WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/AHG/R/16 
9 February 2005  
 (05-0538) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE 
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES, 
26-27 OCTOBER 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  
1. The Working Group on Implementation ("the Group") met in formal session on 
26 October 2004 and held substantive discussions  concerning the topics referred to it by the 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") on May 2003.
1  The Group adopted the 
agenda for the meeting, which had been circ ulated in WTO/AIR/2413, dated 15 October 2004. 
2. The Chairman, (Mr. Ernesto Fernández, Costa Rica) noted that the Group would take up the 
four topics for discussion in the order set forth in the agenda, as adopted.  These were:  (a) calculation 
of normal value;  (b) conduct of verification;  (c) judicial, arbitral or administrative review;  and 
(d) future work of the Working Group. 
3. Turning to the first item on the agenda, calcu lation of normal value: export prices to third 
countries or constructed normal va lue – Article 2.2, the Chairman reminded Members that the Group 
had started its discussion of this topic during th e October 2003 meeting.  Venezuela introduced its 
paper, circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/162, followed by the United States who introduced a 
document on the topic made available in the room, subsequently circulated as document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/166.  During the ensuing discussions,  a number of issues were raised, such as the 
criteria used when deciding which third country to use, that is, whether the country representing the 
highest export volume was selected, whether the pro duct-mix of the exports was taken into account, 
and if other factors were also considered, and if so, what were those factors. Members also expressed an interest in the criteria considered by inves tigating authorities (with a preference for using export 
prices) in deciding in specific cases not to use e xports to a third country as basis for calculating 
normal value, but to construct the normal value.  Members were also interested in whether the views of exporters/importers were  taken into consideration when selecting the third country and whether the 
details of the investigation process leading to selecti on were reported.  As Members did not have time 
to study the paper introduced by the United States, the Chairman informed the Group that it will be on 
the agenda of the Spring 2005 meeting.  The Chai rman urged those Members which had not done so 
yet, to contribute to the discussions by submitting papers on this topic for discussion at the next meeting of the Group. 
4. The next item discussed was the conduct of verifi cation – Article 6.7.  Turkey introduced its 
paper, circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/164.  The discussions focused on whether verification 
takes place before or after the preliminary determination is made, whether a separate disclosure of the 
results of the verification is made, whether exporte rs/importers are granted an opportunity to comment 
                                                     
 
1 The list of topics referred to the Working Group was circulated to Members in document 
G/ADP/W/433. G/ADP/AHG/R/16 
Page 2  
 
 on the verification report, and whether the governme nt of the exporting Member is provided with a 
non-confidential disclosure report.  As Argentina did not have an expert available during the 
Spring 2004 meeting of the Group when its paper on this topic, circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/157, was introduced, and therefore was not in a position to respond immediately to questions raised by Members, it provided the Group with more detail on the operation of the 
verification process followed by Argentina.  In the ensuing discussions, interest was expressed in the 
requirement that all documents to be included in the "file", had to be translated into Spanish by the 
party submitting the documents.  Members agreed to  continue discussions on the topic at the Group's 
next meeting, and the Chairman urged Members to contribute papers on it, including papers 
describing their own practice in this regard. 
5. The Group then discussed judicial, arbitral or administrative review – Article 13.  Turkey and 
South Africa introduced their papers, ci rculated as documents G/ADP/AHG/W/163 and 
G/ADP/AHG/W/165, respectively.  From the papers  and discussions, it appeared that some Members 
used existing domestic courts of law, up to the hi ghest level, for purposes of review, rather than 
special bodies dedicated only to anti-dumping review s.  In the discussions, the following issues, inter 
alia, were raised:  Who can challenge the decisi on to impose an anti-dumping duty and when can a 
review be requested?  If the anti-dumping action w as annulled, could it be referred back to the 
investigating authority?  What was the duration of  the review process?  In the case where provision 
was made for an administrative appeal, was there a requirement that it had to  be exhausted before a 
court appeal was possible, or could both be pursued at the same time?  A further issue raised was the protection of confidential information during the ap peal process.  The Chairman thanked Turkey and 
South Africa for submitting papers on this topic as  a follow-up on the oral explanations of their 
respective systems during the previous meeting of the Group, and urged other significant users of the 
instrument which had not explained their practices in  this regard to submit papers on this topic for 
discussion at the Group's next meeting. 
6. The Group then turned to the final item on the ag enda, namely, the future work of the Group.  
The Chairman expressed the view that, in light of th e fact that the four topics currently before the 
Group for discussion, had been on the agenda for th ree meetings and that, although the discussion had 
been useful, it had been based on a small number of papers submitted by a very limited number of 
Members, Members might wish to consider whethe r the time was not right for the Group to consider 
starting the process of identifying additional topics for discussion.  In the discussions Members expressed the view that the Group provided a useful forum for discussing the different practices of 
Members and, if consensus was emerging, to develop recommendations on certain practices.  
Although certain issues which had been discussed in the Group were also being discussed in the Rules 
Negotiating Group, and the discussions in the Group c ould be useful in the context of the ongoing 
negotiations, the mandates of the two fora were diffe rent and not mutually exclusive.  The view was 
also expressed that the Group could serve as a foru m to develop best practice on different issues, 
which might forestall the need for negotiations on  some of the issues curre ntly before the Rules 
Negotiating Group, but that wider participati on in the discussions of the Group would be a 
prerequisite.  Although some Members indicated that  they were not unwilling to consider starting the 
process of identifying additional topics, they expr essed the view that discussions on the four topics 
currently before the Group had not been exhausted,  particularly in light of the recent contribution 
submitted by some non-traditional users of the instru ment, exposing a different set of problems and 
issues being experienced by these Members.  The view  was also expressed that there might be a risk 
in that if additional topics were added to the list, only a very limited number of Members might 
submit papers, with the possibility of only one or two papers per topic, and thereby limiting and 
diffusing the discussions.  In an effort to assist Memb ers in contributing to the work of the Group, the 
option that Members could be encouraged to make  oral presentations, rather than submitting written 
papers, was raised.  A further option raised to assi st Members in developing their papers was the 
development of a "check-list", or a range of ques tions, on each of the four topics.  In summing up the 
discussions, the Chairman informed the Group that hi s conclusion was that there was no agreement at  G/ADP/AHG/R/16 
 Page 3 
 
 
 this stage on considering identifying additional t opics, but that a number of interesting options to 
encourage broader participation in the discussions of the four topics currently before the Group, were 
raised.  In order to assist Members in reflecti ng further on the future work of the Group, the 
Secretariat was requested to develop and circul ate a document setting out the topics previously 
referred to the Group for discussion, together with references to documents submitted on each topic, 
and the result of the discussions regarding each topic.2 
7. In conclusion, the Chairman noted that the Group had had a very useful third round of 
discussions of three of the four new topics and enc ouraged Members to submit papers on these topics 
for discussion at the next meeting.  The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the next regular meeting of th e Committee, commencing Tuesday, 5 April 2005, and 
that papers and other submissions for the Gr oup's next meeting should be transmitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 22 February 2005. 
__________ 
                                                     
 
2  Subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/168.