WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/ADP/M/30 
18 October 2006 
 
 (06-5042) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON  
27 APRIL AND 18 JULY 2006 
 
Chairpersons:  Ms. Frida Collste (Sweden) – Ap ril;  Ms. Victoria Campeanu (Romania) – July 
 
. 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") held a regular meeting on 
27 April and 18 July 2006.   
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda. 
Page 
 A. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
  (G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/SUPPL.7) ................................................................................. 2 
 
 B. ISRAEL – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
  (G/ADP/N/1/ISR/3-G/SCM/N/1/ISR/3) ................................................................... 2 
   G/ADP/Q1/ISR/11-G/SCM/Q1/ISR/11 – Questions from the EC   G/ADP/Q1/ISR/12-G/SCM/Q1/ISR/12 – Questions from the US  
 
C. MEXICO - REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
  (G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.3-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.3) .............................. 3  
 
D. CONTINUING REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY-REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS  
  OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  ................................... 3 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/57-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/57 –  
  Questions from the US referring to G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/SUPPLS.3   &4 -G/SCM/N/1/CHN/2/SUPPLS.3 & 4   
E. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  ...................................... 4 
  1. Review of Semi-Annual Reports  ................................................................... 4 
  2. Chairperson's Report on Consultations Concerning    Semi-Annual Report Format and Procedures  ............................................. 6  
 
 
F. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  ............................... 7 
  1. Review of Notifications of Preliminary and Final actions 
    (G/ADP/N/137-138 and G/ADP/N/140-142) ................................................. 7 
  2. Chairperson's Report on Cons ultations Concerning Notification  
   Format and Procedures................................................................................... 7  
 
 G. CHAIRPERON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP  
  ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  .................................................................................... 8 
 G/ADP/M/30 
Page 2  
 
   
H. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP  
  ON IMPLEM ENTATION ..................................................................................................... 8 
 
 I. OTHER BUSINESS ............................................................................................................ .. 9 
  J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR M EETING ............................................................................ 9 
 
 K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................... 10 
 
A. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
3. The Chairperson recalled that, as always, the revi ews of the new legislative notifications not 
previously reviewed, contained in items A-C of the agenda, would be conducted in accordance with 
the agreed procedures contained in document G/ ADP/W/284.  The deadlines for the submission of 
documentation in connection with the autumn 2006 re gular meetings of the Committee, the Working 
Group on Implementation, and the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had been established, and 
would be announced during the meeting, and reflected in a document to be circulated by the Secretariat shortly after the meeting.   
4. The deadline for questions concerning the new legislative notifications on the agenda had 
been 3 April 2006.  As provided for in the procedur es, Members with legislation on the agenda that 
received written questions by that deadline were to provide oral responses at the meeting.  If a 
Member was able to provide oral responses to questions submitted afte r the deadline that effort would 
be appreciated but there was no obl igation to do so.  All Members that received written questions in 
connection with this meeting were to submit wr itten answers by the applicable deadline after the 
meeting.  The Chairperson reminded Members that or al follow-up questions could be posed, and that 
any Member desiring to receive a written answer to  any follow-up question would need to submit the 
question in writing not later than 19 May 2006.  Wr itten answers to all written questions posed in 
connection with this meeting's review of new legi slative notifications, whether the questions were 
received prior to the meeting or as written follow-up  questions, would need to be submitted to the 
Member posing the question, and to the Secret ariat, not later than 23 June 2006.   
5. The Committee reviewed the notification of  the European Communities, contained in 
document G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2, Suppl. 7.  No questions  were posed in respect of this notification. 
6. The Committee took note of the notification. 
B. ISRAEL – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION1  
7. The Committee reviewed the new legisla tive notification of Israel, in document 
G/ADP/N/1/ISR/3-G/SCM/N/1/ISR/3.   
8. The written questions posed in advance of the meeting concerning this notification can be 
found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ISR/11 – questions submitted by the European Communities 
 G/ADP/Q1/ISR/12 – questions submitted by the United States.  
                                                      
1 At the 27 April 2006 meeting, the Committee decided to suspend the meeting in respect of this item, 
and to conduct the review at a resumed session in July 2006, which session was held on 18 July 2006.    G/ADP/M/30 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9. The written answers to the above questions can be found in the following document: 
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/13  
 10. At the meeting, the delegation of the United States posed a series of follow-up questions, 
which can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ISR/14 – Questions submitted by the United States 
 11. The written answers to the follow-up questions  can be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/ISR/15 
 
12. The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers.   
C. MEXICO - REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
13. The Committee reviewed the new legislativ e notification of Mexico, in document 
G/ADP/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.3-G/SCM/N/1/MEX/1/SUPPL.3.  No questions were posed in respect of 
this notification.   
14. The Committee took note of the notification.   
D. CONTINUING REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY -REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  
15. The Committee undertook a continued review of the previously-reviewed legislative 
notification of China, in document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppls.3 & 4 -G/SCM/N/1/CHN/2/Suppls. 3 & 4.  The Chairperson recalled that the United States had submitted 
written questions concerning this notification be fore the applicable d eadline, in document 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/57-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/57.   
16. The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/58 
 
17. The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers.   
18. The Chairperson informed Members that the deadline for written follow-up questions was 
19 May 2006, and that the deadline for written answ ers to all written questions posed in connection 
with the meeting was 23 June 2006.  The Chairpers on further informed Members that in order for a 
new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda  for review at the autumn meeting it would need 
to be circulated in all three languages not late r than six weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 
13 September 2006.  In order for a previously-review ed legislative notification to be placed on the 
agenda of the autumn meeting for further review, wr itten questions would need to be submitted to the 
Member concerned, and to the Secretaria t, not later than 13 September 2006.   
 19. The Chairperson drew the attention of Members to the fact that some Members had never 
submitted any notification concerning legislation.  Th is was a matter of concern to all Members, from 
the point of view of transparency and better understanding, and for many Members a single nil notification was all that would be necessary.  For those Members that conducted anti-dumping 
investigations but had not notified their legislation,  it was all the more important for the Committee to G/ADP/M/30 
Page 4  
 
  have the opportunity to review and ask questions ab out that legislation.  Thus, she encouraged all 
Members that had not made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible. 
E. S
EMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of Semi-Annual Reports 
20. The Chairperson noted that a request for se mi-annual reports for the second half of 2005 had 
been circulated in document G/ADP/N/139, dated 9 January 2006.  These reports had been due by 
10 March 2006.  Most, although not all, Members taking anti-dumping actions during the period in 
question appeared to have submitte d a semi-annual report, although so me reports had arrived after the 
deadline.  The Chairperson encouraged all Member s to make an effort to submit their semi-annual 
reports on time, and reminded the Members taking no anti-dumping actions that all that was necessary 
was to submit, twice per year, a simple letter to that effect.   
21. Concerning the status of semi-annual reporting covering the second half of 2005, paragraph 1 
of document G/ADP/N/139/Add.1, dated 21 April 2006, identified the Members who had submitted 
semi-annual reports for the period.  To the exte nt possible, these semi-annual reports had been 
translated and circulated to the Committee, and were included in the document package or were 
available in the room.   
22. In addition to the Members who had submitted se mi-annual reports of actions taken, a number 
of Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document  G/ADP/N/139/Add.1 had notified the Committee that 
they had not taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  In addition to those listed, 
Ecuador and Morocco had submitted notifications of  no action taken, but these notifications had been 
received too late to be included in that list. 
23. Finally, there remained a significant number of Members who had not responded to the 
request for semi-annual reports, although this not ification requirement applied to all Members 
whether or not they had taken anti-dumping actions  during the period in question.  These Members 
were identified in paragraph 3 of the document.  The Chairperson urged all Members to comply with 
this important requirement.   
24. Concerning the semi-annual report of Argentina , the delegate of Chinese Taipei asked about 
the difference between the first and second tables,  the one on anti-dumping actions and the other on 
pending anti-dumping cases, in particular whether all of  the investigations in the first table had been 
concluded, or some were still pending.  The dele gate then asked why no information had been 
provided in the column headed "Basis of determin ations", i.e., whether there was any particular 
difficulty in providing this kind of information.  Th e delegate also noted that it appeared to be the 
norm in Argentina that cases took 18 months to be concluded.  For example, the case in which 
Chinese Taipei was involved had been initiated on 2 December 2004 and concluded on 28 September 
2005, i.e., 18 months.  The delegate recalled th at Article 5.10 required that except in certain 
circumstances investigations be concluded within one year and in no case more than 18 months after 
their initiation.  The delegate noted that some of the cases listed in the second table had been initiated 
in mid-2004 without subsequent acti ons, and sought the comments of Argentina in this respect.   
25. The delegate of Argentina requested the delega tion of Chinese Taipei to provide the questions 
in writing.   
26. Concerning the semi-annual report of China , the delegate of the United States noted with 
appreciation China's efforts at providing as complete a semi-annual report as possible, as shown by 
China's inclusion of the administrative reconsiderat ion that repealed the final determination in the 
unbleached kraft liner board investigation in January .  Regarding the epichlorohydrin investigation  G/ADP/M/30 
 Page 5 
 
 
  involving the United States, China's report listed a preliminary determination of dumping ranging 
from 0%-71.5%.  The United States requested clarif ication, as its understanding from the preliminary 
determination was that no US exporter had received a zero rate.   
27. The delegate of China requested the delegation of  the United States to provide the question in 
writing.   
28. Regarding Costa Rica's  semi-annual report, the delegate of the United States asked for an 
update on the status of the investigation concerni ng water-based latex pain t imported from the United 
States, for which the semi-annual report stated that  the preliminary determination had not yet been 
issued.   
29. The delegate of Costa Rica replied that the investigating authority was still analysing the 
information and that the status remained as reporte d, that is, that no preliminary determination had 
been issued. 
30. Regarding the semi-annual report of the European Communities , the delegate of the 
United States asked, in relation to the listed inves tigation on grain-oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon electrical steel from the United States, what the term "indexed", in column 11 (total trade 
volume), meant, and where the data could be obta ined.  The delegate al so asked the European 
Communities to explain what was meant by the term "partial interim review", and how such a review 
differed from an Article 11.2 interim review.   
31. The delegate of the European Communities r esponded that the term "indexed" was used 
where the information involved was confidential becau se of a very limited number of parties, and the 
information therefore was given only in indexed form .  Due to the confidentiality of the information, 
it also was not provided in the semi-annual report.  Th e idea was to refer to the confidential nature of 
the information by indicating that what was give n in the determination was indexed and therefore 
could not be put in the semi-annual report.  With  regard to the second question, the EC delegate 
indicated that a partial interim was indeed an Ar ticle 11.2 review, but one that did not cover all 
aspects of the investigation, i.e., dumping, injury and Community interest, but instead only certain 
aspects of the investigation as set out in the notice of  initiation.  Therefore, in EC terminology it was 
only a partial review, although it remained a re view under Article 11.2 of the Agreement. 
32. Concerning the semi-annual report of Indonesia , the delegate of the United States noted that 
a final definitive duty of 16.23 per cent was reported in  respect of paracetamol from the United States.  
The United States understood that the final dumping margin was actually 18.23 per cent, and requested clarification from Indonesia.   
33. No delegate from Indonesia was present. 
34. Regarding the semi-annual report of Israel , the delegate of the United States noted that 
provisional measures ranging from 50 per cent to 1, 045 per cent had been reported in respect of 
imports of nucleotide oligos from the United Stat es.  The United States asked Israel to indicate 
whether the latter figure was in error and if so to pr ovide a correction.  In particular, the United States 
understood that the correct margin was 104.5 per cent.   The United States also asked Israel to identify 
to which proceedings listed in the report, if any, the symbols R and CF applied.  The United States 
further noted that in Israel's previous semi-annual report, covering the first half of 2005, Israel had 
listed undertakings in force on grey Portland ceme nt from Jordan and Romania, but that these two 
undertakings did not appear in the semi-annual re port being discussed (for the second half of 2005).  
The United States requested a clarificati on as to the status of these undertakings. G/ADP/M/30 
Page 6  
 
  35. The delegate of Israel supposed that the figure referred to in the first question was probably a 
typographical error, and undertook to have it check ed in the capital and formally corrected as 
necessary.  The delegate request ed that the other two questions be submitted in writing.   
36. Regarding the semi-annual report of Malaysia , the delegate of Hong Kong, China noted that 
the table of definitive anti-dumping duties in Annex 2 included some bicycles from Hong Kong, 
China.  As far as the delegation understood, Hong Kong, China did not produce such bicycles and 
thus sought clarification from Malaysia on the origin of the imports. 
37. The delegate of Malaysia undertook to seek a clarification from the capital.   
38. Concerning the semi-annual report of Pakistan , the delegate of the United States understood 
that Pakistan had initiated an investigation ag ainst imports of tinplate from the United States on 
6 December 2005.  The United States requested Paki stan to confirm whether such an investigation 
had been initiated, and if so to amend its semi -annual report to reflect this initiation.  The United 
States also requested a status update as to when a pr eliminary determination was expected in that case. 
39. The delegate of Pakistan confirmed that Paki stan had initiated a case on tinplate, but he did 
not have the information with him as  to the exact date.  He assured the United States that the timeline 
provided for in the Agreement woul d be adhered to, and that if th e investigation had been initiated 
during the reporting period 1 July-31 December 2005,  Pakistan would amend the semi-annual report 
accordingly. 
40. No questions were raised in connection with  the semi-annual reports of Australia, Brazil, 
Colombia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Pe ru, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Chinese 
Taipei, Turkey, or the United States.   
41. The delegate of the United States expressed c oncern over the fact that a number of large 
Members had not provided semi-annual reports.  One specific question was in relation to Venezuela's 
most recent report, provided in February 2005, which listed a measure against PVC imports from the 
United States.  The United States requested clarifica tion as to whether this measure was still in effect. 
42. The delegate of Venezuela asked the United St ates to provide the question in writing.   
43. The Chairperson thanked delegations for the questions and comments raised, and for the 
answers provided.  As usual, this had been a very useful exchange.  
44. The Committee took note of the semi-annual reports and the statements made.   
2. Chairperson's Report on Consultations Co ncerning Semi-Annual Report Format and 
Procedures 
45. The Chairperson reported on the consultations that she had been conducting regarding the 
semi-annual report format (in G/ADP/1) and procedures.   She recalled that at  its spring 2005 regular 
meeting, the Committee had decided that the Chairper son should hold consultations to see whether, in 
the light of 10 years of experience using the format, any improvements could be made.  
46. She had convened three sessions of open-ended in formal consultations on this issue, the most 
recent of which had taken place that day, immediately before the start of this meeting.  In the 
consultations, Members had considered both the fo rmat and the procedures for semi-annual reporting, 
from the perspectives of notifier and reviewer of  notifications.  The Secretariat had produced aides-
mémoire  for each of these sessions, and in preparati on for that day's session, also had produced  G/ADP/M/30 
 Page 7 
 
 
  alternative marked-up versions of the format re flecting various possible changes that had been 
discussed.   
47. It seemed clear from the consultations that ther e was genuine interest on the part of Members 
to both clarify and make more precise certain aspect s of the reporting, and the Chairperson had been 
very encouraged by the constructive spirit in which the discussions had been conducted.  She 
appreciated especially the flexibility shown by Memb ers, including in agreeing to work on the basis 
of a single option.  The discussions right before this  meeting had considerably advanced the issue, and 
had provided a very good basis for carrying the work  forward.  In particular, the Committee had asked 
the Secretariat to prepare revised versions of the working documents under discussion, for discussion 
in future consultations to be organized by the new Ch airperson, with a view to an eventual decision by 
the Committee.   
48. The Committee took note of the report.  
F. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of Notifications of Preliminary and Final Actions 
49. The Chairperson noted that the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping actions 
submitted by Members since the Committee's last meeting had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/137, N/138, N/140, N/141, and N/142.  During that period, the following Members had notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions :  Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, 
European Communities, Korea, Malaysia, Mexi co, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Turkey, and 
United States.  
50. The Chairperson drew the attention of Members to the apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  In particular, comparin g the semi-annual reports with the lists of actions 
taken, it appeared that some Members that had indicated actions in progress in their semi-annual 
reports had not submitted reports of  preliminary or final actions ta ken.  These reports were a key 
element of the required transparency concerni ng Members' anti-dumping actions, and the Committee 
could not effectively carry out its monitoring and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their 
obligations in this regard.  She therefore str ongly urged all Members taking anti-dumping actions to 
provide these notifications of preliminary and final actions, consistently and in a timely fashion.   
51. The Committee took note of the statement made.   
2. Chairperson's Report on Consultations Concern ing Notification Format and Procedures 
52. The Chairperson reported on her informal c onsultations on the format and procedures  for ad 
hoc notifications of preliminary and final actions, which had been  held in conjunction with the 
consultations on the semi-annual report format.  To date, she had convened three sessions of informal 
open-ended consultations on these issues.    53. The discussions to that point had highlighted that different Members had different views and 
different practices as to which sorts of actions were  subject to this notification requirement.  It had 
been noted that certain actions reported in semi-a nnual reports had not been the subject of ad hoc 
notification.  Possible reasons for this had been di scussed, including different interpretations as to the 
scope of the notification requirement, and the possib ility that some of the information requirements in 
the minimum information format (in G/ADP/2) might  be overly burdensome.  Concrete suggestions 
that had been discussed to address these issues were :  (1) to develop a minimum list of types of 
actions that should be notified by all Members (with  Members being free to notify additional sorts of G/ADP/M/30 
Page 8  
 
  actions if they so wished); and (2) to consid er deleting certain items from the list of required 
information in G/ADP/2. 
54. The Chairperson noted that although there had not been much discussion of this issue at that 
day's consultations, Members had decided to c ontinue this work in future consultations. 
55. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's report. 
G. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
56. The Chairperson noted that, as Members were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention had met that morning, prior to th e Committee's meeting.  No new papers had been 
submitted for the meeting, and reflecting the fact th at anti-circumvention had been raised as an issue 
in the Rules negotiations, the meeting had been shor t.  As had become customary in the Group, the 
Chairperson had raised the issue of the Group's furt her work, and it had been confirmed that Members 
had no objection to continuing to work along the lines the Group had been following up to that point.  The Chairperson looked forward to receiving new papers as soon as Members found the situation to 
be ripe.    
57. The next meeting of the Informal Group would take place during the week of 
23 October 2006, with the exact date to be confirme d in due course.  The deadline for submissions for 
that meeting was 13 September 2006.  The Chairper son urged Members intendi ng to submit papers to 
make maximum efforts to respect th at deadline, in order to allow the Secretariat to translate and 
circulate the submissions in time.  This would allo w delegations and capital-based experts to study the 
submissions in their preferred WTO language a nd prepare considered responses, which would 
enhance the discussions. 
58. The Committee took note of the report.   
H. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
59. The Chairperson reported on the meeting of th e Working Group on Implementation that had 
been held that day, prior to the Committee's mee ting.  At the meeting, the Group had continued its 
discussions on the four topics that had been refe rred to it by the Committee at the Spring 2003 
meeting.  Although only two Me mbers had submitted papers, both  on the same topic – conduct of 
verifications – the discussion had been interest ing and useful in enabling Members to better 
understand the issues involved and the practices of various Members.  The Group also had discussed a 
draft recommendation on the same topic, prepared by the Secretariat pursuant to the Group's request 
at its fall 2005 meeting, and had requested the Secretar iat to prepare and circulate a revised version of 
the recommendation.   
 60. As for the continuing work of the Group, th e Chairperson had strongly encouraged those 
Members that had not submitted any papers on the topics before the Working Group to do so.  The 
more information on the table about the approach es of different national authorities on these issues, 
the better; additional information concerning nati onal practices and different Members' views would 
add to the value of the discussions.    61. Delegations had been requested to reflect on the future work of the Group, particularly 
keeping in mind the possibility of starting the process of developing a further list of topics to be proposed to the Committee for discussion.  Delegations  had been asked to be in a position to discuss 
this matter at the Group's next meeting, which was scheduled for the week of 23 October 2006, with 
the exact date to be confirmed in due course.  The deadline for submissions for that meeting was 
13 September 2006.  The Chairperson urged Members to  respect this deadline, to allow the Secretariat  G/ADP/M/30 
 Page 9 
 
 
  sufficient time to translate and circulate Members' submissions before the meeting.  This would allow 
delegations and capital-based experts to study the submissions in their preferred WTO languages and 
to prepare considered responses, which would enhance the discussions at the next meeting. 
 62. The Committee took note of the report.   
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
Sunset review by Brazil – item requested by New Zealand 
63. The delegate of New Zealand referred to the Ar ticle 11.3 sunset review which New Zealand 
understood that the Brazilian authorities were conducting on the alleged dumping of milk by 
New Zealand companies into Brazil.  While New Zealand had serious reservations on certain systemic 
issues, New Zealand wanted to share with the Brazi lian authorities a summary of the key points and 
statistics of the New Zealand industry's activities in  the Brazilian market sin ce the original case in 
2001.  Imports of New Zealand milk powder under th e HS codes covered by the review had fallen 
from 6,042 metric tonnes in 1999 to 142 metric tonnes in 2005.  Rather than the effectiveness of the 
anti-dumping duties causing this reduction, the reducti on was linked to the significant change that had 
occurred in the New Zealand domestic industry's invol vement in the Brazilian market.  The industry's 
key interests had become weighted toward th e processing and sale of Brazilian dairy products.  
Fontera, the New Zealand industry in the Brazilia n case, was a 50 per cent shareholder of Dairy 
Partners Americas Brazil, the largest dairy pro cessor in Brazil, and DPA's 2004 milk reception was 
estimated at 1.5 billion litres, accounting for 10 per cent  of milk entering the formal market.  Fontera's 
subsidiary dairy ingredient trading company in Brazil, Fontera Brazil, had recorded sales of 3,442.2 
metric tons of domestically produced milk powder in Brazil in 2005.  In comparison, it had sold only 
123 metric tons of New Zealand origin milk powde r.  New Zealand origin product had accounted for 
3.75 per cent of imported milk powder in the revi ew period 2001-2005, and only 0.37 per cent of total 
milk powder consumed in Brazil over that period.  The 142 metric  tonnes of New Zealand product 
imported in 2005 compared to a total import figur e of 34,149 metric tonnes and domestic production 
of 533,000 metric tonnes.  Leaving aside New Zeala nd's systemic concerns, the change in emphasis 
by the New Zealand industry and the cited statistics showed that the expiry of the duty would not be 
likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of the claimed dumping and injury.  The New Zealand 
industry had become an important player in the Braz ilian market, and given the shift in focus to being 
a producer using Brazilian milk to manufacture and se ll milk powder, rather than being an importer, 
New Zealand suggested that an early termination of the duties currently under review would be 
appropriate.   
64. The delegate of Brazil thanked the delegati on of New Zealand for bringing forward this 
important information, which would be sent to  the authorities in capital for analysis.   
65. The Committee took note of the statements made.   
J. DATE OF DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
66. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 
that regular meetings normally would be held in the l ast week of April and the last week of October.  
The next regular meeting of the Committee was proposed  for the week of 23 October 2006, to be held 
back-to-back with the meetings of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group on 
Anti-Circumvention.  The exact date of the mee ting of the Committee would be communicated to 
Members in due course.   
67. The Committee took note of the statement. G/ADP/M/30 
Page 10  
 
  K. 
ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
68. The Committee elected by acclamation Ms. Victoria Campeanu (Romania) as Chairperson.   
69. The Committee elected by acclamation Ms. Auromon Supthaweethum (Thailand) as Vice 
Chairperson. 
70. The Chairperson thanked the Secretariat and de legates for their support during the past year, 
and wished the incoming Chairperson and Vice Chairperson success for the coming year.   
71. The meeting was adjourned.   
__________