WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
7 May 2003
(03-2444)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Replies to the Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES 1
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2
The following communication, dated 30 April 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of China.
_______________
Q1. Are any laws other than the Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China given
precedence over the notified regulations and provisi onal rules?  If so, have these laws been
notified to the Committee?
Reply
There are not any laws other than the Foreign Trade Law of the People’s Republic of China,
which has precedence over the notified regulation.
Q2. We understand that a number of implementing rules concerning anti-dumping
proceedings have been issued by the Chinese government but do not appear to have been
notified to the Committee.  These include addi tional rules issued by the Ministry of Foreign
Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), rule s issued by the State Economic and Trade
Commission (SETC), and rules governing judicial  review of trade remedy cases.  When will
China notify the translated text of these rules to the Committee?
Reply
Most of the national laws, administrative regulations and rules issued by the former MOFTEC
and SETC have been notified to the Committee.  We will notify the rest as soon as possible. But some
of them, including some notified and those to be notified, will be subject to amendment because of the
institutional reform of China.
Q3. Throughout this document, we refer to MOFTEC, SETC and the State Council Tariff
Commission, as these are the organs cited in the notified regulations and rules.  In light of
recent government restructuring, please identify the specific government entities that will be
administering China’s anti-dumping rules and regulations and the particular rules or
regulations for which each entity will be responsible.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/14-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/14
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 + Suppl.1G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 2
Reply
The new’s-established Ministry of Commerce will be responsible for administering China’s
anti-dumping rules and regulations, but the State Council Tariff Commission will continue to
responsible for decision on the anti-dumping duty should be levy or not and it’s level.
Q4. None of the notified regulations appear to contain a provision corresponding to ADA
Art 2.4.1.  How does China intend to apply the currency exchange provisions of ADA Art. 2.4.1?
Reply
The anti-dumping investigation is conducted according to the laws, regulations and rules on
anti-dumping published by China, and these laws, re gulations and rules are in conformity with the
related agreement of WTO.  For some issues, if there are no any stipulations in the Chinese law, we
will refer to the related rules of WTO.  For exampl e, when a fair comparison between the export price
and the normal value requires a conversion of currencies, such conversion should be made by using
the rate of exchange on the date of sale according to ADA Art.2.4.1.
Q5. ADA Art. 2.4.2 requires that when a weighted average normal value is compared to
individual export transaction prices, an explanation must be provided as to why the othermethods cannot address the price differences at is sue.  Article 6 of the notified regulations
includes no such requirement.  How does China intend to apply Article 6 in a manner consistent
with ADA Art. 2.4.2?
Reply
When a weighted average normal value is compar ed to individual export transaction prices,
China will practice referring to ADA Art. 2.4.2.
Q6. Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the notified re gulations discusses the competent authority’s
examination of pricing and indicates that the authority should examine “price undercutting” of
the dumped imports.  Please explain how this language is consistent with ADA Art. 3.2, underwhich the investigating authorities are “to consid er whether there has been a significant price
undercutting by the dumped imports as compared  with the price of a like product of the
importing Member...”.
Reply
There are no substantial difference between Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the notified
regulations and ADA Art.3. It is impossible and not necessary for the legislation of any member to be
completely the same as ADA in language, and the listed elements are in no way to be exhausted.  The
competent authority of China will also examine “price undercutting” of dumped imports referring toADA Art.3.2, under which the investigation authorities are “to consider whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of a like product of
the importing Member…”.
Q7. Paragraph (4) of Article 8 of the notified regulations does not contain the requirement in
ADA Art. 3.7 that an affirmative determination of threat of material injury by reason of
dumped imports must be based on a belief that further dumped imports are “imminent,” and
that material injury by reason of the dumped imports would occur unless an anti-dumping duty
measure were applied.  How does China intend to implement these requirements of the ADA?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 3
Reply
Before making an affirmative determination of threat of material injury by reason of dumped
imports, China will consider and analyze the elements, such as, whether it must be based on a belief
that further dumped imports are “imminent” and that material injury by reason of the dumped imports
would occur unless an anti-dumping duty measure were applied, as referred to in ADA Art. 4.1. and
Art. 4.2.
Q8. The specific provisions of ADA Arts. 4.1 and 4.2 concerning treatment of regional
markets are not incorporated into Article 11 of  the notified regulations.  How does China
propose to apply the regional market provision  of Article 11 in a manner consistent with ADA
Arts. 4.1 and 4.2?
Reply
If the treatment of regional markets is involved  in anti-dumping investigation, China will deal
with it according to Art.11 of the notified regulations,  Article 9 of the Provisional Rules on Initiation
of Anti-dumping Investigations and referring to ADA Art.4.1 and Art.4.2.
Q9. Please clarify the standards of evidence th at applicants must meet in providing each
type of information specified in Articles 14 and 15 of the notified regulations and Articles 15
through 24 of the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations .
Reply
The Anti-Dumping Regulations of China are drafted in accordance with the Foreign Trade
Law of China.  A series of Provisional Rules on an ti-dumping investigation procedures, including the
Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations, are drafted in accordance with the
Foreign Trade Law and Anti-Dumping Regulations, and referring to ADA.  The requirements on
applicant and the content of application as contained in Article 14 and 15 of the Regulations and
Article 15 through Article 24 of the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations
are concretization the relevant rules of ADA. For example, Art.14 and 15 of the notified regulationsare drafted according to ADA Art.5.1-Art.5.2.
Q10. Article 16 of the notified regulations and corresponding articles of MOFTEC’s
Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations do not include the provision of
ADA Art. 5.3 that requires the authorities to examine the accuracy and adequacy of theevidence provided in the application to determine whether it is sufficient to justify the initiation
of an investigation.  Also, Article 16 does not include the provision of ADA Art. 5.5 specifying
that the authorities shall avoid publicizing an application for investigation prior to an
investigation being initiated.  How does China intend to meet the requirements of ADA Arts. 5.3
and 5.5?
Reply
The requirements on the information, data and evidence contained in the application provided
in the notified regulations and the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations canembody the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application and the investigating
authority will examine them strictly before determin ing whether it is sufficient to justify the initiation
of an investigation.  In practice, the applicant also  need to prepare the application according to these
requirements.G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 4
It is the authority’s obligation to avoid publiciz ing an application for investigation prior to an
investigation being initiated.  The investigating authority of China also acts according to this
requirement.
Q11. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations :
(a) Do Articles 8 and 9 of the provisional rules concern solely how an “industry” is
defined for ascertaining whether there is sufficient support for the application
for purposes of ADA Art. 5.4, or do they also relate to how the industry is
defined for conducting injury analysis for purposes of ADA Art. 3?
(b) Article 9 of the provisional rules, wh ich specifies when MOFTEC may define the
domestic industry on a regional basis, does not require that there be a
concentration of dumped imports into th e region.  Assuming that Article 9 is
pertinent to injury analysis, how is this provision consistent with the lastsentence of ADA Art. 4.1(ii)?
(c) Do Articles 20 and 21 of the provisional rules require an applicant to choose
whether its application is based on material injury to the domestic industry or
threat of material injury?  Can an applic ant file an application based on theories
of both material injury and threat?
(d) If an applicant files its application sole ly on the theory of threat of material
injury pursuant to Article 21, is the applicant then free to omit from its
application the price and volume information specified in subparagraphs (1), (2)and (3) of Article 20?  If so, please explain how the provisions of Article 21 are
consistent with ADA Art 5.2(iv).
Reply
With regard to the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-dumping Investigations:
(a) Article 8 and Article 9 of the Provisional Rules here concern solely how an
“industry” is defined for ascertaining whether there is sufficient support for the
application for purposes of ADA Art.5.4.  The Provisional Rule specifically issued
for initiation of anti-dumping investigations.
Generally, these rules are also related to how the industry is defined for conducting
injury analysis for purposes of ADA Art.3.
(b) Assuming that Article 9 is pertinent to injury analysis, China will meet the
requirement that there be a concentration of dumped imports into the region referringto the last sentence of ADA Art.4.1(ii).
(c) Articles 20 and 21 of the Provisional Rules do provide a choice for an applicant to
choose whether its application is based on material injury to the domestic industry or
threat of material injury.
An applicant can not file an application based on theories of both material injury and
threat.G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 5
(d) The applicant shall also provide the price and volume information specified in
subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) of Article 20.
Q12. Article 18 of the notified regulations and Article 42 of the Provisional Rules on Initiation
of Anti-Dumping Investigations  state that, where MOFTEC does not receive an application for
an AD investigation, it may, upon consultati on with SETC, decide to self-initiate an
investigation.  Please elaborate on the circu mstances under which this might occur and, in
particular, how China would propose to interpret the “special circumstances” standard
contained in ADA Art. 5.6.   How would China envisage compiling the evidence required by
ADA Art. 5 before self-initiating an investigation?  Is MOFTEC the only organization that has
authority to self-initiate anti-dumping cases?
Reply
Article 18 of the notified regulations and the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping
Investigations are enacted referring to ADA Art.5.6.  When the authority decides to self-initiate an
investigation, it should have adequate and accurate information and evidence as required in
Article 14-15 of the notified regulations and the Chart III of the Provisional Rules on Initiation of
Anti-Dumping Investigations, and should also refer to  ADA Art.5.2.  The former MOFTEC (now the
Ministry of Commerce) is the only government body that has the authority to self-initiate anti-
dumping investigations.
Q13. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations :
(a) Article 13 of the Rules requires that responses and supporting materials be
translated into simplified Chinese characters.  For voluminous supportingdocuments, such as company annual reports, will MOFTEC allow parties to
limit translation to only the relevant portions of the documents?
(b) Under Article 8, does MOFTEC send questionnaires only to those foreign
producers and exporters that have registered with it pursuant to Article 6?  Why
does MOFTEC not also circulate questionnaires to other producers and
exporters named in the application, pursuant to Article 13 of the  Provisional
Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations ?
(c) What explanation will MOFTEC provide to parties submitting information of
the grounds for its conclusion under Article 20 that the reasons for requesting
confidential treatment are insufficient?
(d) Article 20 provides that MOFTEC will request amendment of a request for
confidential treatment in two situations: 1) the original reason  given for the
request is deemed insufficient; or 2) the non-confidential summary  (or reason
given for not providing such a summary) is deemed insufficient.  However,Article 20 only explains what will happen in one of those situations if the
amendment continues to be deemed insufficient (i.e. if the amended non-
confidential summary is still insufficient, the material will be disregarded).
Article 20 does not explain what steps will be taken if the amended reason for
requesting confidentiality is still deemed insufficient.  In such a case, will thematerials be disregarded or treated as non-confidential?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 6
(e) What does MOFTEC do with material which has been submitted to it, but which
it will disregard under Article 20 because of an insufficient non-confidential
summary?
Reply
With regard to the Provisional Rules on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations:
(a) For voluminous supporting documents, such as company annual reports, limited
translation to only the relevant portions of the documents is allowed , as long as the
parties can ensure that these portions are adequate.
(b) China’s investigating authority only sends questionnaires only to those foreign
producers and exporters that have registered with it pursuant to Article 6.  After
initiation to deadline of registration, they would have enough time to make decisions
whether they will respond, and the registration formality is very simple.  If they didnot register, the Chinese authority would have adequate reasons to believe that they
have given up the chance and opportunity to respond.
(c) The investigating authority will check a nd examine the confidential information and
materials, and the request for confidential treatment, whether because its disclosurewould be of significant competitive advantage to a competitor or because its
disclosure would have a significantly adverse effect upon a person supplying the
information or upon a person from whom that person acquired the information.  If the
reasons for requesting confidential treatment are insufficient, for example, the
materials are open already, or there will be no adverse effect once the materials aredisclosed, the investigating authority will require the related parties to explain, and
ask them to withdraw their request or make amendment thereof.
(d) If the amended reason for requesting confiden tiality is still deemed insufficient, the
materials will be treated as non-confidential.
(e) BIA will be used for the material which the investigating authority disregarded under
Article 20 because of an insufficient non-confidential summary.
Q14. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Public Hearin g in Anti-Dumping Investigations :
(a) Please clarify what type of information would fall within the definition of
“national secrets” or “ personal privacy” under Article 4 of the Rules .
(b) Articles 5 through 10 of the Rules  suggest that holding a hearing is at the
discretion of MOFTEC.  How is this Ar ticle consistent with ADA Art. 6.2, which
states that “authorities shall, on request , provide opportunities for all interested
parties to meet those parties with adverse interests, so that opposing view may
be presented and rebuttal arguments offered”?
(c) Article 14 of the Rules  suggests that only interested parties may attend a
hearing.  Does China allow for public attendance at hearings?
Reply
With regard to the Provisional Rules on Public Hearing in Anti-Dumping,G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 7
(a) Every Member has its law or regulations, common sense or customs to clarify the
“national secrets” and “personal privacy”.  For example, China has the Security Law
to regulate the national secrets.
(b) ADA Art.6.2 states that “authorities shall, on request, provide opportunities for all
interested parties to meet those parties with adverse interests, so that opposing view
may be presented and rebuttal arguments offered.”  Holding a hearing is no doubt one
of this kind of opportunities, but under some special circumstances, for example, the
related parties file their hearing application just within a very short time before final
decision, the investigation could not hold hearing because of the deadline forinvestigation, otherwise the final decision would not be made within investigation
time period.
(c) Article 14 of the Rules suggests that only interested parties may attend a hearing.  If a
public person would like to attend a hearing, he/she can apply for it, afterexamination, if the authority takes it as necessary, public attendance at hearing is also
allowed.
Q15. With regard to the Provisional Rules on On-the-Spot  Verification in Anti-Dumping
Investigations :
(a) Please clarify the intent of the statement in Article 4 of the Rules  that MOFTEC
will only conduct verifications of exporters “who have been fully cooperative in
the investigation.”  For example, will failure to provide a small, discrete amount
of data while otherwise cooperating to the best of their ability preventverification?
(b) Please clarify the meaning and intent of Article 6 of the Rules .  What factors will
MOFTEC consider in determining whether the “various situations of each case”
call for verification?
(c) How much time will MOFTEC normally schedule to conduct a verification of a
responding company, pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules ?
(d) Under what circumstances does MOFTEC foresee using non-government
experts to assist in verification, as indicated in Article 12 of the Rules ?  What is
the penalty should such experts breach their obligation of confidentiality with
respect to certain company information?
(e) If, under Article 16 of the Rules , the verification team decides to use Chinese as
the working language, will MOFTEC provide translators?
(f) Please clarify what is envisioned as a “reasonable period” and elaborate as to the
level of detail that will be disclosed in MOFTEC reports of the results of
verification, as envisioned under Article 19 of the Rules .
(g) Article 21 of the Rules  indicates that facts available may be applied when
verification fails to be completed as scheduled due to delay caused by exporters
and producers in question.  What allowance will MOFTEC make for
circumstances where it is not possible for the company to reasonably respond in
the time allotted for verification?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 8
Reply
With regard to the Provisional Rules on On-the-Spot Verification in Anti-Dumping
Investigations:
(a) Article 4 of the Rules states that the investigating authority will only conduct
verifications of exporters “who have been fully cooperative in the investigation”.  As
to the exporters who only provide a small, discrete amount of data while otherwise
cooperating to the best of their ability, th e investigating authority will deal with them
according to the specific situation, and to judge what is “a small, discrete amount ofdata”.
According to ADA Article 6.8, in cases in which any interested party refuses access
to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period of
time, or significantly impedes the investigation, preliminary and final determinations,affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of the facts available.
Article 7 of Annex I of ADA stipulates that “As the main purpose of the on-the-spot
investigation is to verify information provided or to obtain further details, it should be
carried out after the response to the questionnaire has been received…”.
Generally, if the exporters provide no response to the questionnaire or only provide
“a small, discrete amount of data”, the investigating authority can not verify “the
provided information” thereon.
Some Members, including the United States, may also base on this reason in
conducting on-the-spot verification by the way of sampling.
(b) On-the-spot verification is not conducted to each case, or each exporter.  If the
exporter does not issue invitation or the exporter or involved member refuses the
verification, the verification will not be conducted.  When the sampling method used,
the exporter not sampled will not be verified.
(c) The verification time will be scheduled according to the specific situation of the
exporters and producers and how much the information need to be verified or further
collected.  Generally, the verification time for one company is 2-5 days.
(d) Under some circumstances, in order to enhance the working efficiency and make just
and fair determination, non-government experts can participate in the verification.
When investigators are not experts on products and accountant, if they need help to
resolve some problems in some fields, the non-government expert can do that.
Such non-government experts have obligations to respect the principle of
confidentiality.  If they breach their obligation with respect to certain company
information, they will be treated according to the related laws and regulations of
China, such as the Security Law, Criminal Law and Law of Criminal Procedures.
(e) Generally, Chinese is the working language of the verification for enhancing
efficiency and avoiding misunderstanding.  Under this situation, the investigating
authority will provide translators; the company can also provide translators acceptedG/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 9
by the investigating authority.  Sometimes, English or other language can also be the
working language.
(f) A “reasonable period” generally refers to a time period after verification within
which, the investigator has enough time to sort out the verified materials, sum up the
verification result, prepare the verification report, and  the verified company has
enough time to provide comments thereon before final determination.
(g) Facts available may be applied when verification fails to be completed as scheduled
due to delay caused by exporters and producers in question. If it is not possible for the
company to respond in the time allotted for verification, and the company has done itsbest, the investigating authority could make a reasonable extension for verification, or
work in overtime, or require the company to provide the detailed written answer and
evidence to the questions need to be verified.
Q16. Please confirm that China’s application of facts available under  Article 21 of the
notified regulations will be applied in a manner consistent with ADA Art. 6.8 and Annex II.
Reply
The notified regulations and rules on anti-dumping  of China are in conformity with the rules
of WTO; including the issue of BIA using is in accordance with the stipulations of ADA Art.6.8 and
its Appendix II.  When the investigating authority decides to apply the facts available, it will conduct
it according to Chinese laws and regulations and rules.   For some issues, if there are no stipulations in
the Chinese Laws, the investigating authority will conduct it referring to ADA Art.6.8 and its
Appendix II.
Q17. Article 22 of the notified regulations does not provide a definition of “interested
parties,” which is particularly important with respect to the treatment of and access to
confidential information.  How does China define interested parties and how does that
definition comply with ADA Art. 6.11?
Reply
Article 22 of the notified regulations does not provide a definition of “interested parties”,
because Article 16 of the regulations has provided a definition of “interested parties”.  Article 16
stipulated that “MOFTEC shall publish the decision to initiate an investigation and notify the
applicants, the known exporters and importers, the governments of an exporting country or region andother interested organizations and parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the interested
parties”)”.  This definition is in conformity with ADA Arti.6.11.
Q18. Article 22 also states that “[a]n interested party may request the investigating
authorities to treat the information it provided as confidential if it considers that any disclosureof such information will create significantly adve rse effects.”   How does MOFTEC define what
constitutes “significantly adverse effects ”?
Reply
Article 22 of the notified regulations is drawn up according to ADA Art.6.5.  The
investigating authority will examine “significantly adverse effects” referring to the rules of ADA.
Any information which is by nature confidential (for example, because its disclosure would be of
significant competitive advantage to a competitor or because its disclosure would have a significantlyG/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 10
adverse effect upon a person supplying the information or upon a person from whom that person
acquired the information), or which is provided on a confidential basis by parties to an investigation
shall, upon good cause shown, be treated as such by the authorities.
Q19. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Access to Non-Confidential Information in Anti-
Dumping Investigations :
(a) Please elaborate on the standards th at MOFTEC will apply in determining
whether a non-confidential summary meets the conditions of ADA Art. 6.5.1.
(b) How quickly will the documents referenced in Article 5 of the Rules  be made
available for public viewing and how long after the end of the investigation will
these documents remain available to the public?
(c) With regard to Article 8 of the Rules , what is the rationale for requiri1ng a party
who seeks information to identify in advance the contents and scope of the
information to be consulted? Please explain how this provision is consistent with
ADA Art. 6.4 which states that the authorities must provide opportunities for
“all interested parties to see all information that is relevant to the presentation of
their cases?”
(d) How far in advance must an interested  party who seeks to review the public file
notify MOFTEC, per Article 8 of the Rules ?
Reply
With regard to the Provisional Rules on Access to Non-confidential Information in Anti-
Dumping Investigations:
(a) Article 22 of the notified regulations stipulates that “The investigating authorities
shall treat the information submitted by the interested party as confidential if they
consider that the request for confidentiality is justified, and shall require the interested
party to provide non-confidential summaries thereof”.
Article 26 of the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations
provides that “The applicant shall reque st for confidentiality treatment if the
application for an anti-dumping investigation contains confidential materials; the
request shall provide a meaningful non-confidential summary for those confidentialmaterials to permit other interested parties to have a reasonable understanding about
the confidential materials.  The applicant shall give reasons if such non-confidential
summary is impossible”.
Article 19 of the Provisional rules on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations
stipulates that “Where the responding company considers that the response to the
questionnaire contains confidential information, the responding company shall
request for confidentiality treatment and address the reasons for such confidentiality
treatment.  A non-confidential summary shall be given for information requested for
confidentiality treatment.  A non-confidential summary shall contain adequate andmeaningful information so as to allow othe r interested parties to have a reasonable
understanding.  In case the provision of a non-confidential summary is impossible,
the responding company shall explain the reasons thereof.G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 11
Article 20 of the Provisional rules on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations
stipulates that MOFTEC shall examine the request for confidentiality treatment.  If
the reason for confidentiality treatment is considered insufficient, or the non-
confidential summary does not satisfy the requirement specified in Paragraph 2 ofArticle 19 of these Rules, or the reason that the responding company fails to provide
the non-confidential summary is insufficient, the responding company may be
required to make corresponding amendments thereon within a specified time limit.
MOFTEC may disregard the materials if the responding company refuses to amend
the non-confidential summary or the non-confidential summary after being amended
does not yet satisfy the requirement.
Article 6 of the Provisional Rules on Access to Non-confidential Information in Anti-
Dumping Investigations stipulates that “where a related party considers that the
provided information are confidential, the related party may request for
confidentiality treatment.  A non-confidential summary shall be given for information
requested for confidentiality treatment.  A non-confidential summary shall becontained into the non-confidential copy”.  The non-confidential summary shall be in
sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the
information submitted in confidence.  The investigating authority will treat the non-
confidential summary according to Chines e laws and regulations and rules and
referring to ADA Art.6.5.1.
(b) The documents referenced to in Article 5 of the Rules will be made available for
public comments within the time period while the disclosure will not cause adverse
effect to the supplier, for example, the non-confidential copy of application will be
made available for public comments on the day of initiation.  Generally, the non-confidential information will be kept for enough time period when the litigation time
period lapses according to the related law and administrative regulations.
(c) The purpose requiring a party who seeks information to identify in advance the
contents and scope of the information to be consulted, is not limited for the scope of
information to be viewed.  It is only to give the personnel to have enough to find and
prepare the provision of the related information as well as , to enhance the workingefficiency.  If a party will view other information, he can also tell the personnel in
advance or make another appointment.
(d) How far in advance must an interested party who seeks to review the public file
notify the investigating authority, will depend upon the time that the personnel tocollect and prepare the related information.  If it is easy to prepare, the party could
review at any time, for example, for the non- confidential copy of application, on the
initiation day, the party can review at any time, if any party contacts in the morning,
can review in the afternoon.
Q20. With regard to the Provisional Rules on Disclosure of Information in Anti-Dumping
Investigations :
(a) In what form and to what degree of detail will MOFTEC make available the
“essential data, information, evidence and reasons adopted for establishment ofthe existence of dumping and dumping margin” described in Articles 3 through
5 and 9 of the Rules ?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 12
(b) What provision will MOFTEC make to an swer questions from interested parties
about the disclosed information?
Reply
With regard to the Provisional Rules on Disclosure of Information in Anti-Dumping
Investigation:
(a) The investigating authority will make available the “essential data, information,
evidence and reasons adopted for establishment of the existence of dumping and
dumping margin” described in Articles 3 through 5 and 9 of the Rules in the writtenform.  The investigating authority will disclose the basic information of accepted or
non-accepted data, information, evidence and reasons.  For example, for the credit
fee, the investigating authority will disclose whether it is accepted.  If they are not
accepted, what is the reason, what data and information the investigating authority
adapted to instead of the original information.
(b) As to the questions from interested parties about the disclosed information, the
investigating authority will study and analyze them and then give an answer.
Q21. Article 27 of the notified regulations, which describes circumstances under which the
investigating authorities may terminate an anti- dumping investigation, indicates in Paragraph 5
that an investigation may be terminated if both MOFTEC and SETC consider it not
appropriate to continue.  Under what circumstances beyond those already specified in Article
27 would MOFTEC and SETC consider  terminating an investigation?
Reply
Paragraph 5 of Article 27 of the notified regulations indicates that the anti-dumping
investigation shall be terminated on “other circum stances that both MOFTEC and SETC consider not
appropriate to continue the anti-dumping investigation”.  In confirming what circumstance under
which it is “not appropriate continue the anti-dumping investigation”, the investigating authority will
consider all relevant elements and the public interests will be one of the most important elements thatneed to be considered.
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 ap plies to final determinations, as specified in
Article 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?
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 by
Chinese Customs?
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 beG/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 13
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.
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 howMOFTEC 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 havebeen 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 price
undertaking?
(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 what
circumstances 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?
(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 in
circumstances 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 .
26. 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 assessmentwhen 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?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 14
27. 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, ifany, 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?
28. 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 thedomestic 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 were
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 withADA Art. 10.6(ii)?
29. Under Article 45 of the notified regulations , 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 paidon refunds of duties that were originally paid in cash?
30. 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 to
be “necessary information” within the meaning of ADA Art. 6.8 and, if so, onwhat 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?
31. Regarding the Provisional Rules on New Shipper Review in Anti-Dumping Investigations :G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 15
(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, will
MOFTEC 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?
(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?
32. In regard to Article 48 of the notified regulations, 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 of
the 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?
33. 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-
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 ?G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 16
(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.  ADAArt. 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?
34. Article 50 of the notified regulations indicates 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 accept
MOFTEC’s proposal, will a justification or explanation be given?
35. 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?
36. 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?
37. Article 56 of the notified regulations sp ecifies that China may take “corresponding
measures” against any country that “discriminatorily” imposes anti-dumping measures againstG/ADP/Q1/CHN/19
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/19
Page 17
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?
38. 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 ?
__________