled products of stainless steel from 
Japan were excluded from the purview of the inves tigation, it should be an error to list the same 
products for mid-term review in page 19.  She requ ested India to revise page 19 of the notification to 
avoid any future confusion.   
61. On the comments made by Japan, the representative of India  agreed that there was some 
discrepancy in the report.  He clarified that no anti-dumping duties had been imposed on Japan with 
respect to cold rolled products of stainless steel (ID  no. 14-06-2008-4/8).  Therefore it needed to be 
excluded from the list of definitive measures in forc e on page 30 of India' semi-annual report for the 
first half of 2010 and that the reference made  in page 19 also required correction.    
62. On the questions raised by the United States, the representative of India indicated that he 
would convey those questions to Capital and woul d revert back to the United States once responses 
were received.   
63. On the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the representative of Turkey  indicated that Indonesia 
had initiated an anti-dumping investigation on wh eat flour originating in Turkey, Sri Lanka and 
Australia, as referred to in its semi-annual report, page 3.  Nearly two years had passed since the 
                                                      
5 G/ADP/Q2/IND/2.   G/ADP/M/39 
Page 12  
 
  initiation of this investigation, but Turkey had not  received any information regarding the outcome of 
the investigation, no public notice affirmative or negative had been published by the Indonesian 
investigating authority and the investigation had no t been concluded.  He added that Turkey had 
raised this issue at the last Committee meeting at which Indonesia indicated that the Indonesian 
investigating authority had issued its final discl osure in December 2009 and that the investigating 
authority was, at the time, awaiting a decision from the Ministry of Finance to impose anti-dumping 
duties.  Pursuant to the provisions of Article 5. 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:  "Investigations 
shall, except in special circumstances, be conc luded within one year, and in no case more than 
18 months, after their initiation".  In addition to th is, Article 12.2 of the Agreement stated:  "Public 
notice shall be given of any preliminary or final de termination, whether affirmative or negative".   
64. The representative of Turkey explained that th e suspension of the investigation for a long 
period of time exceeding 18 months since the initia tion of the investigation and the uncertainty 
regarding the imposition of the measures had negativ ely affected the Turkish exporters and their 
interests in the Indonesian markets.  In addition,  he informed Indonesia that Turkey had numerous 
serious concerns regarding the techni cal and procedural aspects of this  investigation.  He pointed out 
that the main concerns related to the essential asp ects of the investigation, mainly the standing 
requirement, the like product, calculation of anti-dumping margin, injury analysis, and the determination of the casual link between dumped import s and injury.  He stated that according to the 
semi-annual report and the statement made by In donesia at the last Committee meeting, it was 
Turkey's understanding that the Minister of Finance of Indonesia had not made a decision to impose anti-dumping duties since the Indonesian investiga ting authority issued its final disclosure in 
December 2009.  He added that Turkey had substa ntial trade interests in this case and was wondering 
whether the final determination would be made by the Minister of Finance soon.  He urged Indonesia 
to end this uncertainty and make its final determination be it affirm ative or negative or terminate the 
investigation without the imposition of a measure as soon as possible.  He requested Indonesia to give 
information pertaining to the current status of this investigation.   
65. The representative of Indonesia
 explained that the Indonesian investigating authority had 
conducted an investigation and had submitted the outcome to impose anti-dumping measures through 
the proper channels, but the authority was still waiting for the decision.  As the authority had not been 
provided with the necessary information to date, she indicated that she would take note of the 
questions and concerns raised by Turkey and woul d convey them to Capital and come back with the 
answer as soon as possible.   
66. The representative of Turkey  reiterated that this issue was of a special importance to the 
Turkish exporters who had substantial interests in th is respect.  He added that this situation could 
constitute a clear violation of Article 5.10 of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement.  He requested Indonesia 
to provide satisfactory answers to the questions posed.   
67. With respect to the semi-annual report of Pakistan , the representative of Japan  posed a 
question to Pakistan regarding the investigation on hot rolled coil listed on page 3 of Pakistan's semi-
annual report.  She stated that the investigating au thority of Pakistan initiated the investigation on 
9 April 2009 and that there had been no decision ma de so far.  She requested Pakistan to clarify 
whether the investigation was terminated due to in sufficient evidence to jus tify the proceeding.  She 
requested Pakistan to clarify the current status of this investigation.   
68. The representative of Pakistan  indicated that reaching a determination or taking a decision 
would require a certain number of officials to be present including the Chairman of the Commission, 
but as one official had already retired and the Ch airman was promoted, the decision could not be 
taken.  He added that as it was expected that the new appointments be made soon, he was of the view 
that soon thereafter a determination would be made.  On the issue of sufficient evidence, he indicated 
that this matter was also pending awaiting the appointm ent of the two new officials in the near future.    G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 13 
 
 
  69. The representative of Japan  took the floor to inquire about the legal meaning of the term 
"pending" used by the representative of Pakistan in  his response.  She inquired whether that meant 
that the investigation was suspended.  
70. The representative of Pakistan  clarified that the use of the term "pending" had nothing to do 
with any pending proceedings, but it meant pending the appointment of the officials which would 
constitute the sufficient number to consid er and decide upon any determination.   
71. The representative of Japan  inquired whether that meant that the appointment of the officials 
was pending and that the investigation was still ongoing. 
72. The representative of Pakistan  confirmed that understanding.   
73. On the semi-annual report of Thailand , the Chair drew Members' attention to document 
G/ADP/Q2/THA/1 containing the questions posed by  Japan to Thailand's semi-annual report.   
74. The representative of Japan  indicated that the questions submitted pertained to the change of 
circumstances review conducted by Thailand with  respect to the anti-dumping measures imposed on 
flat hot rolled steel in coils and not in coils orig inating in 14 countries.  She indicated that Japan 
would be looking forward to the prompt responses of Thailand. 
75. The representative of Thailand  indicated that as the questions were received on the day before 
the meeting, she was not in a position to provide answ ers at the meeting.  She added that the questions 
were, however, sent to Capital and that Thailand w ould get back to Japan with written responses in 
this regard.6   
76. With respect to the semi-annual report of the United States , the representative of China  posed 
questions pertaining to two anti-dumping actions take n against China as notified in that report.  She 
indicated that in its final determination of the an ti-dumping investigation on oil country tubular goods 
from China, the United States Department of Comme rce (the "USDOC") identified targeted dumping 
on a small quantity of one respondent's United Stat es' sales, and applied weighted average to 
transaction methodology ("WA-to-T") on all sales, in cluding non-targeted sales, in calculating the 
dumping margin for this company.  The USDOC also employed zeroing in this process by not 
offsetting non-dumped sales.  She requested the United States to explain how finding targeted 
dumping on a small quantity of all United States' sa les necessitated applying the targeted dumping 
remedy to all sales.  She added that if China' s understanding was correct, the regulation regarding 
targeted dumping was withdrawn and requested the United States to indicate the part of the United States' law under which the USDOC conducted targeted dumping analysis.  She also inquired 
about the legal basis for the USDOC not to offset non-dumped sales when using WA-to-T 
methodology.  
77. In case of the narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge case, the representative of China 
indicated that the USDOC chose two mandatory respondents.  One got a de minimis  dumping margin 
in the final determination, and the other got an a dverse facts available rate of 247.65 per cent for not 
responding during the investigation.  For the rema ining respondents who were  deemed qualified for a 
separate rate, they got a 123.83 per cent rate which was the simple average rate of the de minimis  rate 
and the adverse facts available rate of the two ma ndatory respondents.  The USDOC recognized in its 
Unpublished Decision Memo that it  was consistent with its stat ute and established practice to 
calculate a simple average of these two types of ra tes being the only rates which could be used.  She 
inquired about the reasons the USDOC in this par ticular case, as well as in many other recent cases 
against China, had limited its examination to onl y two mandatory respondents and whether that was 
                                                     
 
6 Written repsonses by Thailand were circ ulated in document G/ADP/Q2/THA/2.   G/ADP/M/39 
Page 14  
 
  due to the use of the sampling methodology in line with the requirement of Article 6.10 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement.  Although the adverse facts ava ilable rates were always extremely high punitive 
rates assigned to those non-cooperating companies,  separate rate companies were those willing to 
cooperate, but were not able to be individually investigated by the USDOC as using adverse facts 
available rate to calculate a separate rate would l ead to a punitive separate rate.  She, thus, inquired 
whether it was fair to assign such a high dumpi ng margin to cooperative companies.  She also 
inquired about the legal basis for the USDOC to assign the simple average rate of the de minimis  and 
the adverse facts available rates to separate rate  companies and whether this was an established 
practice in line with Article 9.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
78. The representative of Japan
 made general comments on the United States' semi-annual report, 
especially the annex containing the measures in force.   She indicated that Japan was pleased to note 
that the longest measure which was in force since 1973;  i.e. the anti-dumping measure regarding the polychloroprene rubber, was finally revoked in Augus t 2010.  However, there were still many other 
long lasting measures, the longest of which had been in force for more than 32 years and 5 measures 
were in force for more than 20 years.  She stated  that this issue was a systemic issue for Japan. 
79. The representative of Japan added that the Un ited States had 19 measures in force against 
Japanese products and the average duration of such measures was 15 years.  She indicated that this 
situation had forced Japan to have strong concerns with respect to sunset reviews.  She added that 
there were three other 20 years old measures impos ed on carbon butt-weld pipe fittings, granular 
polytetrafluoroethylene and stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings which were  waiting in the pipeline 
to be reviewed by the end of 2010.  She indicated that Japan would look forward to the revocation of 
these measures.  
80. The representative of Turkey
 noticed that the contents of column 8 of the semi annual report 
of the United States referred to partial rescissi on of administrative review, and requested the 
United States to explain what that meant.  With r espect to the reference made in column 4 to light-
walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey, he noted that the outcome of the new review was a 
zero dumping margin, but Turkey was still subject to  the administrative annual review for the next 
year.  He requested the United States to clarify the reason behind that.   
81. On China's questions, the representative of the United States  indicated that as a general 
matter, the United States believed that its practice an d the decisions made in the specific cases raised 
by China were in accordance with WTO rules and the United States' WTO obligations.  She stated 
that the issues raised by China were cases-specific a nd needed to be referred back to Capital.  She 
requested China to provide the questions in writi ng to the Committee for circulation and that the 
United States would then provide its responses in writing too.   
82. On Japan's comments, the representative of  the United States noted the comments and 
concerns and indicated that the United States had heard these comments before and that there were 
not much more to be said on that topic.   
83. On Turkey's question, the representative of th e United States explained that the expression 
partial rescission of administrative review in the ab stract could occur for many reasons.  For example, 
in case an administrative review was requested, but the companies which requested the review would 
no longer wish to participate in the review, they co uld ask that the review be terminated.  The same 
could occur with respect to the domestic industry whic h would request a review and in that instance, a 
partial rescission could be applicable just to some of the exporters that were involved in the review, 
but the review might otherwise continue for the othe r exporters.  On the question pertaining to light-
walled rectangular pipe and tube, she explained that the date reported was the date of the preliminary 
decision and not the final decision.    G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 15 
 
 
  84. Finally, the Chair  opened the floor for comments or questions to be posed by Members with 
respect to any other semi-annual reports which we re not previously reviewed by the Committee 
because they arrived after the meeting at which th e reports for a given period were reviewed.  No 
Member took the floor in this regard. 
85. The Committee took note  of the semi-annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided.   
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  
86. The Chair  referred to the lists of the notificati ons of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions, submitted by Members since the Committ ee's last meeting, contained in documents 
G/ADP/N/200 & G/ADP/N/201 and G/ADP/N/203 – 206.  He indicated that during this period, 
Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  the Dominican Republic;  Egypt;  the 
European Union;  Honduras;  Jamai ca;  Korea;  Mexico;  Peru;  Chinese Taipei;  South Africa;  
Turkey and the United States had notified prelimin ary and/or final anti-dumping actions.  He noted 
that since document G/ADP/N/206 had been circulated , Argentina;  Brazil;  Ecuador;  Chinese Taipei 
and the United States had submitted notifications, whic h would appear in the next list circulated by 
the Secretariat.   
87. The Chair drew Members' attention to the con tinued 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 subm itted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  The Chair 
emphasized that these reports had always been a key element of the required transparency concerning 
Members' anti-dumping actions, and that the Committ ee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard.  The Chair, like all 
his predecessors, strongly urged all Members taking anti-dumping actions to provide such notification 
of preliminary and final actions, cons istently and in a timely fashion.  In this regard, he noted that the 
minimum information format for these notifica tions, which was adopted by the Committee in 
October 2006 and revised in October 2009
7, contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions 
that should be notified and the information which should be provided.   
88. No Member addressed any of the notifications under review at the meeting.   
89. The representative of the United States  noted that India did not appear to have reported any 
preliminary or final actions in Annex D of the draf t annual report.  She requested India to explain why 
it had not made any such notification.   
90. With respect to the notification obligation unde r Article 16.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
to notify preliminary or final ac tions, the representative of India  indicated that he had taken note of 
the concern expressed by the Chair and by the Unite d States and agreed on the importance of meeting 
this obligation.  He thanked the Secretariat for providing prompt and useful advice on the matter as 
requested by India.  He confirmed that India attached  great importance to this transparency obligation.  
He mentioned that the Capital was working on this matter in order to resolve the systemic issue of 
coordination amongst the different agencies involved in  meeting this obligation in a timely manner.  
As a first step and for the sake of transparency a nd completeness, he indicated that he had received 
information from Capital pertaining to the anti- dumping preliminary and fi nal actions taken during 
January to June 2010 which he would be forwardi ng to the Secretariat following the meeting and 
requested that this be reflected in the annual repor t of the Committee, if possible.  He reassured the 
                                                      
7 G/ADP/2/Rev.2.   G/ADP/M/39 
Page 16  
 
  Committee and the United States that India was working hard to ensure that this obligation would be 
met in the future.   
91. The Chair
 thanked India for the useful information.  On the ad hoc notifications which India 
planned to submit following the meeting and India's requ est that this be reflected in the annual report, 
the Chair indicated that this would not be possibl e as the report would be adopted before the end of 
the meeting.  
92. The representative of the United States  thanked India for that response and indicated that it 
was looking forward to receiving the information.  
93. Finally, the Chair reminded Members of the d ecision taken by the Committee at its meeting 
on 21 October 2009 and contained in document G/ ADP/20 pursuant to which Members would be 
required to submit all their notifications electronically.  He indicated that although most of the 
Members had submitted such notifications elect ronically, others were still submitting these 
notifications by fax.  Some Members, even th ose sending their notifications electronically, still 
preferred to send it by fax as well to receive a confirma tion that their notifications were duly received.   
94. He explained that the Secretariat had discussed this issue with the WTO Central Registry of 
Notifications ("CRN"), and the automatic generi c message which was always sent to Members once 
they submitted an electronic notification to CRN ha d been recently replaced with a message reflecting 
the subject matter sent.  To provide an example, if an electronic semi-annual report was sent from a 
Member to CRN, the automated message which woul d immediately be sent to that Member would no 
longer be a generic message which would not reflec t what was received, but would be an automated 
reply reflecting in its subject box what the Member ha d included in the subject box of the message.  
He stated that this should provide Members with the needed confirmation indicating that a specific 
notification was sent and received by CRN and would eliminate the need to send any such notification 
by fax, for example.  The Chair thus requested Members to indicate precisely in the subject box of 
their electronic messages, conveying notifications to CRN, the exact title of the notification.  The 
Secretariat provided a copy of an example of a CRN  automated reply to a test message sent by the 
Secretariat, where the subject box referred to one notification obligation and the CRN reply reflected 
that in its subject box as well.   
95. The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
96. The Chair indicated that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention met on 26 October 2010 
and that there were no new papers  submitted for discussion at the meeting.  Members agreed that 
work in this Informal Group should continue along the same lines as had been the case to date.  
97. Concerning the date for the next meeting of the Informal Group, he added that this had been 
set for the week of 2 May 2011 with the exact date to be confirmed in due course.  The deadline for 
submissions for that meeting would be 21 March 2011.   
98. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
99. The Committee took note  of the Chair's report. 
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
100. The Chair indicated that the Working Group on Implementation met on 26 October 2010 and 
that there were four papers on the agenda of the m eeting of the Group.  The first two papers had been  G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 17 
 
 
  submitted by Korea and New Zealand which convey ed the experiences of these two Members with 
respect to sunset reviews.  The other two papers  had been submitted by Egypt, one on constructed 
export price and the other on the accuracy and adequacy test. 
101. The paper by Korea had already been discu ssed at the Group's Spring meeting.  The 
delegation of Korea provided replies to questions th at had been presented at the Spring meeting which 
had not then been answered.  New Zealand's paper on sunset reviews attracted significant attention, 
with many Members asking questions on different aspects of sunset determinations made by the 
investigating authorities of New Zealand.  The dele gation of New Zealand replied to the questions at 
the meeting.  Egypt's papers were also found to be very interesting by Members.  Many Members 
asked questions on the two Egyptian papers, to wh ich the delegation of Egypt replied on the spot. 
102. Taking into consideration the interest shown in  the papers submitted by Egypt and the request 
from some Members for more time to analyse these papers, the Chair decided to include the 
two papers submitted by Egypt in the air gram fo r the Spring 2011 meeting of the Working Group.  
103. In concluding the meeting, the Chair also en couraged other Members to submit papers on the 
nine topics currently under discussion in the Group. 
104. The Group agreed to schedule its next meeting for the week of 2 May 2011, with the exact 
date to be confirmed later. 
105. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
106. The Committee took note  of the Chair's report. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
107. The Chair  made a brief statement regarding the inqu iry made by the Chairman of the Working 
Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology.  He stated that on 13 August 2010, he received a letter 
from H.E. Ambassador Hisham Badr, Chairman of  the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology, in which Ambassador Badr requested information, by 17 September 2010, on any discussions, submissions and/or other developments relating to trade and technology transfer that 
might have taken place in the Committee since 2002.  In response to this request, the Chair indicated 
that he sent a letter to Ambassador Badr, dated 18 August 2010, informing him that there had been no 
discussions, submissions, or other developments in the Committee or its subsidiary bodies relating to 
trade and transfer of technology.  The Chair made available to Members copies of Ambassador Badr's 
letter and the Chair's response in this respect.   
H. D
ATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
108. The Committee's Spring 2011 regular meeting w as scheduled for the week of 2 May 2011, 
with the exact date to be communicated to Members in due course.   
I. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6) 
(a) Report of the Chair regarding the informal consultations held on 7 July 2010 
with respect to Annexes D and E of  the Committee's annual Report 
109. The Chair reported on the informal consultati ons held on 7 July 2010 regarding Annexes D 
and E of the Committee's annual report.  He recalle d that at the regular Committee meeting held on 
21 October 2009, the United States, supported by Ca nada, suggested the deletion of Annex E to the 
Committee's annual report.  The United States also made an inquiry pertaining to Annex D to the G/ADP/M/39 
Page 18  
 
  same report.  The Chair explained that Annex E c ontained a compilation of the information, reported 
by Members in their anti-dumping semi-annual repor ts, pertaining to the manner in which the S&DT 
obligations – pursuant to Article 15 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement – had been fulfilled by those 
Members.  He further clarified that Annex D cont ained a comparison of the number of provisional and 
final anti-dumping measures reported in Members'  semi-annual reports with the number of 
preliminary and final anti-dumping actions notified by Members on an ad hoc basis for a given period.  
He thus held informal consultations on 7 July 2010 in order to allow delegations to exchange views on 
this issue.   
110. At the consultations, the Chair reminded Memb ers that Paragraph 7.4 of the Ministerial 
Decision of 14 November 2001 on Implementation- Related Issues and Concerns instructed the 
Committee to draw up guidelines for the improveme nt of annual reviews.  Following intensive 
discussions, the Committee, on 27 November 2002,  adopted a recommendation regarding annual 
reviews of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which w as circulated to Members in document G/ADP/9.  
This recommendation aimed at providing useful info rmation to Members, to the public and to enhance 
transparency.  To this end, the recommendation indi cated that the annual report should include a chart 
comparing, for each Member, the number of preliminary and final measures reported in its semi-
annual report with the number of the notices of preliminary and final measures notified by that Member on an ad hoc basis, which was basically the role of Annex D.  The recommendation also 
indicated that developed country Members should in clude in their semi-annual reports the manner in 
which the obligations under Article 15 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement had been fulfilled and that 
such information should be compiled and included in a table in the Committee's annual report, and 
that was basically the focus of  Annex E.   
111. At the informal consultations of 7 July 201 0, the United States expressed its views on both 
annexes and proposed their deletion.  Divergent vi ews were expressed by Members with respect to 
both annexes.  However, the general mood of  the meeting was treading towards introducing 
modifications to both annexes, if possible, rather than doing away with them.  It also seemed from the 
final comments by the United States that its focus would be on modifying Annex D and not Annex E.   
112. At the end of the July 2010 informal consultations, the Chair indicated that due to the 
divergent views expressed, these two annexes would re main as part of the Committee's annual report.  
However, he invited Members to work together a nd explore concrete ways in which any amendments, 
which might be feasible, could be introduced to An nex D.  The Chair finally added that following the 
informal consultations, no Member contacted him or the Secretariat with proposals in this respect to 
date.   
113. The representative of the United States
 took the floor to pose a question pertaining to 
Annex E of the draft annual report.  She inquired wh y only three Members were listed in this annex.   
114. The representative of Mexico  indicated that he wished to make a comment which had been 
already clarified by the Secretariat, but Mexico wish ed to flag it for the sake of other Members of the 
Committee; i.e. why Mexico was listed in Annex E of the draft annual report.  Mexico had not 
adopted any measures referred to under Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, especially that 
Mexico was not classified as a developed country.  This stemmed from the fact that when using the 
format for the semi-annual report, all of the codes and references were listed including the 
abbreviation LDC and that was why when the Secr etariat compiled the information contained in 
Annex E, it included that reference made in Mexico 's semi-annual report.  In order to avoid future 
confusion, he suggested that in the format of th e semi-annual report, a footnote should be included to 
remind Members to report in their semi-annual reports  exclusively the abbreviations which were used 
in that report.   G/ADP/M/39 
 Page 19 
 
 
  115. The representative of Japan  indicated that the second draft annual report contained Japan as 
well in Annex E.  She added that following the in formal consultations in July, Japanese officials met 
internally with respect to this issue in Capita l and as Japan had not taken any actions during the 
reporting period, but only measures in force, Japa n had not believed that there were any useful 
information to be added to Annex E, and thus incl uded a footnote in this respect in its semi-annual 
report.  She added that Japan would not object th at this footnote be included in this annex.  
116. The Chair  clarified that the reason behind the inclus ion of those four Members in Annex E to 
the annual report was that these Members either made  references to LDC, document G/ADP/9, or 
obligations under Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement in their semi-annual reports and that 
such references were extracted as such by the Secretariat from Members' semi-annual reports and 
included in this annex.   
117. The Chair asked delegations if there were an y concerns with respect to Annex D.  No 
delegation took the floor in this respect.   
(b) Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods (2010) 
118. The annual report for the year 2010 was adopted.8   
119. The meeting was closed .   
 
 
__________  
 
                                                      
8 Circulated in document G/L/935.