RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/36 
15 July 2009 
 (09-3438) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 8 MAY 2009 
 
Chair:  Mr. Jorge Huerta Goldman (Mexico
) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
8 May 2009.    2. The Committee took note that Mrs. Sahar Hosn i became the Secretary of the Committee and 
that Ms Jo McKeagg became the Deputy Secretary.  
  3. The Chair
 requested all Members to provide the S ecretary of the Committee with the names 
and contact details of their representatives who a ttended the Committee meetings.  He indicated that 
this information would be consolidated by the Secretariat in one contact details list and made 
available to all Members at the back of the room at future Committee meetings.     
 
4. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3355:   
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIO NS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE 
(INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ).............................................................................................................2  
1. Angola (G/ADP/N/1/AGO/1) (ADP only)................................................................................2  
2. Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Supp l.9–G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.8)................................3  
3. Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.2–G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.2) .......................................3  
4. Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/DOM/3/Suppl.1 & Corr.1– 
G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 & Corr.1–G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 & Corr.1)...................3  
5. Honduras (G/ADP/N/1/HND/ 3–G/SCM/N/1/HND/3)............................................................3  
6. Panama (G/ADP/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1–G/SCM/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1)........................................................................................................ 3 
7. Saudi Arabia (G/ADP/N/1/SAU/1–G/SCM/N/1/SAU/1–G/SG/N/1/SAU/1) .........................3  
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LE GISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE ..............................................................................3  
1. El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3–G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3) ...........................................................3  
2. Panama (G/ADP/N/1/PAN/2–G/SCM/N/1/PAN/2–G/SG/N/1/PAN/2) .................................4  
3. Ukraine (G/ADP/N/1/UKR/1–G/SCM /N/1/UKR/1–G/SG/N/1/UKR/1) ...............................4  
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS .................................................................5  G/ADP/M/36 
Page 2  
 
  1.
 Review of semi-annual reports ................................................................................................5  
2. Revised format for semi-annual reports – Presentation by the Secretariat ........................7  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS :  NOTIFICATIONS ........................................8  
E. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS ON WAYS TO IMPROVE 
TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF NOTI FICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION 
FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES ......................................................................................................8  
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION ......................11  
G. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION ..............................12  
H. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................12  
I. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................16  
J. ELECTIONS OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................................16  
 
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 ) 
5. The Chair  noted that items A (i) through (vii) of the agenda concerned the review of new 
legislative notifications not previously reviewed by the Committee, and that as always, the reviews 
would be conducted in accordance with the pertin ent procedures adopted by  the Committee, found in 
document G/ADP/W/284.    6. The Chair informed Members that the deadlines for the submission of documents for the 
autumn 2009 regular meetings of the Committee , the Working Group on Implementation, and the 
Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had been establis hed, and would be circul ated by the Secretariat 
in a reminder document indicating those deadlines, as well as the analogous deadlines for the autumn 
meetings of the SCM a nd Safeguards Committees.
1 
 
7. Concerning the review of the legi slative notifications on the agenda, any written questions were 
to have been submitted to the Memb er concerned, and to the Secretariat, not la ter than 10 April 2009.  
Oral questions could be asked at the meeting, and any Member desiring to receive a written answer to 
any such question had to submit it in writing not later than 22 May 2009.  The deadline for written 
answers to all written questions we re to be submitted to the Member posing the question, and to the 
Secretariat, not later than 12 June 2009.   
 
8. The Chair also noted that, as had been indicate d in the annotated draf t agenda, most of the 
legislative notifications to be reviewed were multip le-symbolled.  He indicate d that he was informed 
that, as per usual practice, those do cuments relating to topics other than  anti-dumping, were discussed in 
the relevant bodies when they met on 6 and 7 May 2009.   
 
1. Angola (G/ADP/N/1/AGO/1) (ADP only) 
9. No written questions concerning the notification of Angola  were posed by any Member. 
10. The Chair  noted that on 3 May 2009, Angola submitte d a note to the Secretariat indicating 
that it has passed its anti-dumping legislation.  He a dded that Angola did not provide the legislation to 
the Secretariat for circulation yet, as it was in  Portuguese, but indicated that it would make the 
                                                      
1 Now circulated in document G/ADP/W/470-G/SCM/W/547-G/SG/W/211 dated 18 May 2009.   G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 3 
 
 
  necessary translation into a WTO official language a nd provide it to the Secretariat for review at the 
autumn meeting.  
2. Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.9–G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.8) 
11. The written questions concerning the notification of Argentina  can be found in the following 
document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/19-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/19 – submitted by the European Communities. 
 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/20-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/20 – submitted by the United States.  G/ADP/Q1/ARG/21-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/21 – submitted by Turkey.  12. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/22-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/22 – re plies to the European Communities. 
 G/ADP/Q1/ARG/23-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/23 – replies to the United States. 
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/24-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/24 – replies to Turkey.  
3. Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.2–G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.2) 
13. No written questions concerning the notification of Brazil  were posed by any Member. 
4. Dominican Republic (G/ADP/N/1/DOM/3/Suppl.1 & Corr.1– 
G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 & Corr.1–G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 & Corr.1)  
14. No written questions concerning the notification of the  Dominican Republic were posed by 
any Member. 
5. Honduras (G/ADP/N/1/HND/3–G/SCM/N/1/HND/3) 
15. No written questions concerning the notification of Honduras  were posed by any Member. 
6. Panama (G/ADP/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1–G/SCM/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1) 
16. No written questions concerning the notification of Panama were posed by any Member. 
7. Saudi Arabia (G/ADP/N/1/SAU/1–G/SCM/N/1/SAU/1–G/SG/N/1/SAU/1) 
17. No written questions concerning the notification of Saudi Arabia were posed by any 
Member. 
18. The Committee took note
 of the notifications, questions, answers and statements. 
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISL ATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
1. El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3–G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3) 
19. The written questions concerning the notification of El Salvador  can be found in the 
following documents:   
G/ADP/Q1/SLV/6-G/SCM/Q1/SLV/6 – submitted by the United States G/ADP/M/36 
Page 4  
 
  20. The written answers to these questions can be found in the following documents: 
 G/ADP/Q1/SLV/7–G/SCM/Q1/SLV/7  
 
2. Panama (G/ADP/N/1/PAN/2–G/SCM/N/1/PAN/2–G/SG/N/1/PAN/2) 
21. The written questions concerning the notification of Panama  can be found in the following 
document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/PAN/8–G/SCM/Q1/PAN/8 – submitted by the United States 
 22. The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/PAN/9–G/SCM/Q1/PAN/9 – replies to the United States  
 
3. Ukraine (G/ADP/N/1/UKR/1–G/SCM/N/1/UKR/1–G/SG/N/1/UKR/1) 
23. The written questions concerning the notification of Ukraine  can be found in the following 
document:   
 G/ADP/Q1/UKR/7–G/SCM/Q1/UKR/7 – submitted by the United States 
 
24. The written answers to these questions can  be found in the following document: 
 G/ADP/Q1/UKR/8–G/SCM/Q1/UKR/8 – replies to the United States 
 25. The Chair
 reminded Members that any questions c oncerning the reviewed legislation for 
which a written answer was desired had to be subm itted in writing to the Member concerned with a 
copy to the Secretariat not later than close of  business on 22 May 2009.  Written answers to all 
questions submitted in writing had to  be submitted not later than cl ose of business on 12 June 2009. 
26. For the autumn 2009 meeting, in accordance with  the Committee's agreed procedures, all new 
legislative notifications that would be circulated in all three languages at le ast six weeks before the 
meeting, i.e., by 22 September, would be placed on th e agenda for review.  Shortly after this date, the 
Secretariat would circulate a document informing Members of all of the legislative notifications to be 
reviewed at the autumn meeting.  
27. The Chair noted that three new legislative notif ications were submitted by the United States 
on 17 April 2009 and circulated in document G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.8–G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.8, by Norway on 5 May 2009 and circulated in document G/ADP/N/1/NOR/4–G/SCM/N/1/NOR/4–G/SG/N/1/ NOR/4, and by Suriname on 29 April 2009 and 
circulated in document G/ADP/N/1/SUR/2.  As these notification were received well after the 
deadline for review at the spring meeting, they w ould be placed on the agenda of the autumn meeting 
for review.  Written questions concerning those and any other new
 legislative notifications would 
need to be submitted not less than three weeks be fore the meeting, i.e., by 12 October 2009. 
28. The Chair further noted that Members wishing to place any previously-reviewed legislative 
notification 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 week s before the meeting, i.e., by 22 September 2009.  
Written answers also were to be submitte d in advance, by 19 October 2009.   
29. Finally, 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  G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 5 
 
 
  view of transparency and better understanding.  Fo r many Members all that would be required was a 
single nil notification.  For Members that conduc ted anti-dumping investigations but had not yet 
notified their legislation, it was all the more im portant for the Committee to have the opportunity to 
review and ask questions about that legislation.  Thus, the Chair encouraged all Members that had not 
yet made a legislative notification to do so as promptly as possible.   
30. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.   
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
1. Review of semi-annual reports  
31. The Chair  recalled that a request for semi-annual re ports for the second half of 2008 had been 
circulated in document G/ADP/N/180, dated 13 January 2009, with  a due date of 9 March 2009.  It 
appeared that most Members taking anti-dumping ac tions during the period in question had submitted a 
semi-annual report.  He reminded those Members ta king no anti-dumping actions that all that was 
necessary was to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year.    32. The Chair indicated that a number of Member s reporting anti-dumping actions submitted their 
semi-annual reports after the deadline,  some significantly so, and that late submission of these reports 
would make it difficult for other Members to consid er the information contained therein before the 
meeting where reports should be discussed.  He a dded that if all Members would endeavour to submit 
their semi-annual reports on time, all of them could be translated and circulated well before the 
Committee's meetings, and that this would certainl y enhance transparency and the quality of the 
Committee's discussion. 
 
33. The Chair then turned to the se mi-annual reports for the second half of 2008 and noted that the 
Members that had submitted such reports we re identified in paragraph 1 of document 
G/ADP/N/180/Add.1, dated 27 April 2009.  The reports had been translated to the extent possible, but 
late submission obviously meant that some were no t available for the meeti ng in all three languages.
2 
 
34. In addition to the Members that submitted semi-a nnual reports of actions taken, a number of 
Members, listed in para graph 2 of document G/ADP/ N/180/Add.1, had notified th e Committee that they 
had not taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  After the document was 
circulated Georgia, Mauritius, Oman and Su riname had submitted nil notifications.   
 
35. The Chair also pointed out that there remained a significant number of Members that had not 
responded to the request for semi-annu al reports, which applied to all Me mbers, whether or not they had 
taken anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  These Members were identified in 
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the document.  He again ur ged all Members to comply  with this important 
notification requirement.   
 
36. The Chair indicated that he would deal with th is issue further under age nda item E, under which 
he would be reporting back to the Committee on the results of his informal consultations held on 
9 March 2009 to explore ways to improve timeliness,  completeness of notifications and information 
flows on trade measures.     
37. The Committee conducted the review of the semi-a nnual reports that had been submitted for the 
second half of 2008.  No Member raised questions  or made comments concerning the semi-annual 
reports of the following Members:  Argentina, Aust ralia, Brazil, Canada, Chil e, Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Egypt, the European Communities, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, 
                                                     
 
2 Angola also submitted a nil notification on 13 May 2009.  G/ADP/M/36 
Page 6  
 
  Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Thaila nd, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine and the 
United States.   38. Concerning the semi-annual report of China , the representative of the United States
 indicated 
that during the second half of 2008, China initiate d expiry reviews on two products imported from the 
United States, namely polyvinyl chloride and tolu ene diisocyanate.  She noted that such expiry 
reviews were not reflected in China's most recent semi-annual report and requested China, if it had in 
fact initiated such expiry reviews, to submit a re vised semi-annual report to accordingly reflect all on-
going anti-dumping activities.  She indicated that th e United States was still concerned about China's 
conduct of expiry reviews without notifying speci fic regulations regarding the expiry review 
procedures, and urged China to not ify the Committee of these procedures.3  
 39. The representative of China
 stated that she took note of the questions posed by the 
United States and indicated that she would check wh ether sunset reviews were conducted with respect 
to these two products and provide the requested information as soon as possible.   
 
40. On the semi annual-report of India , the representative of the United States  noted that at the 
last committee meeting, India's semi-annual report had listed – under measures in force – two dates 
for measures on sodium cyanide from the United Stat es.  The first was on 27 December 1999, the date 
of the original measure and the second was on 19 December 2005, the date of extension resulting 
from a sunset review.  At the last meeting of the Committee, India indicated that the second set of 
dates had perhaps been added by the Secretariat, as  India had not provided that information.  She 
noted that these two sets of dates were included agai n in India's most recent semi-annual report and as 
before, there were no similar extension dates for products such as flexible slabstock polyol, styrene 
butadiene rubber, aniline or caustic  soda, even though India had indicated during the last Committee 
meeting that those measures were extended as a resu lt of sunset reviews.  She requested India to 
explain why some of such reviews we re reported, while others were not. 4  
41. The representative of India  stated that it would appear that the second date should be the date 
of extension of the duties following the sunset review , but indicated that he would consult with capital 
and provide a clarification at the next meeting of the Committee.          
42. On the semi-annual report of Mexico , the representative of the United States  noted that in the 
section of Mexico's semi-annual report on "Measures in Force," the Government of Mexico listed the 
anti-dumping measure on apples from the United States as being in force since 12 August 2002.  In 
response to a question from the United States dur ing the autumn 2008 meeting of the Committee, 
Mexico submitted the following written reply:  "The measure imposed in August 2002 was terminated 
on 3 July 2007 in compliance with the decision of a Mexican court.  The measure in force was introduced by publication in the Diario Oficial de la  Federacion of 2 November 2006.  In other words, 
the current measure has only been  in force two years, which is why no five-year review has taken 
place." 
43. The representative of the United States noted, however, that in its most recent semi-annual 
report, Mexico again listed the measure on appl es from the United States as being in force since 
August 2002 without an expiry revi ew conducted, despite the passage of nearly seven years since the 
imposition of a final antidumping measure.  She requ ested the delegation of Mexico to explain the 
inconsistency between Mexico's written response provided in the Committee's meeting held in 
October 2008 and its most recent semi-annual report.
5 
                                                      
3 Now circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/CHN/1 dated 27 May 2009. 
4 Now circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/IND/1 dated 27 May 2009. 
5 Now circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/MEX/3 dated 20 May 2009.  G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 7 
 
 
  44. The representative of Mexico  indicated that it would not be able to explain whether that was 
consistent or inconsistent, but would keep in contact with the United States to clear up this doubt.      
45. Concerning the semi-annual of South Africa , the representative of Egypt  stated that in its last 
semi-annual report, South Africa indicated that the sunset review that was conducted with respect to 
imports of carbon black originating in or imported from, inter alia,  Egypt, was still undergoing.  On 
13 May 2008, the International Trade Administra tion Commission ("ITAC") decided to rescind its 
decision to initiate the sunset review of the anti-dumping duties maintained on carbon black 
originating in or imported from Egypt.  To date, d espite the decision adopted by the ITAC nearly over 
a year ago, imports of carbon black originating in or imported from Egypt continued to be subject to 
anti-dumping measures.  
46. The representative of Egypt reiterated his c oncerns with respect to the decision of 
South Africa to maintain anti-dumping measures on Egyptian imports of carbon black for nearly five years after their normal termination date without  any justification and inquired as to when the 
Ministry of Finance would withdraw these measures. 
47. In this connection, the representative of the United States
 requested South Africa to explain 
why the measure on PVC was not yet removed.  In pr ior meetings, South Africa had indicated that the 
anti-dumping measure on PVC would be revoked and th us the United States also requested South 
Africa to provide an update concerning the recent developments pertaining to the Supreme Court of 
Appeals ruling and South Africa's Investigating Au thorities implementation of this court decision. 
48. Finally, the representative of Brazil  supported the statement made by the United States on 
PVC.    
49. The representative of South Africa  indicated that South Africa was very serious about this 
issue and that it had all its attention.  She adde d that South Africa was involved in long and very 
complex internal consultations in this regard w ith various government in stitutions and that it had 
obtained an agreement from all the institutions con cerned to approach the High Court for clarification 
on this issue.  She added that the process of draw ing up papers was initiated to approach the Court and 
that all those involved would be notified of an y further court action and the related dates. 
50. With respect to the cases terminated, some were referred to as a result of the decision of the 
Supreme Court, certain duties were terminated wi th retrospective effect as from 8 May 2009, and 
these included carbon black, galvanized welded steel tubes and pipes, garden  picks, suspension PVC 
and aluminium alloy.  She added that South Afri ca would notify in the week following the meeting, 
the Members involved in this withdrawal. 
51. Finally, the Chair  noted that Members were free to raise any issue regarding semi-annual 
reports for past periods that were not already re viewed by the Committee.  No Member raised any 
issue in this respect.     
52. The Committee took note  of the semi-annual reports, questions, answers and statements.   
2. Revised format for semi-annual reports  – Presentation by the Secretariat  
53. The Chair  referred to the revised format for the se mi annual reports adopted by the Committee 
in October 2008 and contained in document G/ADP/ 1/Rev.1.  He recalled that the revised format 
brought a number of important improvements, wh ich included the use of mandatory language and 
clear definitions and instructions for each inform ation item to be reported, and the inclusion of a 
number of new information items.  He  reminded delegations that this format would begin to be used 
with the reports covering the firs t half of 2009, i.e., the next cy cle to be submitted at the end of G/ADP/M/36 
Page 8  
 
  August 2009.
6  He indicated that given these changes, th e new format should resolve issues relating to 
the completeness of the information submitted and th at Members should be well on the way to putting 
into place the necessary internal changes for implementing the ne w revised format.  In this 
connection, the Chair asked the Secretariat to make a brief presentation explaining the new format.     
 
54. The Secretariat  made its slide presentation.    
 55. No questions were posed by any Member with respect to the presentation made.  However, 
the representative of Japan
 took the floor to thank the Secretar iat for its comprehensive presentation 
and to stress the importance of the new format.  He indicated that the investigating authority in Japan 
had already started, well ahead of the deadline for the next reporting cycle, an intense brain storming 
process to implement the new format.        56. The Chair
 encouraged Members to contact the Secr etariat in case they had any questions on 
the new format.  
 
57. The Committee took note  of the presentation and the statements made.    
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS :  NOTIFICATIONS  
58. The Chair  recalled that lists of the notifications of  preliminary and final anti-dumping actions 
submitted by Members since the Committee's autu mn meeting could be found in documents 
G/ADP/N/178-179, and G/ADP/N/181-184.  During that period, the following Members had notified 
preliminary and/or final anti-dumping actions, which had been listed in these documents:  Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, European Communities, Korea, Mexico, 
Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, Tu rkey, Ukraine and the United States.   
59. The Chair drew the attention of Members to th e apparent lack of full compliance with this 
notification requirement.  In particular, comparing the semi-annual reports with the lists of actions 
taken, it appeared that some Members had repor ted anti-dumping actions in progress in their semi-
annual reports, but had not submitted re ports of preliminary or final actions taken.  These reports were 
a key element of the required transparency c oncerning 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 that regard.  He th erefore very strongly urged all Members taking anti-
dumping actions to provide those notifications of pr eliminary and final actions, consistently and in a 
timely fashion.  He reminded Members that the revised minimum information format for those 
notifications, which had been adopted by the Committee in October 2006 (document G/ADP/2/Rev.1), contained important clarifications as  to the kinds of actions that should be notified 
and the information that should be provided.   
60. None of the notifications before the Committe e for review were addressed by any Member.   
61. The Committee took note
 of the Chair's statement.   
E. CHAIRPERSON 'S REPORT ON THE INFORMAL CONS ULTATIONS ON WAYS  TO IMPROVE 
TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATI ONS AND OTHER INFORM ATION FLOWS ON 
TRADE MEASURES  
62. The Chair  recalled that, on 26 February 2009, th e Chair of the General Council, upon the 
request of the Chair of the Trade Policy Review Body (the "TPRB"), requested him, amongst other 
Chairs, to hold consultations on ways to improve  the timeliness and completeness of notifications and 
                                                      
6 Document no. G/ADP/N/188, dated 10 July 2009.  G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 9 
 
 
  other information flows on trade measures, and to report back to the TPRB Chair on those 
consultations.  The Committee conducted informal  consultations on 9 March 2009 during which it 
focussed its discussions on problematic notifi cation areas, how to encourage long-standing 
non-notifiers to submit notifications , how to enhance the quality of the submitted data and on how to 
streamline the reporting process.  The Chair made copi es of his letter to the Chair of the TPRB dated 
1 April 2009 in this regard available to all Members.   
63. On the issue of timeliness, the Committee di scussed the status of Members' semi-annual 
reports which were not submitted by the applicable  deadlines set, and ad hoc reports of preliminary 
and final actions which were not  submitted "without delay",  as required by the Agreement. 
• On the issue of the late submission of semi-a nnual reports, the Chair indicated that he had 
flagged at the consultations that this was a persistent problem and that at every Committee 
meeting, all his predecessors and himself had made statements drawing the Committee's 
attention to the lack of timeliness in semi -annual reporting and urgi ng improvements.  He 
emphasized that not only did this situation aff ect negatively the proper consideration of such 
reports by Members, but it also had a substantial negative impact on the electronic anti-dumping database, which could not produce any m eaningful data unless all notifications of 
actions were submitted.  At th e consultations, Members considered that, for future reporting 
cycles, the Secretariat should circulate reminders prior to the set deadlines, and that the Chair 
should send letters to those whose reports we re not received by such deadlines. Such 
reminders would be sent, as needed, starting with the next reporting cycle.    
• Concerning the ad hoc reports of preliminary an d final actions, given their ad hoc nature and 
that there was no fixed deadline for such notif ications, the Chair urged Members to respect 
the requirement in the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t (the Agreement) that obligated Members 
taking such actions to submit their notifications  in this respect "without delay", and not as 
sometimes is  the case months or even years after the fact.     
64. On the issue of completeness,  the Committee noted that it had completed the major work 
programme on improving the completeness of informa tion notified by Members, by adopting in 2006 
a new minimum information format for ad hoc notifications of anti -dumping actions, and by adopting 
in 2008 the new format for semi-annual reports.  Both  of these formats include new information items 
to be reported, and provide significant clarification as to how reporting should be done.  The focus of 
the discussion, thus, was ensuring that th ese new formats were fully implemented. 
• In the case of the semi-annual format, which shoul d be used for the next reporting cycle, i.e. 
for the period January to June 2009, the immedi ate issue was to ensure a smooth transition.  
To this end, the presentation made by the S ecretariat under agenda item C.2 was one step on 
this path.  In addition, any individual Member who might have any ques tions pertaining to the 
implementation of the semi-annual reports new fo rmat, can always approach the Secretariat 
for further assistance in this respect.  
• Concerning the Members that had not submitted semi-annual reports and that did not notify a 
competent authority, namely those Memb ers listed in paragraph 4 of document 
G/ADP/N/180/Add.1, the Committee discussed ideas for encouraging those Members to 
notify, and to provide clarification on their situation.  One of the ideas discussed was to 
develop what could be called "a one time notifi cation format" for those Members that had not 
established any investigating authority, and accordingly never taken any anti-dumping 
actions.  As the Committee was favourable to this  suggestion, the Chair indicated that he had 
developed a draft format (copies were made ava ilable at the meeting) for further informal 
consultations in the Committee which should be conducted by his successor at a later stage.  
The Chair did not open the floor for discussion regarding this draft at the meeting, and G/ADP/M/36 
Page 10  
 
  requested delegations to reserve any comments th ey had regarding this draft for such future 
informal consultations.  
65. On improving information flows, the main obstacle was that some Members were still 
submitting reports, in particular their ad hoc report s of preliminary and final actions taken, only in 
hard copy.  He referred to the discussion that took place on that issue and that the Committee was 
agreeable, in principle, to moving toward submitting electronically all notifications, including the ad 
hoc reports on preliminary and fina l actions, and moving away from the submission of hard copies.   
 66. The Chair concluded that there were two main  issues which should be subject to further 
informal consultations by his successor.  The first ha d to do with the issue of the one time notification 
format, while the second pertained to the issue of electronic submission of all notifications and 
elimination of hard copies. 
67. The representative of Japan
 complimented the Chair for the comprehensive and accurate 
report on the informal consultations and indicated th at Japan agreed with th e Chair's observations in 
this regard.  He stated that his delegation appr eciated the initiative of the Chairs of the General 
Council and the TPRB to request consultations pertai ning to the issues of notifications and other 
information flows on trade measures.  Given the recent rise in protectionist measures, as a result of the current economic crisis, the TPRB Chair indicated th at the availability of comprehensive, accurate 
and timely information would be crucial, and th us raised the question of how to improve the 
timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information flows on trade measures.  
Following such instructions, the Committee held informal consultations last March which were 
productive and comprehensive.  
68. On the requirement of completeness, i.e. comprehensiveness and accuracy, the new semi-
annual format and the slide presentation made by the Secretariat at the meeting were excellent 
achievements.  He also stressed the importance of  the new format and that all Members should be 
aware of that too.  
69. On the timeliness of semi-annual reports, he agr eed on the need to hold further consultations 
on the two issues indicated by the Chair and stated that Japan was very positive in both respects. On 
the "one time notification format", he confirme d that the idea was discussed in the informal 
consultations conducted in March and that the draft, developed by the Chair and provided to Members 
at the meeting, was the result of such consultations .  He added that Members would need to check the 
draft further, but that Japan could prelimin arily react positively to this draft.    
70. On the electronic format, he stat ed that Japan could also be positive about this issue.  In the 
Committee on Safeguards, there were certain solu tions discussed and sensitivities addressed, though 
the context was different.  He was, therefore, of th e view that the electronic format approach could be 
a constructive one and that Japan would be rea dy to engage and act positively to advance this 
initiative as soon as possible.  
71. On the timeliness issue, the representative of Japan also referred to the importance of 
enhancing Members' accessibility to the database.  He emphasized the importance of timely provision 
of collective information and welcomed the Secretar iat's efforts to ameliorate the database and its 
functioning.  
72. The  representative of Japan also referred to two recent developments relating to such issues.  
The most recent of which was the statistics pert aining to anti-dumping actions on the WTO website.  
He indicated that such timely dissemination of info rmation to the world would always be useful and 
helpful.  Notably, given the recent economic cris is, Members would need quick and well presented   G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 11 
 
 
  information.  Despite being legitimate measures,  unwarranted use of anti-dumping measures should 
remain a reason for concern and should be avoided.      
73. The second development was the Director-Gener al's speech to the General Council on 
29 April 2009, at which he provided his comprehensive vision for the next four years.  The main areas 
referred to in that speech were delivering the ne gotiations, improving im plementation, building on 
coherence and boosting outreach.  The most important pa rt that would relate directly to work of the 
Committee was the part pertaining to improving implementation.  
74. The representative of Japan recited the follo wing quotations from the Director-General's 
speech on improving implementation: "When one looks  at the functions of the WTO, there is a 
striking contrast between the sophistication of the negotiations, the solidity of the Dispute Settlement 
Mechanism and the fragility of surv eillance and transparency, which is nevertheless one of the pillars 
of the multilateral trading system.  The mandates for notifications and peer review are there, but in my view not enough attention and resources have been gi ven to their implementation.  A certain lack of 
overall vision and of analytical capacity handicaps the surveillance function of the WTO.".  "But 
many committees register a poor record of notifications and — most importantly — of their quality 
and examination.".  "We have been collectively a b it lazy in this field.".  "We could also redesign 
notification formats so that they become multipur pose.".  "An improved surveillance process would 
surely increase trust in the system and avoid jamm ing the dispute settlement mechanism, through an 
"early warning" system.".  
75. The representative of Japan was of the view th at the Director-General had acknowledged in 
his speech the improvements in the notification format , and that the work done on notifications in the 
Committee was the first achievement of  his vision in this respect.   
76. To recap, the representative of Japan expressed the willingness and readiness of his 
delegation to engage in further cons ultations on the remaining two issues. 
77. The representative of  the United States
 indicated that she would look forward to exploring 
the ideas mentioned by the Chair as well as any ot her possible ideas to continue to improve the 
transparency and reporting requirements.  
78. The Chair  confirmed that such issues could benefit from further informal consultations which 
would be tackled by his successor.  
79. The Committee took note  of the statements.    
 F. 
CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI -CIRCUMVENTION  
80. The Chair  recalled that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention had met that morning.  He 
stated that while there was no paper submitted at this meeting, one Member posed a question on a 
possible anti-circumvention example pertaining to imports of padlocks and its parts.  There was no substantive discussion on this issue, and so it was proposed that Members continue to discuss this 
issue, if they so wished, at the next meeting of the Informal Group.        
81. Members also agreed that the work of the Informal Group should continue along the same 
lines as was the case up to now. 
82. On the date of the next meeting of the In formal Group, this was set for the week of 
2 November 2009 with the exact date to be confir med in due course.  The deadline for submissions 
for that meeting was set for 22 September 2009.   G/ADP/M/36 
Page 12  
 
  83. The Committee took note
 of the report.   
G. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
84. The Chair  recalled that the Working Group on Implementation had met that morning.  He 
indicated that although no papers were submitted fo r discussion in the Group prior to the circulation 
of the air gram convening the meeting of the Group, Egypt had, however , submitted papers on two 
issues currently under consideration in the Group, i.e. "Export Prices to Third Countries or 
Constructed Normal Value – Article 2.2" and "D etermination of Significant Price Undercutting – 
Article 3.2".  
85. At the meeting, Egypt introduced its papers  and several Members asked questions on its 
submissions and Egypt provided preliminary answers.   Some of the Members that posed questions 
indicated that they would submit further questions af ter they conduct a full review of Egypt's papers.  
86. In addition, Egypt proposed four new topics for discussion in the Group.  
87. In concluding, the Chair encouraged those Members that had not done so yet, to submit 
papers on the four topics actively under discussion in the Group and/or to propose new topics for discussion.  
88. On the date of the next meeting of the In formal Group, this was set for the week of 
2 November 2009 with the exact date to be confir med in due course.  The deadline for submissions 
for that meeting was set for 22 September 2009. 
89. The Committee took note
 of the report. 
H. OTHER BUSINESS  
 -  India's investigation against medium density fireboard board – requested by New Zealand  
 
90. The representative of New Zealand  expressed concern about some aspects of the Indian Anti-
Dumping Authority's investigation into imports into  India of medium density fireboard ("MDF") from 
China, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand and Sri La nka.  The primary concerns related to a lack of 
information on the public file (and, as a result, l ack of access to such information); a lack of 
opportunity for one New Zealand company, Nelson Pi ne, to defend its interests at a public hearing; 
and an apparent (and unjustified)  intention to treat Nelson Pine as a non-cooperating party to the 
investigation.    
91. He explained that this case was initiated in June 2008 and only one  New Zealand exporter 
was identified in the initiation report despite ther e being three New Zealand companies involved in 
exporting from New Zealand to India.  Once the New Zealand Trade Remedies Group received the 
papers via the New Zealand High Commission in Indi a, contact was made with the three exporters 
from New Zealand and they were advised to notify the Indian authorities of their interest in the case 
as exporters to ensure that they had the opportunity to participate as interested parties.  One company 
advised that its interests would be managed by its  parent company based in Malaysia, one company 
had received a questionnaire from its agent in India,  and the third company, Nelson Pine Industries 
Ltd., wrote to the Indian Authority on 3 July 2008 st ating that it would do its best to assist and provide 
the Indian Authority with all details required and ask ed that a questionnaire be sent to the company in 
order that it would become an interested party.  No  record of this letter could be found in the public 
file of this case.   G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 13 
 
 
  92. Despite hearing nothing from the Indian Aut hority, Nelson Pine followed up its letter of 
3 July with a fax on 20 August supplying some add itional information on its exports to India and the 
fact that its product was predominantly in a different  thickness range than that produced by the Indian 
MDF industry.  This fax referred to  the previous letter of 3 July and was recorded on a public file 
index at SI. No.7, Vol II.  Again, the company di d not receive a reply to this correspondence from the 
Indian Authority. 
93. The Indian Authority issued its Preliminary Finding Report on 2 February 2009 and only 
named one New Zealand exporter in that report, Ca rter Holt Harvey Limited, who had lodged a reply 
to the questionnaire, but also stated in its submissions that the biggest manufacturer of MDF in New Zealand was Nelson Pine.  Nelson Pine r esponded to the preliminary report by sending a 
comprehensive submission to the Indian Authorit y dated 6 April 2009, but still had not heard from the 
Indian Authority.  
94. The Indian Authority convened a public hear ing before the designated Authority on 
20 April 2009.  Nelson Pine instructed an advocat e, Mr. Aditya Narain, to attend the public hearing 
and represent it.  However, the designated Author ity refused to hear any oral submission from the 
advocate on the grounds that Nelson Pine had not fu rnished a reply "to the questionnaire format" and 
could not, therefore, be permitted to ma ke submissions at the public hearing.  
95. New Zealand had a range of concerns regarding the Indian Authority's practices in this case. 
The representative of New Zealand drew attention to  the inadequacy of the public file that the 
Authority had kept in this case.  The New Z ealand High Commission in New Delhi had regularly 
been visiting and updating New Zealand's records of what had been recorded.  Despite this 
investigation being in progress for nearly 11 months , as at 23 April there were only 28 documents in 
Volume 1.  Apart from a copy of the initiation noti ce and the petition,  all other documents appeared 
to have come from exporters or their representati ves.  On a recent visit to the Authority, the 
New Zealand High Commission discovered that there w as a second volume of the public file that had 
not been given access to.  This file appeared to have been started around July 2008 as the first 
document was a letter dated 4 July 2008.  Crucially , Nelson Pine's letter of 3 July 2008 requesting 
interested party status was not recorded, although its follow-up fax of 20 July referring to that letter 
was recorded and filed.   
96. An authority had an obligation under Article 6.4 of the Agreement to provide timely 
opportunities for all interested parties to see all info rmation relevant to the presentation of their cases 
that were not confidential and were used by the authorities in an anti-dumping investigation, and to 
prepare presentations on the basis of this information.   The public file in this case was sparse at best 
and did not contain one internal report made by the case investigators on such crucial topics as like 
goods analysis, a contentious issue in this case, le tters to exporters/importers, non-confidential copies 
of the preliminary report or notice of the public  hearing.  These documents would not contain 
confidential information or if they did, such in formation could be deleted and the documents placed 
on the public file.   
97. The representative of New Zealand indicated that  the conduct of a public hearing would be to 
allow all interested parties to have a full opportunity  to defend their interests, to meet those parties 
with adverse interests so that opposing views might be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.  The 
only caveat was contained in Article 6.3 of the Agre ement and that was that oral information should 
be taken into account by the authorities only in so  far as it was subsequently reproduced in writing 
and made available to interested parties.  It did not appear that the advocate for Nelson Pine had been 
afforded this opportunity and therefore it had impinged on Nelson Pine's rights to defend its interests.  
It appeared that Nelson Pine would now be treat ed as a non-cooperating party to this case, which on 
the evidence provided above could not be justified.  The company had gone out of its way to register G/ADP/M/36 
Page 14  
 
  its interest to no avail, and such treatment would, in New Zealand's view raise questions regarding the 
Indian Authority's compliance with th e provisions of the Agreement.   
98. The representative of New Zealand requested the Indian delegation to provide any 
explanations on this matter and to explain what stat us and treatment could Ne lson Pine expect in the 
remainder of the investigation and whether or not  its comprehensive submission of 6 April (over 
250 pages including attachments), in response to the Preliminary Report, would be taken into account 
when this case should proceed to the essential facts stages and subse quent final reporting.  He also 
requested an assurance from the Indian Authority that Nelson Pine's submission of 6 April would be taken into account and that it would have the status as an interested party.  
99. The representative of New Zealand added that if, however, the Indian Authority were to 
decide that Nelson Pine should be treated as a non-cooperating party for the remainder of this 
investigation, and would receive a residual rate of duty, he requested  the Indian delegation to advise 
as to what would be required and what procedures w ould be followed, including timeframes, to allow 
Nelson Pine to have an individual margin of dumping duty established for its exports.  
100. In summary, the representative of New Zeala nd indicated that on evidence provided and 
gathered by the New Zealand Authority, that Author ity was not convinced that this investigation was 
conducted by the Indian Authority with due regard to all the rules contained in the Agreement.  
New Zealand looked forward to a satisfactory explan ation of this apparent discrepancy, and in the 
interim reserved its rights to further pursue  the matter under the covered agreements.  
101. The representative of Malaysia
 indicated that Malaysia was one of the Members that were 
affected by the same investigation.  She expressed grave concerns with regard to the manner in which 
this matter was conducted and urged India to adhere and comply with the relevant rules of procedures 
in the Agreement.  She requested India to provide some clarification and explanation on this matter, 
especially on the issue concerning disclosure of confidential information that should be provided to the parties that would have a right to such informa tion.  Finally, Malaysia reserved the right to raise 
any other concerns on any other issues regardi ng this investigation at future meetings.  
102. The representative of Thailand
 shared the concerns expressed by New Zealand and Malaysia 
concerning some aspects of the Indian Anti-Dumpi ng Authority investigation on imports of its 
products to India.  Thailand observed that India ha d been an active user of the anti-dumping remedy 
instrument and that exporters from Thailand were  among those who were af fected by the imposition 
of anti-dumping measures by India.  In this regard , she requested to be ensured that the Indian 
practices in the initiation and review of the anti-du mping investigation would meet the standards of 
transparency and procedural fairness embodied within the requirements of the Agreement.  
103. The representative of the United States  shared the same concerns raised by the delegations of 
New Zealand, Malaysia and Thailand on transp arency and due process in Indian anti-dumping 
proceedings.  Limited access to complete non-c onfidential case records was a problem that the 
United States experienced in anti-dumping proceedings conducted by the Indian Anti-Dumping 
Authorities.  She urged India to take the appropria te steps to address these serious and apparently 
systemic issues.  
104. The representative of China  indicated that as one of the Members affected by this 
investigation, China shared the same concerns expr essed by other Members and requested to obtain a 
clarification from India in this regard and urged India to conduct this investigation in accordance with 
the provisions of the Agreement.  
105. The representative of the European Communities  indicated that the European Communities 
was not concerned by this specific investigation but by other investigati ons conducted against the  G/ADP/M/36 
 Page 15 
 
 
  European Communities by India.  He indicated that  he had listened very carefully to the remarks 
made by the affected Members and noted that the procedural differences seemed to be of a systemic nature.  He added that the European Communities w as faced by similar problems related to safeguards 
measures recently introduced against the European Communities.  He reiterated what he had already 
stated in the Committee on Subsidies and Counterva iling Measures, where he requested India to keep 
a balance in its use of trade remedy instruments and to apply procedural rules with due diligence.        
106. The representative of India
 indicated that he did not have much to say as the issues raised 
were mostly procedural and of a technical nature .  As he had received Ne w Zealand's questions only 
on the day prior to the meeting day, which also happened to be an election day on which all offices were closed, he was not able to obtain initial respon ses from Capital.  He stated that he would convey 
the various concerns to capital and try to obtain the necessary clarifications.  He also urged all 
delegations that intervened to provide him with their questions in writing.  
- Final dumping determination of the Turkish authorities against Spun Yarns made out of 
man-made fibre from India   
107. In the context of the final dumping determina tion of the Turkish Authorities against Spun 
Yarns made out of man-made fibre from India [2009/ 1 dated 12 January 2009], the representative of 
India  posed the following questions: 
(a) Would Turkey believe that any inves tigation on anti-dumping could address the 
issues of subsidy schemes without follow ing the disciplines of the Agreement on 
Subsidies & Countervailing Measures (the "ASCM")?  If yes, what would be the specific provision in the Agreement which permits such treatment? 
(b) Under which provision of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement, would Turkey consider that 
it could treat any tax neutralization scheme as a subsidy scheme without following the 
procedures of ASCM?   
(c) Could Turkey show how and where it had c onsidered the duty Drawback and Excise 
Rebate as a subsidy scheme under the ASCM? 
(d) Could Turkey show the legal provision under the Agreement where it was necessary 
for the exporter to demonstrate a direct transaction-wise link between the claimed amounts and the expenses claimed to have been incurred for the inputs used for production and sales for claiming an adjustme nt under Article 2.4 of the Agreement? 
(e) Could Turkey specifically point out to the format or the document which was 
addressed to the cooperating exporters wherei n details of the direct transaction-wise 
link between the claimed amounts and the expenses claimed to have been incurred for 
the inputs used for production and sales for claiming an adjustment under Article 2.4 of the Agreement were asked for? 
(f) Could Turkey demonstrate where during the proceedings it had fulfilled its 
obligations under the last sentence of Article 2.4 requiring that "The authorities shall 
indicate to the parties in question what in formation is necessary to ensure a fair 
comparison and shall not impose an unreasonable burden of proof on those Parties?"   
(g) What was the procedure followed by Turk ey to allow adjustment claimed by an 
exporter, within the meaning of Article 2.4, in respect of 'duty rebate', 'duty drawback', central excise rebate or a ny other duty neutralization availed from the 
export price or normal value for calculating the dumping margin?  G/ADP/M/36 
Page 16  
 
  (h) Could Turkey demonstrate the provision un der which it was permitted to take only 
the profitable sales into account for determining the reasonable level of profit under Article 2.2.2 of the Agreement for the purpose of constructed normal value? 
(i) Under which provision of the Agreement, c ould the concept of "ordinary course of 
trade" from Article 2.2.1 read with footnote 5 be borrowed for the purpose of 
Article 2.2.2? 
108. The representative of Turkey
 regretted that India took this issue to the Committee without 
asking any information or explanation from Turkey on this issue to date.  He indicated that Turkey 
had provided all flexibilities and sufficient opportuni ties for the Indian companies to cooperate and 
provide the information documents and to substantiate their claims.  He also referred to the public and 
confidential hearings held with interested parties and indicated that some of  the issues raised were 
also raised during the public hearings.  He added that all the information and verified documents and 
substantiated claims were take n into account during the investigation as explained in the final 
disclosure made pursuant to Article 6.9 of the Agreement and the public notices made pursuant to 
Article 12 of the Agreement.  Finally, he indicated that the reasons behind disregarding any 
adjustments or claims were also explained in th e final disclosures or in the public notices.   
109. The representative of India  thanked Turkey for the initial r esponses provided and requested a 
more detailed response in writing.  He expressed hi s readiness to provide the questions in writing.  
110. The representative of Turkey  reiterated that it would be possibl e to find some of the responses 
in the public notices and disclosures, but if India should circulate its questions in writing7, Turkey 
would be ready to supply its answers in writing too.8    
111. The Committee took note  of the questions, answers and statements.   
I. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
112. The Committee's autumn 2009 regular meeting was scheduled for the week of 
2 November 2009, with the exact date to be  communicated to Members in due course. 
J. ELECTIONS OF OFFICERS  
113. The Committee elected  by acclamation Mr. Pasquale De Micco (Italy) as Chair, and 
Mr. Matthew Wilson (Barbados) as Vice Chair, for the coming year.   
114. The Chair  thanked the Members for their engagement  in the work of the Committee and their 
support, as well as the Secretariat for its support, during his term. 
115. The meeting was closed .   
__________  
                                                      
7 Now circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/TUR/1 dated 19 May 2009. 
8 Now circulated in document G/ADP/Q2/TUR/2 dated 7 July 2009.