WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/ADP/Q2/CHN/8 
4 November 2011 
 (11-5613) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
 
ARTICLE 16.4 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies from China to Questions Posed by UNITED STATES1  
Regarding the Semi-Annual Report of CHINA2 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 17 October 2011, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of China.  
_______________ 
 
Question 1 
 
 In the investigation of polyamide-6 from the United States, China's semi-annual report 
identifies the range of provisional dumping margins as 29.3 to 36.2 per cent and the provisional all-others rate as 96.5 per cent.  The prelimin ary determination, issued on 19 October 2009, 
announced provisional dumping margins ranging from 30.4 to 36.2 per cent and an all-others 
rate of 36.2 per cent.  The United States ra ised this discrepancy at the Spring Committee 
meeting and China subsequently subm itted a corrected semi-annual report 
(G/ADP/N/195/CHN/Corr.1).  The correction is also included in China's recently submitted 
revised report for the period July through December 2009 (G/ADP/N/195/CHN/Rev.1), but the error appears in China's semi-annual report for the period January through June 2010.   
 
 Does China intend to revise its current se mi-annual report to reflect the correct 
provisional dumping margins and all-others rate in the anti-dumping investigation involving polyamide-6? 
 
Reply 
 
 We have revised our semi-annual report to reflect the correct information regarding 
polyamide-6 case.  
Question 2 
 
 In June 2010, China announced the initiation of an expiry review of anti-dumping duties 
on hydrazine hydrate from the United States, Japan, Korea and France;  however, China's 
semi-annual report does not reflect this initiation.    
 Can China please confirm that the initiation of this expiry review occurred during the 
reporting period?  If so, does China intend to  revise its semi-annual report to reflect the 
initiation of the expiry review of hydrazine hydrate? 
 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q2/CHN/5 
2 G/ADP/N/202/CHN.   G/ADP/Q2/CHN/8 
Page 2  
 
  Reply 
 
 We have revised our semi-annual report to refl ect the correct information regarding hydrazine 
hydrate case. 
 
Question 3 
  With regard to the anti-dumping investigat ion of imports of optical fiber from the 
United States, we note that, on 1 January 2010, China terminated an anti-dumping order on 
imports of optical fiber from the United States.   However, less than four months later, on 
22 April 2010, China initiated a new anti-dumping investigation of the same optical fiber imports from the United States.  This initiati on occurred even though the petition itself 
acknowledges that, between 2006 and 2009, the do mestic industry's performance dramatically 
improved in terms of capacity, output, capacity utilization, sales volume, market share, sales 
revenue, before-tax profit, rate of return, cash fl ow, employment, and labor productivity.  In an 
attempt to overcome this eviden ce of the domestic industry's robust performance, the petition 
vaguely refers to certain unspecified "hidden tro ubles" and speculates that "[s]ubject imports 
will flow into China at an extremely low price in  the near future".  Yet, there is no evidence in 
the petition that subject imports had any sign ificant adverse impact on the domestic industry 
during the 2006-2009 period.  Petitioners also provided no evidence that a continuation of the 
trends exhibited by subject imports over the 2006-2009 period would impact the domestic industry any differently in the imminent future, or that these trends are likely to change in the imminent future so as to create a threat of materi al injury.  In light of the compelling evidence 
contradicting the petitioners' injury allegations, the United States urges China to terminate this 
investigation at the preliminary determination stage.   
  The United States is also concerned by the lack of transparency of China's procedures 
thus far in the pending anti-dumping investigation of imports of optical fiber from the United States.  Many of the petitioners' injury alle gations appear to rely largely on information 
presented in a report "issued by a prestigious do mestic fiber industry association", but neither 
the petitioners nor MOFCOM disclosed sufficient de tails of the report to enable respondents to 
understand the data or the methodologies used in th e compilation of the report.  Indeed, they do 
not even identify the association that authored the report.  As China is aware, US respondents 
are entitled to "a full opportunity for the defe nse of their interests", under Article 6.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and "timely opportunities to see all information that is relevant to 
the presentation of their cases", under Article 6. 4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The United 
States also would remind China of its obligation, under Article 6.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that is, "to satisfy [itself] as to the accuracy of the information supplied by 
interested parties upon which their findings are based".    
 Please explain how MOFCOM will adhere to its transparency obligations under the 
Anti-dumping Agreement, particularly with re gard to the report relied on by petitioners 
to support their injury allegations.   
 
Reply 
  As China's domestic industry did not apply for a sunset review aim at the optical fiber imports 
from the United States ，the previous measures imposed on imports  of optical fiber were terminated 
on 1 January 2010.  
  However, on 19 March 2010, the domestic industr y alleged that there was threat of injury 
caused by the subject imports, and therefore filed a new anti-dumping investigation application.  After  G/ADP/Q2/CHN/8 
 Page 3 
 
 
  receiving the application, the investigating author ity ("Investigating Author ity"), the Ministry of 
Commerce of China, carried out examinations on the evidences submitted by the applicants according 
to China's laws and regulations.  On 22 April 201 0, the Investigating Authority initiated an anti-
dumping investigation against the imported optical  fibers from the United States and the European 
Union and the made the public notice (reference num ber of No. 23, 2010) with sufficient details.  
After the investigation conducted and based on the i nvestigation results, the Investigating Authority 
issued the final determination of the anti-dumping in vestigation of the imports of optical fiber from 
the United States and the European Union on 21 April 2011 and made the public notice with the 
reference number of No. 17, 2011, which contains suffi cient information on the injury determination.   
 
 In this case, the Investigating Authority stri ctly complied with the procedures stipulated by 
WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and China's domestic laws and did many efforts to practice the transparency principle.  Before the final determina tion, the Investigating Authority disclosed all basic 
facts, provided interested parties with sufficient opportunities to comment, and carefully considered 
the comments and views provided by interested par ties.  We would like to mention that all non-
confidential materials related to this investig ation are maintained in the MOFCOM's Public 
Information Office of Trade Remedy Measures, to which any interested parties have easy access.   
__________