WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
24 October 2003
(03-5612)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 18.5 AND ARTICLE 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to Questions posed by the UNITED STATES1
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2
The following communication, dated 23 October 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the People's Republic of China.
_______________
Q1. We note that Questions 1-21 of the US submission3 were answered, but Questions 22-38
were not.4  In the May 2003 Committee meeting, Chin a stated that the remaining answers would
be supplied shortly.  When does China intend to answer the remaining questions?
Answers to questions 22-38:
Q22. Article 29 of the notified regulations indi cates that any decision to apply provisional
measures is proposed by MOFTEC, but decided by the State Council Tariff Commission (the
“Tariff Commission”).  The same requirement applies to final determinations, as specified inArticle 38.  What oversight rules govern the Tariff Commission’s decisions?  What discretion
does the Tariff Commission have in setting dumping margins or otherwise modifying
MOFTEC’s recommendations?  Does the Tariff Co mmission have the authority to increase the
duty margin determined by MOFTEC?
Reply
All the provisions of the Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on anti-dumping govern
the State Council Tariff Commission. Tariff Commission must make decisions in accordance with the
regulation.  Tariff Commission will make decisions which not exceed the dumping margin determinedby investigating authority.
Q23. Article 29 also specifies that anti-dumping duties will be collected by Chinese Customs.
What provisions are available to an importer to  seek redress in the event of a dispute over
classification of imported merchandise and/or an error in the amount of duty collected byChinese Customs?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/24-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/24
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 + Suppl.1
3 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/14–G/SCM/Q1/CHN/14
4 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19–SCM/Q1/CHN/19G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 2
Reply
In accordance with the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of
China, where citizens, legal persons or other organiza tions hold that a specific administrative act of an
administrative organ has infringed upon their lawful rights and interests, they may, in accordance with
this law, file an application to the competent administrative organ for reconsideration.
Q24. Article 30 of the notified regulations specifies that provisional measures may be
extended to nine months under special circumstances.  Article 30 does not include the limitation
of ADA Art. 7.4 that the extension of provisiona l measures to nine months may be taken only
when the authorities examine whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be
sufficient to remove injury.  Please confirm that the only circumstances under which provisional
measures may be extended to nine months is when authorities examine whether a duty lower
than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury.
Reply
Article 30 of Regulation of the People’s Republi c of China on Anti-dumping stipulates, “The
period for applying provisional anti-dumping measures……in special circumstances, may be
extended to 9 months”, the “special circumstances” is refer to the circumstances that is provided for in
the ADA Article 7.4 “in the course of an investig ation, authorities examine whether a duty lower than
the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury”.
Q25. Articles 31 through 36 of the notified regulations describe conditions under which an
investigation may be suspended in favor of a price undertaking.  These articles are further
elaborated upon in the Provisional Rules on Price Undertakings in Anti-Dumping Investigations .
Regarding these provisional rules:
(a) Article 10 of the Rules  lists five factors that MOFTEC shall examine in
considering whether to accept price undertakings.  Please elaborate as to how
MOFTEC will evaluate each of the five factors, including providing appropriate
examples.
(b) Please clarify the intent of the statement in Article 11 of the Rules  that
MOFTEC will accept undertakings only with exporters or producers “who have
been fully cooperative during the period of investigation.”   For example, will
failure to provide a small, discrete amount of data while otherwise cooperating
to the best of its ability prevent an exporter from negotiating a priceundertaking?
(c) Article 12 of the Rules allows for the suspension or  termination of the anti-
dumping investigation if a price undertaking is accepted by MOFTEC.  Under
what circumstances would an investigation be suspended and under whatcircumstances would the investigation be  terminated?  Per Article 18 of the
Rules , presumably a suspended investigation would resume from the point in the
investigation timetable at which it was suspended.  However, at what stage
would a terminated investigation resume?  Would it essentially resume from the
beginning of the process, with new questionnaires, etc.?
(d) Article 16 of the Rules specifies that the duration of price undertakings will be
five years.  What provisions exist for ending a price undertaking sooner, e.g. if
the injury caused by the dumped imports is eliminated?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 3
(e) Article 17 of the Rules specifies that MOFTEC or Chinese Customs may verify
information supplied by domestic importers of merchandise that is exported by
a party subject to a price undertaking.  How would MOFTEC treat exporters incircumstances where an importer that is no t affiliated with the exporter refuses
to cooperate with MOFTEC or Chinese Customs?
(f) Please clarify the circumstances under which MOFTEC might consider a price
undertaking to no longer be consistent “with public interests,” as described in
Article 22 of the Rules .
Reply
(a) The MOFCOM will take into account the various f actors set forth in this article in light of the
specific circumstances of each and every case in accordance with the law and the WTO
Agreement.  For example, in the case of imported cold-rolled stainless sheets, the MOFCOMgranted the request by companies of ROK and Japan for price undertakings after a
comprehensive review of such a wide range of factors as monitoring measures, possibility of
circumvention, removal of injury and public interest.
(b) In assessing whether a producer or export has rendered full cooperation in an anti-dumping
investigation, the MOFCOM will take into acc ount various factors in light of the specific
circumstances of the case.  If the producer or exporter can demonstrate that it has done its best
but still has difficulty in providing some of the data, the MOFCOM will determine whether
the producer or exporter has rendered full cooperation and whether to accept its price
undertaking in view of the extent of impact of such data on the investigation.
(c) In practice, when a price undertaking is accepted, the MOFCOM, in accordance with the
Antidumping Regulations and the WTO ADA, may decide to suspend or terminate the
antidumping investigation.  It will make such a decision in light of the specific circumstances
of the case of the respondent parties.  Continued investigation after termination of
investigation referred to in Article 18 refers to continued investigation on the basis of the
original investigation.
(d) According to Article 49 of the Anti-Dumping Regulations, after a price undertaking takes
effect, after a reasonable period of time, the investigating authority may, at the request of an
interested party and after examination of the evidence submitted by the requesting party,
decide to review the necessity for maintaining such price undertaking.  If the investigating
authority, after review, sees no merit for continued performance of such price undertaking,
then it may rule to bring the perf ormance to an early termination.
(e) The investigating authority will review whether the exporter has violated its price undertaking
in accordance with the Anti-Dumping Regulations and the Provisional Rules on PriceUndertaking in Antidumping Investigations and in light of the circumstances of the case.
(f) The “public interest” as provided in Article 10.3 of the Provisional Rules on Price
Undertaking in Anti-Dumping Investigations, for practical purposes, may involve such factors
as whether the price undertaking upsets the balance between upstream and downstreamindustries, whether it would lead to overprotection of domestic industries, whether it may
adversely affect the supply in the domestic market and whether it is not conducive to the
various types of competition relationships in the domestic market (e.g. monopoly and unfair
competition). For example, if the Chinese in vestigating authority finds that the priceG/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 4
undertaking has resulted in excessive protection of the domestic industry it may announce the
removal of the price undertaking.
Q26. Article 41 of the notified regulations does not include the provisions of ADA Arts. 6.10
and 9.4 that govern how to proceed when it is impractical to examine every exporter.  ADA Art.
6.10 provides a framework for selecting exporters to be examined, as well as a requirement that
voluntary respondents not be discouraged.  ADA Art. 9.4 specifies rules for duty assessment
when the investigation is limited to certain exporters.  Are the Provisional Rules on Sampling in
Anti-Dumping Investigations  intended to clarify how China will apply Article 41 of the notified
regulations in a manner consistent with ADA Arts. 6.10 and 9.4?
Reply
China strictly follows the Anti-Dumping Regulations and the Provisional Rules on Sampling
in Antidumping Investigations and acts with reference to the WTO ADA in conducting its
antidumping investigations.  The Provisional Rules was formulated in accordance with theAntidumping Regulations and is also in conformity with the WTO ADA.  The Chinese investigating
authority will abide by the provisions in this particular respect of the WTO ADA.
Q27. With regard to the  Provisional Rules on Sampling in Anti-Dumping Investigations :
(a) In Articles 9 and 10 of the Rules , for exporters not selected by MOFTEC for
investigation that choose not to submit a response, what dumping margins, if
any, will be assigned?
(b) Article 9 of the Rules  specifies that questionnaires will be issued only to the
“selected” exporters or producers, while Article 10 states that exporters or
producers that are not selected may provide information to MOFTEC
voluntarily.  Are there any limitations as to the amount or type of information
that may be provided voluntarily, or wh en such information may be submitted?
To what extent will China use information submitted by a non-selected exporter
in the determination of the dumping margin?
Reply
(a) Articles 13 and 14 of the Provisional Rules on Sampling in Anti-Dumping Investigations
make clear stipulations on how to determine the margin of dumping of producers who have
not been examined separately.  Please refer to the above provisions.
(b) The information referred to in Article 10 of the Provisional Rules on Sampling in
Antidumping Investigations shall be provided in a timely, integral and accurate manner in
accordance with the requirements of the questionnaires.  The producers and exporters may
contact within a reasonable period and in a time ly fashion the investigat ing authority to obtain
the questionnaires.  The investigating author ity will examine the information provided by
them in accordance with Article 15 of the Provisional Rules on Sampling in Anti-Dumping
Investigations.
Q28. How does China interpret the following provisions in Article 44 of the notified
regulations:  (1)  “there is a dumping history of the dumped imports causing injury to the
domestic industry”; (2)  “the importer of the dumped imports was, or should have been, aware
that the exporters practice dumping and that su ch dumping would cause injury to the domestic
industry”; and (3) “the dumped imports were massively imported in a short time and wereG/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 5
likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the definitive anti-dumping duty to be
applied”?  Will the importers concerned be given an opportunity to comment, consistent with
ADA Art. 10.6(ii)?
Reply
What is referred to in Article 44 of the Anti-Dumping Regulations are circumstances
contemplated in Article 10.6 of the WTO ADA.  The investigating authority will allow the relevant
importers the opportunity to give their views.
Q29. Under Article 45 of the notified regulatio ns, when provisional anti-dumping duties are
to be refunded following a negative final determination, what actions will be required of
importers to obtain the refunds?  How quickly will such refunds be made?  Will interest be paid
on refunds of duties that were originally paid in cash?
Reply
In accordance with Article 5 of Announcement No.9, 2001 of the General Administration of
Customs of the People’s Republic of China on  the issues of anti-dumping, when provisional
antidumping duties are to be refunded following a negative final determination, the applicants should
submit a written application to the local customs offices within 6 months from the notification of theMinistry of Commerce.  The customs offices will send a transferring notification to relevant banks
promptly, and the applicants may draw the refunds with relevant documents.
Q30. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty :
(a) Article 6 of the Rules  lists the type of evidence to be submitted to MOFTEC as
part of a request for refund.  Why are applicants required to provide data on
sales to third countries?  Does this pr ovision apply even when the normal value
for the sales at issue is based on home market sales?  Article 6 also requests that
copies of the import contract, invoice(s), bill of lading, and evidence of payment
of the sale and of the anti-dumping duty be provided for every sale covered by
the refund application.  Would China consider such data and documentation tobe “necessary information” within the meaning of ADA Art. 6.8 and, if so, on
what grounds?  How would China in such context implement its obligations
under ADA Art. 6.13 to “take due account of any difficulties experienced by
interested parties…and…provide any assistance practicable”?
(b) Why is MOFTEC basing its margin calculation for purposes of the refund
review on the six-month period preceding the refund application (see Articles 6
and 12 of the Rules )?  Why shouldn’t the period for the margin calculation be
the three-month period covered by the re fund application, per Article 4 of the
Rules ?
(c) How promptly will refunds be made under Article 18 of the Rules ?  Will interest
be paid on such refunds?
Reply
(a) Article 6 of the Provisional Rules on Refunding in Anti-Dumping Investigations is in full
conformity with Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA.  Please refer to Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA.G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 6
Such data and documents are basic information required for the investigations.  They are used
to prove the actual existence of the transactions of exporting products under investigation to China
and the actual payment of the anti-dumping duties.
As long as the products under investigation ar e actually imported and the antidumping duties
paid, the importers including small companies woul d have in their possession the above information.
Therefore, the interested parties, the small companies in particular, will not incur extra undue burden
in providing evidence.
(b) According to Article 4 of the Provisional Rules on Refunding in Anti-Dumping
Investigations, application for refunding shall be made no later than three months after the
actual payment of antidumping duties.  Therefore, if the investigation period exceeds six
months, it would be too long and may not make practical sense.  And if the period is only
limited to three months, it would not be representative enough, particular so for cases
involving seasonal commodities.
(c) In accordance with Article 16 of the Provisional Rules on Refund of Anti-dumping Duty, the
Ministry of Commerce should finish the examinat ion within 12 months from the date of the
acceptance of the application for refund. In accordance with Article 17, the Ministry of
Commerce should put forward its refund suggestion to the State Council Tariff Commission
15 days before that period, and inform the applicant and the customs the decision timely.
In accordance with Article 18 of the Provisional Rules on Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty by
the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Coopera tion of the People’s Republic of China (now the
Ministry of Commerce), the amount of refund is th e margin between the original collecting margin
and the final determined dumping margin, literall y interpreted as interest excluded. According to
Article 21 of the Provisional Rules on Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty, the Ministry of Commerce is
responsible for the interpretation.
Q31. Regarding the Provisional Rules on New Shipper Review in Anti-Dumping Investigations :
(a) Please clarify the meaning of Article 6 of the Rules .  Does this Article mean that
there must be entries into China of the subject merchandise (as opposed to
shipment which have not yet reached Chin a) before a new shipper review will be
conducted?
(b) Article 7 of the Rules  requires exporters to request a new shipper review within
30 days of “actual export,” which, in turn , is defined as the date of invoicing.
How is this rule applied in situations in which more than 30 days passes between
actual export/invoicing date, and th e date merchandise enters China?
(c) Will China limit its request for information under Article 9 of the Rules  to only
that which is absolutely necessary to conduct the review?  For example, willMOFTEC waive the requirement to provide third country sales when it is clear
that sufficient home market sales are available to calculate normal value?
(d) Article 15 of the Rules  appears to require that new shippers subject to a new
shipper review must pay cash as the guarantee pending completion of the
review.  Why are bonds not acceptable as a guarantee for new shippers,
particularly as China accepts bonds as guarantees from exporters under its
provisional measures?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 7
(e) What standard of evidence would MOFTEC require as sufficient to demonstrate
that the anti-dumping duty is reflected  in the resale price for sales through
affiliated importers, as required by Article 19 of the Rules ?
(f) How does the “preliminary conclusion” referenced in Article 21 of the Rules
differ from a preliminary determination?
(g) Will the procedures described in each of the other sets of notified rules apply to
new shipper reviews, as well?
Reply
(a) Yes, review of new shippers requires actual export.
(b)  Application for review of new shippers shal l be made no later than three months after the
actual export, not 30 days.
(c) Article 9 of the Provisional Rules on Review of New Shippers is in full conformity with
Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA.  Please refer to that article in ADA.
(d) Cash payment as surety is in keeping with the WTO ADA.(e) Please refer to Article 9.3.3 of the ADA.(f) Preliminary findings refer to the preliminary calculation results of the dumping margins.
(g) Review of new shippers may apply on a reference basis procedures provided for in other
provisional rules.
Q32. In regard to Article 48 of the notified reg ulations, will anti-dumping measures expire
automatically after five years if no review is undertaken?  If not, what procedures are required
to apply for revocation of the anti-dumping measures?  Please clarify the meaning of “ may be
extended as appropriate” as used in Article 48.  For example, will there be a finite extension ofthe anti-dumping measure?  Will another review be required to remove the measure at a later
date, and if so, how soon following the fifth anniversary may such a review be requested?
Under what circumstances, and based upon what information, will China conduct the review
specified in Article 48?
Reply
In accordance with Article 48 of the regulation, antidumping measures will expire
automatically if there is no review undertaken about the need for the continued imposition of the anti-
dumping duty.  Article 49 also provides two situati ons that review about the need for the continued
imposition of the anti-dumping duty may be conducted, that is, “After an anti-dumping duty has taken
effect, MOFTEC may, after consultation with SETC, decide on justifiable grounds to review the need
for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty; such a review may also be conducted,
provided that a reasonable period of time has elapsed, upon request by any interested party and on the
basis of examination of the relevant evidence submitted by the interested party”.
Q33. ADA Art. 11.1 specifies that an anti-dumping duty shall remain in force only as long as
and to the extent necessary to counteract dump ing that is causing injury.  Article 49 of the
notified regulations indicate that MOFTEC, in consultation with SETC, may decide to re-G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 8
examine the necessity of continuing the anti-d umping action.  The procedures governing such
interim reviews are provided in the Provisional Rules on Interim Review of Dumping and
Dumping Margin .  Regarding these Rules :
(a) What standards of evidence would MOFTEC consider sufficient to meet the
requirements of Article 9 of the Rules ?
(b) Article 12 of the Rules states that req uests for interim review by the domestic
industry must “be in conformity with provisions of Article 14, 15 and 17 of the
“Anti-Dumping Regulations of the People’s Republic of China.”  Does this mean
that the domestic industry must provide information relating to injury andstanding?
(c) Regarding Article 15 of the Rules , how will MOFTEC notify all respondent
parties subject to the review when the domestic industry requests an interim
review?
(d) With respect to Article 25 of the Rules , does the limitation of the examination to
normal value, export price and the dumping margin include all elements that
affect the calculation of those topics?
(e) Article 26 of the Rules allows for reviews to be conducted against exporters or
producers that were found not to be dumping in the original investigation.  ADA
Art. 11.2 only permits reviews to determine the need for “continued imposition”
of duties, not to impose new duties.  What authority in the ADA allows for the
provision in Article 26 of the Rules ?
(f) Please clarify the meaning of Article 31 of the Rules .
(g) Under what circumstances will MOFTEC conduct a verification in a review?(h) How do the preliminary conclusi ons referenced in Article 33 of the Rules  differ
from a preliminary determination?
(i) Will the procedures described in the other sets of notified rules apply to interim
reviews, as well?
Reply
(a) Please refer to the dumping investigation questionnaires of the MOFCOM for the evidentiary
requirements of Article 9 of the Provisional Rules.
(b) What Article 12 of the Provisional Rules requires are evidence and materials with regard to
the existence of dumping and the representativeness of the industry.
(c) The MOFCOM will notify the offices in China of the relevant countries and regions for them
to notify the known exporters and producers.
(d) Yes.G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 9
(e) Article 11.2 of the ADA allows reviews to exam ine the necessity for continued application of
anti-dumping measures and such measures shall include zero dumping margin or negligible
margins.
(f) Please refer to Article 9.3.3 of ADA.
(g) The MOFCOM may make on-the-spot verifications on the accuracy and completeness of the
relevant information and materials provided by exporters and producers.
(h) The preliminary findings referred to in Article 33 of the Provisional Rules on Interim
Reviews of Dumping and Dumping Margins refer to the preliminary results of calculation ofdumping margins.
(i) The interim reviews may apply on a reference basis the procedures provided for in other
provisional rules.
Q34. Article 50 of the notified regulations indi cates that the State Council Tariff Commission
will decide on the anti-dumping duty based on a proposal from MOFTEC.  Under what
circumstances would the Tariff Commission  de viate from a proposal from MOFTEC?  What
rules govern the Tariff Commission’s actions and will any such actions be made public? Will
decisions of the Tariff Commission be publicized? Where the Tariff Commission does not acceptMOFTEC’s proposal, will a justification or explanation be given?
Reply
According to the antidumping regulation of China, if the State Council Tariff Commission
(the “Tariff Commission”) finds the inspection procedure is illegal, the evidence (the collected data) is
incomplete or unbelievable, or imposition of antidumping duty is against the public interest, the Tariff
Commission will not accept the proposal of the Mini stry of Commerce.  If the Tariff Commission
does not accept the proposal, it will publicize the decision, and give a justification of explanation.  All
the decision of the Tariff Commission will be made public.
Q35. Article 55 of the notified regulations specifies that MOFTEC and SETC may take
“appropriate measures” to prevent circumvention of anti-dumping measures. Please describe
how the authorities will determine whether such  circumvention has occurred, and the types of
measures the authorities may take if such ci rcumvention has occurred.  Does China have, or
intend to promulgate, regulations addressing circumvention?
Reply
Up to now, China has recorded no case involv ing anti-circumvention.  But China will enact
rules on anti-circumvention.  Such rules will be formulated in accordance with the Anti-Dumping
Regulations, with reference to the WTO ADA and in light of other countries’ experience as well asChina’s specific conditions.
Q36. Article 58 of the notified regulations indicates that MOFTEC and the SETC may
formulate specific implementing measures.  Apart from the provisional rules that have already
been issued, what other level of  rulemaking, if any, is required or contemplated to implement
these notified regulations?  Are there other forms of guidance or official interpretation, such as
case precedent ( stare decisis ), that will influence MOFTEC’s, SETC’s and the  Tariff
Commission’s decisions?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 10
Reply
Depending on the circumstances, China when necessary will continue to enact the relevant
rules in accordance with the Anti-Dumping Regulations so as to standardize the procedures forantidumping investigations and ensure fairness, impartiality and openness in such investigations.
China conducts anti-dumping investigations in strict accordance with the Anti-Dumping Regulations
and the related provisional rules and with reference to the WTO ADA.  Such investigations are
conducted in full compliance with the existing publicly available statutes.  China is not a common law
country and the principle of precedents does not apply.
Q37. Article 56 of the notified regulations sp ecifies that China may take “corresponding
measures” against any country that “discriminatorily” imposes anti-dumping measures against
exports from China.  Based on what authority in the ADA could China take such action?  Under
what circumstances does China foresee applying this provision (i.e. what type of action would be
considered as “discriminatory” with in the meaning of Article 56)?  What sorts of actions would
be taken against another country?  Is there any law prohibiting use of Article 56 prior toexhausting other remedies such as the WTO dispute settlement process?
Reply
Up till now, we have recorded no case involving the application of Article 56 of the
Antidumping Regulations.  The “corresponding measures” in this article refers to the measures China
is entitled to take after resort to the dispute se ttlement procedur es contained in the WTO ADA and the
dispute settlement rules and procedures contained in Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement if the party is
also a WTO member.
Q38. Please elaborate on how judicial reviews will be conducted, including specific entities
that will conduct the reviews and the procedures under which such reviews will be conducted.
Does China intend to notify the Committee of The Administrative Review Law of the People ’s
Republic of China  and The Administrative Litigation Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of
China ?
Reply
Article 53 of the Antidumping Regulations provides the judicial and administrative review
regime for antidumping determinations.  The Rules of the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC on
Certain Questions Relating To the Application of Law In Reviewing Antidumping Determinations
was adopted on 11 September 2002 and came into effect on 1 January 2003.  The judicial procedureswill strictly follow the judicial interpretations of the Law of the PRC on Administrative Reviews and
the Law of the PRC on Administrative Proceedings.
Replies to document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/24-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/24
Q2. Will implementing rules governing the State Council Tariff Commission’s role, as
described in Articles 29, 38, 46 and 50 of the notified regulations, be issued?  If so, when?  To
what extent will the State Council Tariff Commission’s involvement in determinations be
included in the public notice required under Article 12.2?
Reply
So far China has not enacted detailed rules of impl ementation with regard to the functions of the
Tariff Commission of the State Council.  According to Articles 29, 38, 46 and 50 of the RegulationsG/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 11
of the PRC on Antidumping, the Tariff Commission of the State Council makes determinations on the
application, retention, modification and removal of antidumping duties.  To satisfy the requirement
under Article 12.2 of the WTO ADA, the Minist ry of Commerce (MOFCOM) will publish the
determinations of the Tariff Commission on the afore-mentioned issues in its Ministry Notices.
Q3. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations , if
the amended reason for requesting confidentiality is deemed insufficient under Article 20 of the
notified regulations, will the requesting party be provided the opportunity to withdraw the
material from consideration before it is released  as non-confidential or to amend the material
provided for consideration?
Reply
According to provisions of the Provisional Rules on Questionnaires in Anti-Dumping
Investigations, if a respondent company refuses to revise the non-confidential summaries or the non-
confidential summaries, after revision, still fail to  meet the requirement, the MOFCOM may disregard
such information, unless it can be demonstrated from appropriate sources that the information is
correct.  Even if the investigating authority finds th e request for confidentiality to be unjustifiable, it
will not make public the information on its own.
Q4. Is confidential information disregarded due to an insufficient non-confidential summary
treated differently in antidumping and countervailing duty actions?  In anti-dumping actions,
will the respondent be given an opportunity to revise the non-confidential summary or retract
the confidential information to prevent its di sclosure?  How will the Ministry of Commerce
treat confidential information submitted by respondents once the investigation is completed?
Reply
In both anti-dumping and countervailing measures, the Chinese investigating authorities will
treat the relevant confidential information in accordance with the WTO Agreements and China’s
Regulations.  With good reason a respondent may apply to modify the information it has submitted
but may not cause impediment to the investigation by the authority.  After the completion of the
investigation information treated as confidential still shall not be disclosed without consent by theinterested parties providing such information.
Q5. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Public Hearing in Anti-Dumping Investigations ,
if issues arise pertaining to “national secrets” or “personal privacy” within the context of a
public hearing, would only the specific segments of the hearing in which those issues are to bediscussed be considered closed to the public or will the entire hearing be closed?
Reply
The MOFCOM will decide whether to close the segments involving state secrets or personal
privacy or the entire hearing to the public in light of the impact of those segments on the hearing.
Q6. Will hearings be permitted if requested with sufficient notice to allow timely completion
of the investigation or review?  How will parties be made aware of the cutoff date to request a
hearing?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 12
Reply
The interested parties shall apply, within the timeframe set by the investigating authority and
without affecting the normal progress of the inve stigations, for the holding of hearings.  The
MOFCOM will specify the deadline for making such applications in its notices.
Q7. If a hearing is not held, can interested parties still provide information orally?   If
Chinese authorities accept such oral information, what steps will be taken to comply with
Article 6.3?
Reply
After giving justifiable reasons, an interested party may provide information orally.  But
thereafter it shall present such information in writing to the MOFCOM which will decide, in view of
the circumstances, whether to accept such information.
Q8. With regard to the Provisional Rules on On-the-Spot  Verification in Anti-Dumping
Investigations  will exporters whom the Ministry of Commerce deems not to “have been fully
cooperative in the investigation” be so noti fied and given a chance to submit additional
information through supplemental questionnaires prior to being denied verification?  Will
respondents who have supplied all but a small part  of the information requested for verification
still be subject to a facts available determinatio n?  Will respondents who provide all necessary,
but not necessarily all requested, information forfeit any opportunity for verification?  For
example, would a respondent for which the Ministry of Commerce determines a sufficient
volume of domestic sales exists to calculate norm al value be denied verification for failing to
provide third-country sales information if so requested?
Reply
According to Article 21 of the Regulations of the PRC on Antidumping and Article 6.8 of the
WTO ADA, if a respondent fails to make truthful representations and provide the relevant information
or to provide the necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the
investigation by other means, the investigat ing authority may make preliminary or final
determinations on the basis of the facts available.  Unless a company is very reluctant to cooperate (as
described in the above situations), the investigating authority normally will not deny companies that
have not fully cooperated the opportunity of verification.   It will make on-the-spot verifications on
the information in replies to the questionnaires submitted by the respondents.  If a respondent has
provided necessary but not all the information required, it will not lose the opportunity for on-the-spotverification.  The precondition is that the investigating authority is satisfied that the respondent has
already provided the necessary information.
Q9. When the Ministry of Commerce does not verify a respondent due to its own resource
restraints or due to sampling, will the questionnaire responses of the respondents not verified beaccepted as submitted?
Reply
Only verified information in the replies to questionnaires will be accepted in making
determinations.
Q10. Article 7.2 of the Antidumping Agreement and Article 28 of the Anti-Dumping
Regulations of the People's Republic of China  allow for a bond to be posted for provisionalG/ADP/Q1/CHN/33
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/33
Page 13
antidumping duties.  However, recent preliminary determinations do not allow for this option.5
May importers use bonds or other surety in lieu of cash payments in all cases?
Reply
Importers may use bonds or other surety in lieu of cash surety.  But in practice they shall
observe the specific rules of the Chinese Customs.
__________
                                                     
5 See, e.g., PRC Ministry of Commerce Public Notice 11 (2003) and Appendix relating to the anti-
dumping proceedings on polyvinyl chloride.