RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/38 
8 July 2010 
 (10-3729) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD 
ON 28 APRIL 2010 
 
Chair:  Mr. Adrián Serra (Argentina
) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
28 April 2010.    2. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3452:   
 
A.
 ELECTION OF OFFICERS ..............................................................................................................2  
B. 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 ).............................................................................................................2  
1. Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.3–G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.3) .......................................2  
2. Cambodia (G/ADP/N/1/KHM/1–G/SCM/N/1/KHM/1–G/SG/N/1/KHM/1) ........................2  
3. Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.6–G/SCM/N/JPN/2/Suppl.6–
G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.2)........................................................................................................ .2 
4. Norway (G/ADP/N/1/NOR/4/Corr.1–G/SCM/N/1/NOR/4/Corr.1-
G/SG/N/1/NOR/Corr.1 – English only)...................................................................................3  
5. Tonga (G/ADP/N/1/TON/1)......................................................................................................3  
6. Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/1) ...............................................................................................3  
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4).....................................4  
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ...............................................................11  
E. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION .......................................................................................................................12  
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION .............12  
G. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................12  
H. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................................13  G/ADP/M/38 
Page 2  
 
  A. E
LECTION OF OFFICERS  
3. Mr. Johann Human , the Director of the Rules Division, took the floor to draw Members' 
attention to the fact that Mr. Pasquale de Mi cco (Italy), the outgoing Chair of the Committee had 
already left Geneva and that Mr. Mathew Wilson (Barbados), the outgoing Vice-Chair had joined the 
WTO Secretariat at the beginning of 2010.  Mr. Hu man referred to the Council for Trade in Goods' 
agreement on a slate of Chairs for the different  subsidiary bodies operating under its auspices, 
including the nomination of Mr. Adrián Serra of Argentina as the Chair of the Committee. 
 4. The Committee elected
 by acclamation Mr. Adrián Serra (Argentina) as Chair to hold office 
until the end of the Committee's spring meeting of 2011.  
 
5. The Chair  thanked the Members for their confidence and hoped that with Members' guidance, 
help and cooperation he could successfully fu lfil his task as Chair of the Committee. 
 6. The Chair proposed the election of Mr. Ben Czapnik (Australia) as Vice-Chair of the 
Committee.  The Committee elected
 by acclamation Mr. Czapnik as Vi ce-Chair to hold office until 
the end of the Committee's spring meeting of 2011.   7. The Chair referred to the list of names and c ontact details of delegations' representatives 
consolidated by the Secretariat and requested Me mbers that have not yet done so to provide the 
Secretariat with the names and contact details  of their representatives who attend the Committee 
meetings.  He also encouraged Members to provide the Secretariat with any updates, as necessary.   
 B. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION 
OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE (INCLUDING 
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTIFICATIONS OF EXISTING PROVISIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED ) 
1. Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.3–G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.3) 
8. No written questions concerning the notification of Brazil  were posed by any Member. 
 
2. Cambodia (G/ADP/N/1/KHM/1–G/SCM/N/1/KHM/1–G/SG/N/1/KHM/1) 
9. No written questions concerning the notification of Cambodia  were posed by any Member. 
 3. Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.6–G/SCM/N/JPN/2/Suppl.6–G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.2) 
10. The representative of Japan made a general introductory statement in which he emphasized 
that the Japanese Government undertook reviews in 2008 on the system of trade remedies in light of 
the recent experiences of the Japanese Investigat ing Authorities.  As a result, the Japanese 
Government published the amendments  of relevant articles of the re lated laws under the system of 
trade remedies which entered into force as of 1 April 2009.  Japan subsequently notified the 
amendments in accordance with the WTO Agreem ents (i.e. Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, Article 32.6 of the Subsidies and C ountervailing Measures Agreement and Article 12.6 of 
the Safeguards Agreement).  He added that several  procedural reforms were undertaken to achieve, 
among other things, enhanced efficiency and tr ansparency under the framework of the WTO 
Agreements and which would be fully consistent w ith such agreements.  That included, among other 
things, the clarification of "sufficient evidence"  to initiate an investigation where information 
reasonably available would be sufficient to sa tisfy the requirement;  the timeframe for the 
determination to initiate an inves tigation in response to an application, i.e. normally two months;  
enhanced participation of consum er groups and industry users in the procedures;  provision of a 
standard timeframe for the overall investigating pr ocess;  establishment of procedures for preliminary  G/ADP/M/38 
 Page 3 
 
 
  determination and the introduction of  standardized questionnaires.  He finally indicated that these 
were just illustrative examples of the procedural reforms.     
11. The written questions concerning the notification of Japan  could be found in the following 
document: 
 
G/ADP/Q1/JPN/14 – G/SCM/Q1/JPN/14 – Submitted by the United States 
 12. The written answers to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 
   G/ADP/Q1/JPN/15 – G/SCM/Q1/JPN/15 – Replies to the United States  
4. Norway (G/ADP/N/1/NOR/4/Corr.1–G/SCM/ N/1/NOR/4/Corr.1-G/SG/N/1/NOR/Corr.1 
– English only) 
13. No written questions concerning the notification of Norway  were posed by any Member. 
 
5. Tonga (G/ADP/N/1/TON/1) 
14. No written questions concerning the notification of Tonga  were posed by any Member. 
 
6. Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/1) 
15. The written questions concerning the notification of Viet Nam  could be found in the 
following document:  
G/ADP/Q1/VNM/1 – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/1 – Submitted by the United States 
 
16. The written answers to these questions coul d be found in the following document: 
 
G/ADP/Q1/VNM/2 – G/SCM/Q1/VNM/2 – Replies to the United States 
 17. The Chair
 touched upon the issue of previously reviewed legislative notifications.  He 
indicated that, in accordance w ith the procedures agreed upon by  the Committee (G/ADP/W/284), 
Members desiring to put any previously-reviewed legislative notification on the agenda of this 
meeting for further review were to have submitted questions in writing to the notifying Member and 
to the Secretariat not later than 15 March 2010.  The Chair noted that, as indicated in the draft 
annotated agenda conveyed to Members on 19 March 2010, no Member had posed questions 
regarding any previously reviewed legislative notifi cation.  Thus, the item pertaining to the continued 
review of previously reviewed notifications of le gislation or regulations was not placed on the agenda 
for this meeting.   
18. The Chair reminded Members that any questions concerning the reviewed legislation at this 
meeting for which a written answer was desired had to be submitted in writing to the Member 
concerned with a copy to the Secretariat not la ter than close of business on 17 May 2010.  Written 
answers to all questions submitted in writing had to  be submitted not later than close of business on 
7 June 2010.   
19. For the autumn 2010 meeting, in accordance with  the Committee's agreed procedures, all new 
legislative notifications which would be circulated in all three languages at least six weeks before the 
meeting, i.e., by 13 September 2010, would be placed on the 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.   G/ADP/M/38 
Page 4  
 
  20. The Chair noted that one new legislative notifi cation was submitted by Guyana and circulated 
in document G/ADP/N/1/GUY/1.  As this notificati on was received after the deadline for review at 
this meeting, it would be placed on the agenda of  the autumn 2010 Committee meeting for review.  
Written questions concerning this and any other new
 legislative notifications would need to be 
submitted not less than three weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 4 October 2010.   
21. 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 weeks before the meeting, i.e., by 13 September 2010.  
Written answers should also be submitted in  advance, i.e. by 11 October 2010.1   
22. 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 
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.   
23. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions, answers and statements.   
C. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS (ARTICLE 16.4) 
 - Review of Semi-Annual Reports (G/ADP/N/195) 
 
24. The Chair  recalled that a request for semi-annual reports for the sec ond half of 2009 and a 
reminder in this respect, with a due date of 12 March 2010, had been circulated in documents 
G/ADP/N/195 and G/ADP/N/195/Suppl.1 dated 15 Janua ry 2010 and 22 February 2010, respectively.  
He indicated that it appeared that most Memb ers taking anti-dumping actions during the period in 
question had submitted a semi-annual report.  He  reminded those Members taking no anti-dumping 
actions that all that was necessary was to submit a simple letter to that effect twice per year.  He 
clarified that this would not apply to those Members that have already submitted a one-time 
notification under Articles 16.4 and 16.5 of the ADA.  
25. For those Members reporting anti-dumping actions, the Chair emphasized the importance of 
submitting these notifications on a timely basis.  He added that many of the reports for this period 
arrived after the deadline, some significantly so .  He explained that although circulating and 
translating such late reports were always problematic  in the past, it became certainly more so since 
Members started using the new semi-annual reports  format contained in document G/ADP/1/Rev.1.  
He clarified that certain technical problems pertaini ng to the data provided or lack thereof arose, and 
Members - even those providing their reports by th e deadline - had to be requested to revise their 
reports and resubmit them once more.  Needless to say , if the reports were already arriving long after 
the set deadline, this would certainly have a negativ e impact on the translation and circulation of such 
documents.  He emphasized that circulating th e semi-annual reports in all three languages - 
sufficiently before the meeting at which such reports were to be reviewed - would allow Members to 
study them, and to formulate any questions which would in turn contribute to the quality of the Committee's discussion.  It would also constitute an important part of the transparency function that these reports were intended to fulfil.  The Chair, ther efore, encouraged all Members to make an effort 
to submit their semi-annual reports on time.  
                                                     
 
1 All deadlines are contained in document G/ADP/W/481–G/SCM/W/552–G/SG/W/214 dated 
4 May 2010.  G/ADP/M/38 
 Page 5 
 
 
  26. The Chair noted that Members were free to ra ise questions about any semi-annual reports for 
past periods that were not already reviewed by the Committee due to late submission.  In this context, 
he recalled that three Members, namely the Euro pean Union, India, and Pakistan were in an 
exceptional situation at the last Committee meeting.   Although they had at the time submitted their 
semi-annual reports, these reports were not circulated  for review at the last meeting due to certain 
technical modifications which those Members need ed to introduce to their reports to become 
compatible with the new semi-annual report format.  He indicated that these three Members had since 
submitted their semi-annual reports for the first ha lf of 2009 after introducing the necessary technical 
corrections.  He indicated that the Committee would revert to these reports after the review of the 
semi-annual reports for the period July – December 2009, to be followed by any comments Members 
would wish to raise regarding any previous semi-a nnual reports for a past period that were not yet 
reviewed by the Committee. 
27. The Chair also drew Members' attention to paragraph 5 which had b een added to document 
G/ADP/N/195/Add.1.  He noted that this paragra ph listed those Members that had used the new one-
time notification format, adopted by the Committee on 21 October 2009 and circulated in document 
G/ADP/19 dated 3 November 2009, to indicate that they had neither established an investigating 
authority nor taken any anti-dumping actions.  In this  context, the Chair informed Members that, as 
mandated by the Committee, the Secretariat had contact ed all Members that fall in this category to 
explain the background of the adopted one-time no tification format and had provided the necessary 
technical assistance on how to use it.  So far, only the 17 Members listed in paragraph 5 of the 
document had provided this notification, while  Belize submitted its notification following the 
circulation of the document.  All such notifica tions were contained in the G/ADP/N/193 document 
series.  He added that the Secretariat would remain in constant contact with the relevant Members to provide any necessary assistance that could facilitate  the submission of the said notification.   
28. The Chair pointed out that there was a signi ficant number of Members, as identified in 
paragraphs 3 and 4 of document G/ ADP/N/195/Add.1, that had not responded to the request for semi-
annual reports.  This applied to all Members, wh ether or not they had taken anti-dumping actions 
during the period in question, except for those Members that had already submitted a one-time 
notification.  He urged Members to comply w ith this important notification requirement.   
29. The Committee conducted the review of the se mi-annual reports which were submitted and 
circulated for the second half of 2009.  No Member raised questions or made comments concerning the semi-annual reports of the following Members:   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
Egypt, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, 
Philippines, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thaila nd, Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela.   
30. Concerning the semi-annual report of Argentina , the representative of Peru
 took note of 
Argentina's semi-annual report contained in documen t G/ADP/N/195/ARG/Rev.1.  She referred to the 
imposition of anti-dumping duties on zippers from Peru which was included in the semi-annual report.  
She reiterated the concern of her authorities, in pa rticular with regard to several components of 
Argentina's decisions to initiate an investigation, and to impose provisional and definitive duties.  She 
indicated that Peru viewed such decisions as inco nsistent with the various obligations established 
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  She added that  unfortunately, to date, Argentina had not yet 
responded satisfactorily to these concerns, including the claim for reconsideration of those decisions 
presented by the company concerned.  Since last Oc tober, Peru had received no response with respect 
to that reconsideration proceeding from the competent authority in Argentina and in view of this, Peru 
would like to alert Argentina to the fact that Peru would be requesting formal consultations in the near 
future pertaining to this issue pursuant to the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  The representative 
of Peru finally hoped that such consultations w ould yield a satisfactory result for both parties.   G/ADP/M/38 
Page 6  
 
  31. The representative of Argentina
 took note of Peru's concerns and indicated that the 
investigation carried out regarding zippers origina ting from Peru was in full compliance with all anti-
dumping provisions.  
32. On the semi-annual report of China , the representative of the United States  posed two 
questions regarding measures imposed by China on imports from the United States.  Both questions 
related to the issue of all others rate.  The firs t question pertained to the anti-dumping investigation 
concerning the product Polyamide-6 from the Unite d States where China's semi-annual report 
identified the margin for all others rate as 96.5 per cent, while the notice of preliminary determination 
issued on 19 October 2009 announced an all others rate of 36.2 per cent.  She requested China to 
confirm whether the 36.2 per cent all others rate was the correct figure for the preliminary 
determination and that the 96.5 per cent was actua lly the all others rate applied in the final 
determination which was issued in April 2010.  In  case that was correct, the representative of the 
United States requested China to explain why the al l others rate increased so significantly from the 
preliminary determination to the final determina tion when the margins for the responding companies 
did not change at all from the preliminary to the final determination.   
33. The second question posed by the representative of the United States pertained to the fact that 
China was not routinely providing sufficiently de tailed disclosures of its actual dumping margin 
calculations and therefore the ability of parties to fully understand the methodology that China 
employed, was very difficult.  For example, in the recently completed anti-dumping investigation on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel , the all others rate increased from 25 per cent in the 
preliminary determination to 64.8 per cent in th e final determination when at the same time the 
calculated dumping margins for the responding companies changed only very slightly.  She thus 
requested China to explain in detail how it determ ined the all others rate in its anti-dumping 
investigations, as this did not seem to be at all clear. 
34. The representative of China
 indicated that in case of the product Polyamide-6, the final 
determination for all others which appeared in the semi-annual report as 96.5 per cent was merely a 
typing error.2  Pursuant to China's anti-dumping regulation,  all others rate could be applied to the 
company which would not respond during the investiga tion.  He indicated that all others rate was 
different from what was prescribed in Article 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In the two cases 
mentioned by the United States, all others rate s were imposed for the companies which did not 
respond and all others rates calculated, based on facts available, were applied.  After verification, the 
Chinese Investigating Authority found more informati on, recalculated all others rates, and all such 
information was disclosed to all interested parties. 
35. In reaction to the responses provided by Ch ina, the representative of the United States  pointed 
out that, while China might had calculated all others  rates based on facts available, the contents of 
such facts were not disclosed and that the Unite d States would appreciate a disclosure of such 
information.  
36. The representative of China  requested the United States to provide written questions in due 
course and that China would reply in a written form accordingly.  
37. Concerning the semi-annual report of Costa Rica , the Chair  drew Members' attention to the 
written questions posed by Brazil3 to this report and called upon Cost Rica to provide its answers in 
this regard.   
                                                      
2 A corrigendum was issued in this regard upon the request of China and is now contained in document 
G/ADP/N/195/CHN/Corr.1. 
3 G/ADP/W/478.  G/ADP/M/38 
 Page 7 
 
 
  38. The representative of Costa Rica  thanked Brazil for the questions and indicated that they had 
been conveyed to Capital.  He added that unfort unately, as these questions were recently received, 
Costa Rica was not yet able to provide the answers.   However, on a preliminary basis, he indicated 
that the Government of Brazil, its exporters and importers under investigation were able to fully 
defend themselves in the context of this proceeding.  He added that Costa Rica and Brazil have held 
bilateral consultations on this issue and that Costa Rica was fully available and ready to pursue such 
consultations as necessary.  He st ated that Costa Rica would provid e its answers in writing as soon as 
possible.4   
39. The representative of Brazil  thanked Costa Rica for the responses received through bilateral 
channels.  She indicated that Brazil requested a bila teral meeting which had been  held in the week of 
26 April 2010 and described the meeting as fruitful.  Sh e indicated that she wish ed to clarify an issue 
pertaining to the case of Canned Tuna.  She explained that following the receipt by Costa Rica's investigating authority of a duly documented request  in this case, the Brazilian Government had been 
notified pursuant to Article 5.5 of the Anti-dum ping Agreement.  However, once Costa Rica had 
assessed the merits of the case and initiated the inv estigation, it had communicated only with the 
exporters and not with the governme nt.  She added that Brazil was able to defend its interests fully, 
but that had been due to the fact that the Br azilian exporters had kept the Brazilian Government 
posted of developments.  Following that, Brazil got in touch with Costa Rica to clarify that under 
Article 6.3  of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Brazil was of  the view that due process had not been 
followed.  Brazil was surprised when informed by Costa Rica that it had fully complied with 
provisions of its domestic legislation, which w ould raise the question of whether Costa Rica's 
domestic legislation was fully in compliance with th e Article 6.1.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  
It would also be useful to ask the investigating auth ority to take a fresh look at its obligations pursuant 
to Article 6.1.3 to ensure that it was consistent  with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  She finally 
indicated that at the bilateral meeting, Costa Rica confirmed that it had already raised this issue in 
Capital.   
40. On the semi-annual report of the European Union , the representative of China
 expressed 
two concerns with respect to the notified Seam less Steel Pipe anti-dumping investigation against 
China.  In this investigation, the European Co mmission initiated the investigation on the basis of 
threat of injury and decided to apply final anti-dumping measures based  on threat of injury as well.  
China believed that to be inconsistent with the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Meanwhile, China noticed 
that there was a significant increase of threat of inju ry determinations over the past two years.  The 
representative of China expressed concern regarding this momentum of lowering the standards of 
finding threat of injury as required by the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
41. The representative of China added that Article s 3.1 and 3.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement 
would also require a high standard for the authorities to find threat of injury;  i.e. the finding must be based on facts and not mere conjecture;  the change in circumstances must be clearly foreseen and 
imminent; and there must be a likelihood of subs tantially increased imports.  Several WTO panels 
have confirmed these strict standards.  She urged all Members, including the European Union, to be 
more prudent and strictly follow these requirement s in making injury determinations in future 
investigations.  
42. The representative of China also raised the i ssue of the European Commission's rejection to 
accept the price undertakings suggested  by the Chinese side in the same investigation.  She noted that 
the Commission had already rejected a couple of price undertakings in certain anti-dumping investigations it had initiated against Chinese products in the past two years.  Although Article 8.3 of 
the Anti-dumping Agreement allows the investigati ng authorities not to accept the price undertakings 
if they consider the acceptance impractical for certain reasons, China still hoped that the 
                                                     
 
4 G/ADP/W/482. G/ADP/M/38 
Page 8  
 
  European Union could give special regard to th e special situation of developing country Members 
when considering the application of anti-dumping measures.  The representative of China referred to 
Article 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement and the requirement that possibilities of constructive 
remedies be explored before applying anti-dum ping duties where they would affect the essential 
interests of developing country Members.  She added that price undertakings were one of the 
constructive remedies that should be explored. 
43. The representative of the European Union
 indicated that with respect to the Seamless Steel 
Pipe anti-dumping investigation and the price undertak ings issue, he was not in a position to reply to 
the questions posed by China and requested to re ceive such questions in writing and that responses 
would be provided in due course.  
44. The representative of China  stated that her delegation would provide the questions posed in a 
written form and would look forward to the written answers of the European Union. 
45. Concerning the semi-annual report of India , the representative of the United States  noted that 
this semi-annual report had just been received and wished to remind India of the importance of the 
timely submissions of these reports.  She stated th at it was particularly important for Members that 
were frequent users of the trade remedy to submit th eir reports on a timely basis and that failure to do 
so would lead to a lack of transparency wh ich could have an imme diate impact on exporting 
companies and Members.  She added that the United States was particularly concerned about India's late filing of its semi-annual report because India had been conducting several anti-dumping 
proceedings involving exports from the United States .  She thus urged India to submit its semi-annual 
reports by the deadlines set by the Secretariat.  
46. The representative of India
 took note of the United States' comment and indicated that he 
would convey it to Capital. 
47. Although no Member made any comments or po sed questions pertaining to the semi-annual 
report of Japan , the representative of Japan  drew Members' attention once more to Japan's 
supplementary document G/ADP/N/188/JPN/Supp1. 1 dated 3 September 2009 which was introduced 
at the October 2009 meeting of the Committee.  He explained that Japan had voluntarily submitted 
detailed information with regard to definitive an ti-dumping measures in force as of 30 June 2009 for 
the purpose of improving transparency and cont ributing to the collection of necessary data for 
Members and the Secretariat and that the Chai r of the Committee at the time had encouraged 
Members to follow Japan's example.  He hoped that  the Committee would continue to do its best 
efforts in this regard and expressed Japan's appreciati on for the hard work of the Secretariat in helping 
Members with the submission of their notifications based on the new format of the anti-dumping semi-annual reports, as well as the one-time notification format. 
48. The Chair
 indicated that he was sure that all Members were truly cognizant of the huge effort 
towards transparency that the supplementary re port submitted by Japan represented and encouraged 
all Members to follow, to the extent possibl e, Japan's example in this regard.    
49. On the semi-annual report of Turkey , the representative of Egypt  indicated that on 
25 July 2009, Turkey initiated an  anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of wall-type 
split air conditioners and outdoor units of wall-type  split air conditioners.  Following the initiation of 
the investigation, the Egyptian authorities regist ered their interest and Egyptian producers and 
exporters of the product concerned re plied to the questionnaire issued by the Turkish Authorities.  He 
added that as nine months had already passed since the initiation of the investigation and neither the 
Egyptian authorities nor cooperating exporting producer s and exporters had re ceived any information 
from the Turkish Investigating Authorities in recent months, he requested Turkey to provide an update  G/ADP/M/38 
 Page 9 
 
 
  with respect to the state of the investigation and, in particular, on when the Turkish Authorities were 
expected to conclude this investigation. 
50. The representative of Turkey  indicated that due to the absence of her anti-circumvention 
colleagues, she would take note of the qu estion posed and convey it to Capital. 
51. The representative of Egypt  indicated that he would be submitting the question posed in a 
written form.           
52. Concerning the semi-annual report of Ukraine , the Chair drew Members' attention to the 
questions posed by Brazil regarding this report5 and the answers submitted by Ukraine in this respect.6  
53. The representative of Brazil  thanked Ukraine for providing quick answers to Brazil's 
questions.  However, she indicated that Brazil was not  completely satisfied with the answers provided.  
She pointed out that at the Committee's last mee ting in October, Brazil had requested Ukraine to 
provide some information regarding the investig ations opened in March 2009 on halves and quarters 
of domestic hens as well as legs and their parts from Brazil and also from the United States.  According to the report submitted by Ukraine, ther e was only a communication that the investigation 
was opened, but there was no data regarding im port volume or import volume as a percentage of 
apparent domestic consumption or as a percentage of total imports (columns 9 and 10 of the semi-
annual report of Ukraine).  She added that Brazil was aware that such data was not obligatory in this 
context, but this lack of transparency had disrupted  the Brazilian trade with Ukraine, as there had been 
zero exports of those products from Brazil to Ukraine.   She stated that Braz il believed that as its 
volume of exports in this regard was below neglig ible (as it was below 3 per cent), no measure would 
be imposed against Brazil.  However, although th e question posed by the Brazilian private sector 
regarding the time-period the Ukrainian Investiga ting Authorities considered for this investigation 
was answered, the question of the volumes remained  unanswered.  According to the data obtained 
from the Brazilian Embassy in Ukraine, based on Ukra ine's official data, Brazil's exports were below 
the 3 per cent threshold, an issue that was raised in  bilateral consultations, but  no concrete answer was 
given.  The representative of Brazil requested Ukrain e, as the investigation was initiated one year ago, 
to provide any indication as to whether the exports of  Brazil of this product were below 3 per cent.   
54. The representative of Ukraine
 stated that as required by the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 
Ukraine had notified all the measures it imposed.  She added that Ukraine had recently received 
Brazil's questions and had already provided all the answ ers.  She added that the investigation was still 
ongoing in accordance with the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and the national legislation of Ukraine.  
The Intergovernmental Commission on International Trade of Ukraine was carrying out the detailed 
analysis of the customs statistics of the volume of imports of poultry, its halv es and quarters, legs and 
its parts to Ukraine, and that the Governme nt of Ukraine would notify the Committee on Anti-
dumping Practices and other interested parties of the results of the investigation.   
55. On the semi-annual report of the United  States , the representative of China  expressed 
concern with respect to the United States Departme nt of Commerce's (the "USDOC") inappropriate 
choice of surrogate values or surrogate compani es in the notified anti-dumping investigation with 
respect to the Oil Country Tubular Goods ("OCTG") from China.  In its preliminary 
determination ，the USDOC rejected to choose the surrogate  financial ratio of "ISMT", an Indian 
OCTG producer whose products' structure and manuf acturing experience were very similar to the 
mandatory respondents in this case.  Instead, the US DOC used the financial ratio of "Tata", another 
Indian pipe producer, who actually did not pr oduce the product under investigation at all.  
Furthermore, "Tata" had been found by the USDOC to have received subsidies provided by the 
                                                      
5 G/ADP/W/479. 
6 G/ADP/W/480. G/ADP/M/38 
Page 10  
 
  Indian government in a r ecent countervailing duty inves tigation.  Therefore, the financial ratio of this 
company was not appropriate to be used as the surrogate value to calcula te normal value and the 
inclusion of its financial data was not in line  with the USDOC's long-est ablished precedents and 
principles, and was also inconsistent with each paragraph of Article 2. 2.2 of the Anti-dumping 
Agreement.  The representative of China requ ested the United States to provide some initial 
comments on this.  
56. The representative of China indicated that the provisions of Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-dumping 
Agreement were most analogous and applicable to the information being used in the calculation of 
normal value.  He hoped that in future anti-dumpi ng investigations, the United States would strictly 
follow the principles of the Anti-dumping Agreement in choosing surrogate values, so as to guarantee 
the accuracy and fairness of the anti-dumping investigations.  
57. The representative of the United States
 indicated that this was a specific and technical 
question about a specific case and she noted that th e comments appeared to concern the preliminary 
decision, although the USDOC had already issued the final decision.  She added that unfortunately she would not be able to answer this specific questio n at the meeting, but would be happy to do so if 
the question was submitted to the United States in wr iting.  She finally noted that she was confident 
that the decision was fully in compliance w ith the Anti-Dumping Agreement.      
58. The representative of China 
confirmed that China had realized  that a final determination was 
issued.  However, in its final determination, the USDOC had used part of "Tata's" data as surrogate 
value to calculate the normal value, and thus the problem would remain unresolved.  She indicated that China would submit its questions in writing an d that it would look forward to receiving the 
United States' comments in a written form as well.       
59. On the semi-annual report of the United States , the representative of Japan
 also made a 
comment regarding certain measures imposed by the United States on pages 52 and 53 of the report.  
He indicated that one anti-dumping measure had been imposed since 1973 and another since 1978.  He inquired how companies could be able to con tinue dumping and causing injury for more than 
30 years.  He stated that among twenty measures against products from Japan, two measures were in 
place since the seventies, five measures since the ei ghties, and six measures since the nineties.  He 
was of the view that many other Members have been  in similar situations, notably after the late-
eighties.  He emphasized that Japan was not raisi ng this issue to start a discussion on how Members 
address the issue of sunset, but it was merely to em phasize the same point made by Japan at the last 
Committee meeting in October 2009. 
60. The representative of the United States
 indicated that she heard such comments before and 
that the United States was also concerned that comp anies could continue to dump and cause injury for 
thirty years. 
61. The Chair  then opened the floor for comments and questions on the three semi-annual reports 
of the European Union, India and Pakistan for the first half of 2009 and contained in documents 
G/ADP/N/188/EEC, G/ADP/N/188/IND, G/ADP/N/188/PAK.  No comments or questions were 
posed with respect to the semi-annual repor ts of the European Union and Pakistan. 
62. On the semi-annual report of India contained in document  G/ADP/N/188/IND , the 
representative of the United States  posed a question regarding Potassium Carbonate from the 
United States.  She indicated that the United States understood that India had terminated the 
investigation in January 2009, but this was not yet reported and requested India to confirm that this 
was the case.  G/ADP/M/38 
 Page 11 
 
 
  63. The representative of India  stated that he would consult with Capital with respect to the status 
of this investigation and get back to the United States. 
64. Finally, the Chair  opened the floor for comments or questions to be posed by Members with 
respect to any other semi-annual reports which we re not previously reviewed by the Committee 
because they arrived after the meeting at which th e reports for a given period were reviewed.  No 
Member took the floor in this regard. 
65. The Committee took note  of the semi-annual reports, the statements made, the questions 
posed and the answers provided.         
D. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS  
66. The Chair  referred to the lists of the notificati ons of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions, submitted by Members since the Committ ee's last meeting, contained in documents 
G/ADP/N/192 & G/ADP/N/194 and G/ADP/N/196-199.  He indicated that during this period, Argentina;  Brazil;  Canada;  China;  Egypt;  the Eu ropean Union;  Mexico;  New Zealand;  Pakistan;  
Panama;  Paraguay;  Peru;  Philippines;  South Afri ca;  Turkey;  Ukraine;  and the United States had 
notified preliminary and/or final anti-dumping acti ons.  He noted that since document G/ADP/N/195 
had been circulated, Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  Jamaica;  Mexico;  Sout h Africa;  Turkey;  and 
the United States had submitted notifications, which w ould appear in the next list circulated by the 
Secretariat.            
67. The Chair drew Members' attention to the con tinued apparent lack of full compliance with 
this notification requirement.  In particular, co mparing the semi-annual reports with these lists of 
actions taken, it appeared that some Members had reported anti-dumping actions in progress in their 
semi-annual reports, but had not subm itted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  The Chair 
emphasized that these reports had always been a key element of the required transparency concerning 
Members' anti-dumping actions, and that the Committ ee could not effectively carry out its monitoring 
and discussion functions if Members did not fulfil their obligations in this regard.  The Chair, like all 
his predecessors, strongly urged all Members taking anti-dumping actions to provide such notification 
of preliminary and final actions, cons istently and in a timely fashion.  In this regard, he noted that the 
minimum information format for these notifica tions, which was adopted by the Committee in 
October 2006 and revised in October 2009
7, contained important guidance as to the kinds of actions 
that should be notified and the information which should be provided.  
68. No Member addressed any of the notifications under review at the meeting. 
69. The representative of the United States  recalled that as these submissions were to be made 
electronically in accordance with the decision a dopted by the Committee on 21 October 2009 and 
contained in document G/ADP/20, she requested the S ecretariat to consider modifying the chapeau to 
its periodic summary of reports that Members submitted under Article 16.4 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, to make it clear that the reports w ould be available electronically, rather than only 
through physical inspection at the WTO Secretariat.    
70. The Chair  opened the floor for comments in this rega rd, but no Member took the floor.  As no 
objection was made, the Chair requested the Secr etariat to do the necessary to accommodate this 
request.    
71. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
                                                      
7 G/ADP/2/Rev.2. G/ADP/M/38 
Page 12  
 
  E. C
HAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION  
72. The Chair  reported that the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention met on 28 April 2010 and 
that no new papers had been subm itted by Members for discussion at this meeting.  He indicated that 
Members agreed that the work in this Informal Group should continue along the same lines as in 
previous years.  
73. On the date of the next meeting of the Informal Group, the Chair stated that it had been set for 
the week of 25 October 2010 with the exact date to  be confirmed in due course.  The deadline for 
submissions for that meeting would be 13 September 2010. 
74. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
75. The Committee took note  of the Chair's report. 
F. CHAIR 'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
76. The Chair  reported that the Working Group on Implementation met on 28 April 2010 and that 
the Group had only one paper on its agenda;  i.e. the paper submitted by Korea regarding sunset 
reviews.  After Korea introduced its paper, many  Members made comments about their own practices 
and asked questions regarding Korea's practice in su nset reviews.  Korea provided preliminary replies 
to these questions. 
77. Some delegations stated that since Korea's pa per had been circulated shortly before the 
Group's meeting, they did not have enough time to fully analyse it.  They indicated that they would come back with more comments and questions.  The Chair stated that Korea's paper would appear on 
the agenda of the Group's autumn meeting. 
78. In concluding the meeting, the Chair encour aged other Members to submit papers on the 
nine topics under discussion in the Group. 
79. On the date of the next meeting, the Group agr eed to schedule its next meeting for the week 
of 25 October 2010, with the exact  date to be confirmed later. 
80. No delegation took the floor with respect to the Chair's report. 
81. The Committee took note
 of the Chair's report. 
G. OTHER BUSINESS  
82. The representative of Turkey  stated that Indonesia had initiated an investigation on 
17 November 2008 on Wheat Flour originating in Au stralia, Sri Lanka, and Turkey.  The last semi-
annual report of Indonesia contained no indication about the current status of this investigation.  
Turkey had raised this issue at the last Committ ee meeting and had also pos ed written questions to 
Indonesia in this respect, but no answer had been received from Indonesia to date.  He added that 
although Turkey had serious concerns regarding th e procedural and technical aspects of this 
investigation, he would not raise those concerns at this stage.  He requested Indonesia to provide any 
information regarding the current status of this investigation and indicated that Turkey would look 
forward to receiving Indonesia's semi-annual report.   
83. The Representative of Indonesia  indicated that with respect to the Wheat Flour case, the 
Indonesian Investigating Authority had recently indi cated that the final disclosure was issued in 
December 2009.  With respect to the imposition, ho wever, the investigating authority was awaiting a  G/ADP/M/38 
 Page 13 
 
 
  decision by the Ministry of Finance, after which it w ould inform the interested parties.  On the semi-
annual report, he explained that Indonesia had cond ucted consultations with the Secretariat regarding 
the new format of the semi-annual reports and th at Indonesia was accordingly formulating its semi-
annual report.  
84. The Chair  raised the issue of the informal consulta tions to be conducted, upon the request of 
some Members, on Annexes D and E of the Committee's annual report. 
85. The Chair recalled that at the Committee's meeting held on 21 October 2009, the 
United States, supported by Canada, had requested the deletion of Annex E of the Committee's annual 
report.  The United States had also made an inquiry pertaining to Annex D of the report.  The Chair recalled that his predecessor had indicated that di scussions pertaining to these two annexes would be 
conducted on the margin of this meeting in orde r to have a more comprehensive discussion and to 
entertain Members' comments in this respect.    
86. The Chair informed the Committee that he would hold informal consultations on these 
matters, to which Members of the Committee would be  invited, either prior to or after the summer 
break, and that he would request the Secretariat to  inform Members of the exact date and venue of 
these consultations in due course. 
H. D
ATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
87. The Committee's autumn 2010 regular meeting was scheduled for the week of 
25 October 2010, with the exact date to be communicated to Members in due course.   
88. The meeting was closed .   
 
 
 
__________