RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/M/9
8April 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-1450)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OFTHE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON21-22 OCTOBER 1996
Chairman: Mr.OleLundby (Norway)
1. TheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices ("theCommittee") heldaregular meeting on21-
22October 1996.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Review ofAnti-Dumping Duty Legislation orRegulations -Notifications 2
ofNeworAmended Texts notpreviously reviewed.
(i) Argentina (G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.1) 3
(ii) India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.1) 3
(iii) Israel (G/ADP/N/1/ISR/2-G/SCM/N/1/ISR/2) 3
(iv) Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/1-G/SCM/N/1/KEN/1) 3
(v) Mauritius (G/ADP/N/1/MUS/2) 3
(vi) Norway (G/ADP/N/1/NOR/3-G/SCM/N/1/NOR/3) 4
(vii) Peru(G/ADP/N/1/PER/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/PER/Suppl.1) 4
(viii) Senegal (G/ADP/N/1/SEN/1-G/SCM/N/1/SEN/1) 4
(ix) Zimbabwe (G/ADP/N/1/ZWE/2-G/SCM/N/1/ZWE/2) 4
B. Review ofAnti-Dumping Duty Legislation orRegulations -New 5
orAmended Notifications without legislative textnotpreviously reviewed.
(i) Australia (G/ADP/N/1/AUS/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/AUS/1/Suppl.1 5
(ii) Brazil (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/BRA/1/Suppl.1) 5
(iii) Côted'Ivoire (G/ADP/N/1/CIV/1) 5
(iv) Swaziland (G/ADP/N/1/SWZ/1) 5
(v) Venezuela (G/ADP/N/1/VEN/1/Suppl.1+2) 5
C. Review ofAnti-Dumping Duty Legislation orRegulations -Notifications 6
previously reviewed bytheCommittee.
D. Semi-Annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Actions (Article 16.4) 7
(G/ADP/N/16+Addenda)
E. Preliminary andFinal Anti-Dumping Actions: Notifications 11
(G/ADP/N/12, N/13, N/15, N/17 andN/18)G/ADP/M/9
Page2
Page
F. Observers: International Organizations 11
G. Notification ofCompetent Authorities (Article 16.5) 11
(G/ADP/N/14 +Addenda)
H. Selected European Union (EU) Anti-Dumping Practices -Statement by 12
Indonesia
I. EC-Investigations Concerning theAnti-Circumvention Measures onImports 17
ofRetail Electronic Weighing Scales ortheParts Thereof from Japan,
Singapore andIndonesia
J. AdHocGroup onImplementation (G/ADP/W/399) 20
K. Other Business 22
L. Annual Report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods (Article 18.6) 24
(G/ADP/W/400)
M. DateofNext Regular Meeting 26
A. Review ofAnti-Dumping DutyLegislation orRegulations -Notifications ofNeworAmended
Texts notpreviously reviewed.
3. TheChairman reminded Members oftheprocedures adopted bytheCommittee atitsspecial
meeting inApril 1996 forthecontinuing review ofbothnewly submitted andpreviously notified
notifications oflegislation. Hereminded Members thatquestions withrespect tonewly notified
legislations weretohavebeensubmitted totheMembers concerned andtheSecretariat nolaterthan
30September thisyear. Unfortunately, allquestions wereinfactreceived bytheSecretariat afterthat
date, some aslateastheThursday before themeeting. Itwasobviously more difficult forMembers
torespond fullyatthemeeting toquestions received late.Thus, failure torespect thedeadlines limited
thepossibilities fordiscussion andreduced theeffectiveness ofthereview procedure. Heurged
Members, astheprocess ofreview oflegislation continued, torespect thedeadlines forquestions.
Inanyevent, Members whose legislation wassubject toreview atthemeeting wererequested toanswer
inwriting allquestions submitted inwriting.
4. Hereminded Members thatfollow upquestions could beasked inthismeeting. IfaMember
asking aquestion atthemeeting wished toreceive awritten answer, thequestion wastobesubmitted
inwriting totheMember whose legislation isconcerned andtotheSecretariat nolater than
21November 1996. Written answers toallquestions submitted inwriting were tobesubmitted to
theSecretariat nolaterthan23December 1996.
5. TheCommittee proceeded tothesubstantive review ofthenotifications ontheagenda.
6. Thedelegate ofArgentina indicated that,since thequestions puttoArgentina concerned
countervailing dutyissues, itwould respond orally attheup-coming meeting oftheCommittee onG/ADP/M/9
Page3
Subsidies andCountervailing Measures. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofArgentina can
befound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/1-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/1 submitted byEC
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/ARG/2-G/SCM/Q1/ARG/2 toEC
7. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofIndia canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/IND/2-G/SCM/Q1/IND/2 submitted byUnited States
Thedelegate ofIndiastated thattherehadbeenanerrorinthenotification about which theUnited States
hadposed aquestion. Thelegislation setforthinthatnotification wasnottherelevant text.Thedelegate
ofIndia indicated thatthecorrect legislative textwould benotified shortly.1
8. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofIsrael canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/1-G/SCM/Q1/ISR/1 submitted byUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/2-G/SCM/Q1/ISR/2 submitted byEC
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/3-G/SCM/Q1/ISR/3 submitted byJapan
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/4-G/SCM/Q1/ISR/4 toEC,Japan, andUnited States
9. ThedelegateoftheUnitedStatesrequestedthat,inviewofthefactthatIsraelwasnotrepresented
atthemeeting, thenotification ofIsrael beputontheagenda ofthenextregular meeting ofthe
Committee.
10. TheCommittee agreed.
11. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofKenya canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/KEN/1-G/SCM/Q1/KEN/1 submitted byUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/KEN/2-G/SCM/Q1/KEN/2 submitted byJapan
G/ADP/Q1/KEN/3-G/SCM/Q1/KEN/3 submitted byHong Kong
ASOF10June2005, NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
12. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofMauritius canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/MUS/1-G/SCM/Q1/MUS/1 submitted byUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/MUS/2-G/SCM/Q1/MUS/2 submitted byHong Kong
1Anotification inthisregard wassubsequently received from thedelegation ofIndia.
G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.1 (23December 1996).G/ADP/M/9
Page4
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/MUS/3-G/SCM/Q1/MUS/3 toUnited States andHong Kong
13. ThedelegateofNorwayindicatedthatthequestionsputtoNorwaybytheECrelatedtosubsidies
issues andNorway would respond orally attheSCM meeting. Thequestions concerning thenotification
ofNorway canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/NOR/1-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/1 submitted byUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/NOR/2-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/2 submitted byEC
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/NOR/3-G/SCM/Q1/NOR/3 totheUSandEC
14. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofPerucanbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/1-G/SCM/Q1/PER/1 submitted byUnited States
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/PER/2-G/SCM/Q1/PER/2 toUnited States
15. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofSenegal canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/SEN/1-G/SCM/Q1/SEN/1 submitted byUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/SEN/2-G/SCM/Q1/SEN/2 submitted byEC
G/ADP/Q1/SEN/3-G/SCM/Q1/SEN/3 submitted byJapan
G/ADP/Q1/SEN/4-G/SCM/Q1/SEN/4 submitted byHong Kong
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/SEN/5-G/SCM/Q1/SEN/5 toAll
16. TheAmbassador ofSenegal expressed concern overthefactthatthequestions hadnotbeen
received inFrench untiljustbefore themeeting, which made itverydifficult torespond, given the
technical nature ofthequestions. Itwould bemuch appreciated ifquestions werecirculated inallthree
official languages sufficiently early toallow Members adequate timetorespond.
17. ThequestionsconcerningthenotificationofZimbabwecanbefoundinthefollowingdocuments:
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/1-G/SCM/Q1/ZWE/1 submitted byUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/2-G/SCM/Q1/ZWE/2 submitted byEC
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/3-G/SCM/Q1/ZWE/3 submitted byJapan
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/4-G/SCM/Q1/ZWE/4 submitted byHong Kong
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ZWE/5-G/SCM/Q1/ZWE/5 toAllG/ADP/M/9
Page5
B. Review ofAnti-Dumping Duty Legislation orRegulations -NeworAmended Notifications
without legislative textnotpreviously reviewed.
18. There were noquestions asked concerning thenotification ofAustralia.
19. There were noquestions asked concerning thenotification ofBrazil.
20. Thedelegate oftheUnited States noted thatalthough noquestions hadbeenputtoBrazil
regarding itsnotification, theUnited States wasdissatisfied thatthelegislation ofBrazil hadyetto
betranslated intoaWTO language. Thishadcaused some trouble forsome USexporters whohad
recently beenfaced withaBrazilian anti-dumping investigation. While thesituation wasclearly easier
forMembers whose language wasoneoftheWTO languages, intheUnited States 'view, there was
nonetheless anobligation onallMembers tosupply notifications inaWTO language inatimely fashion.
TheBrazilian lawhadbeenenacted early intheyear, itwasnowOctober, andthere wasasyetno
notification inaWTO language.
21. Thedelegate ofBrazil stated thathisauthorities weredoing theirbesttofinalize translation
intooneoftheworking languages oftheWTO. Heundertook totransmit theconcerns expressed by
theUSdelegate tohisauthorities.
22. Thedelegate oftheECindicated that,while theECwassatisfied withtheexplanations provided
bythedelegate ofBrazil, heshared theconcern expressed bytheUSdelegate. Thefactthatthe
notification hadnotyetbeenmade inaWTO language hadmade itimpossible toholdareview of
Brazil 'slegislation.
23. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofCôte d'Ivoire canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CIV/1-G/SCM/Q1/CIV/1 submitted byEC
G/ADP/Q1/CIV/2-G/SCM/Q1/CIV/2 submitted byHong Kong
ASOF10June2005, NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
24. Thedelegate ofCôted'Ivoire shared theconcern expressed earlier bythedelegate ofSenegal
concerning thelanguage inwhich questions hadbeenreceived.
25. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofSwaziland canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/SWZ/1-G/SCM/Q1/SWZ/1 submitted byHong Kong
ASOF10June2005, NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
26. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofVenezuela canbefound inthefollowing document;
G/ADP/Q1/VEN/1-G/SCM/Q1/VEN/1 submitted byEC
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/VEN/2-G/SCM/Q1/VEN/2 toEC
27. TheChairman thanked theMembers whose legislation wasdiscussed fortheiranswers and
theMembers whoundertook toputquestions. Theexercise hadbeenpositive andofbenefit toall.G/ADP/M/9
Page6
Hereminded Members thatquestions asked orally atthismeeting should besubmitted inwriting to
theMembers whose legislation wasconcerned andtotheSecretariat nolaterthan21November 1996.
Written answers toallquestions submitted inwriting should besubmitted totheSecretariat nolater
than23December 1996.
28. Hefurther noted thatreview ofnewly submitted legislation notifications wasalsoontheagenda
oftheSubsidies Committee meeting laterintheweek, andthatthesame questions thatwere raised
intheCommittee wereontheagenda forthatmeeting. There hadbeenagoodandthorough discussion
intheCommittee, sohedoubted thatitwould benecessary torevert tothese questions atthatmeeting.
However, someMembers hadindicated thattheywould respond toquestions attheSubsidies Committee
meeting. Inaneffort tosavecopying costs, thequestion documents would notbemade available again
before themeeting oftheSubsidies Committee. Therefore, Members were requested toretain the
question documents distributed fortheCommittee 'smeeting foruseatthemeeting oftheSubsidies
Committee.
C. Review ofAnti-Dumping DutyLegislation orRegulations -Notifications previously reviewed
bytheCommittee.
29. TheChairman noted that,unfortunately, noquestions withrespect tothese notification were
received bythecutoffdateofsixweeks before themeeting, 9September 1996. However, questions
hadbeenreceived bytheSecretariat afterthatdate. Given thatthequestions were notreceived by
thedeadline itwasnotpossible forMembers whose legislation wasthesubject ofquestions toprovide
written responses bythedeadline oftwoweeks before thismeeting. Thus, theCommittee would not
beabletodiscuss onlyfollow uptothewritten questions andanswers asprovided forintheprocedures
ithadadopted inApril. Nonetheless, ifanyoftheMembers whose previously reviewed legislation
wasthesubject ofquestions wasprepared toprovide answers atthistimehewelcomed them todo
so.
30. Thedelegate oftheECstated that,given thelatesubmission ofthequestions puttoitbyHong
Kong, anoralreply atthemeeting wasnotpossible. Thequestions wereofahighly technical nature,
andtheECwould giveareply inwriting.
31. Thequestions concerning thenotification oftheEuropean Communities canbefound inthe
following document:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/1-G/SCM/Q1/EEC/1 submitted byHong Kong
Answers tothese questions areduenolaterthan11April 1997.
32. ThedelegateofCanadastatedthat,liketheEC,thequestionsfromHongKonghadbeenreceived
toolatetoallow forafullresponse atthemeeting. Therefore, helimited himself toageneral observation
withrespect tothequestions puttoCanada. Thedelegate ofHong Kong offered hisobservation in
response. Thedelegate ofCanada stated thatadetailed response would beprovided.
33. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofCanada canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/1-G/SCM/Q1/CAN/1 submitted byHong Kong
Answers tothese questions areduenolaterthan11April 1997.G/ADP/M/9
Page7
34. Thequestions concerning thenotification ofNew Zealand canbefound inthefollowing
document:
G/ADP/Q1/NZL/1-G/SCM/Q1/NZL/1 submitted byHong Kong
Answers tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/NZL/2-G/SCM/Q1/NZL/2 toHong Kong
35. Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated that,unfortunately, thequestions from Hong Kong
hadbeenreceived toolatetoprepare provisional oralanswers forthemeeting, butthatwritten answers
would besupplied.
36. Thequestions concerning thenotification oftheUnited States canbefound inthefollowing
document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/1-G/SCM/Q1/USA/1 submitted byHong Kong
Answers tothese questions areduenolaterthan11April 1997.
37. ThedelegateofHongKongexpressedregretthatHongKong'squestionsonpreviouslyreviewed
legislation hadbeensubmitted late. Hong Kong appreciated theeffort byalldelegates concerned to
provide provisional answers ortoundertake toprovide written answers later.
38. TheChairman stated thattheMembers whose previously reviewed legislation wasthesubject
ofquestions atthemeeting should submit answers inwriting tothose questions nolaterthantwoweeks
before thedateoftheCommittee 'snextregular meeting, thatis,by11April 1997. Thequestions
andanswers would beontheagenda oftheApril 1997regular meeting, andhehoped theCommittee
could haveafruitful discussion atthattime.
D. Semi-Annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Actions (Article 16.4) (G/ADP/N/16+Addenda)
39. TheChairman saidthatsofar20Members, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the
EC,Guatemala, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, NewZealand, Peru, Turkey, theUS
andVenezuela hadnotified actions pursuant totherequest forsemi-annual reports. Malaysia 'sreport
wasreceived lateandhadnotyetbeencirculated toMembers.
40. Twenty-one Members, Cuba, theCzech Republic, theDominican Republic, Hong Kong,
Hungary, Iceland, Kuwait, Malta, Morocco, Norway, Paraguay, thePhilippines, Romania, Singapore,
theSlovak Republic, Slovenia, SriLanka, Switzerland, Uganda, theUnited ArabEmirates andUruguay
hadnotified thattheytooknoactions during theperiod.
41. Asof18October 1996noreports hadbeenreceived fromthefollowing 69countries: Antigua
andBarbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Costa Rica, Côted'Ivoire, Cyprus,
Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, ElSalvador, Fiji,Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, the
Republic ofGuinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Liechtenstein,
Macau,Madagascar,Malawi,Maldives,Mali,Mauritania,Mauritius,Mozambique,Myanmar,Namibia,
Nicaragua,Nigeria,Pakistan,PapuaNewGuinea,Poland,Qatar,Rwanda,St.KittsandNevis,St.Lucia,
St.Vincent &Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, theSolomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad andTobago, Tunisia, Zambia andZimbabwe.G/ADP/M/9
Page8
42. TheChairman noted thatthese 69Members represented over60%ofthemembership ofthe
WTO. Many, ifnotmostofthese Members hadprobably taken noanti-dumping actions during the
period. Forthese Members, asingle onesentence notification wasallthatwascalled for. This
regrettably poorrecord ofnotifications would bereflected intheCommittee 'sannual report which
would bereviewed byMinisters atSingapore. Heurged Members tousetheirbestefforts toimprove
theirownresponse tothenotification obligations oftheAgreement andtoconsider ways inwhich the
Committee could extend assistance toMembers, particularly developing country Members, toimprove
therecord ofcompliance.
43. There wasalsoaserious problem ofnotifications being submitted late. With fewexceptions
semi-annual reports werenotreceived bythe30August 1996deadline, andsome ofthereports were
received almost twomonths afterthedeadline. Itwasdifficult tounderstand thisdelay since thedates
when semi-annual reports weredue,theendofFebruary andtheendofAugust, wereannounced well
inadvance. Semi-annual reports received lateoften could notbetranslated andcirculated toMembers
insufficient timetoallow themtotransmit themtocapitals, consider themcarefully, formulate questions
andpreparefortheregularCommitteemeetingsinAprilandOctoberwhenthesereportswereconsidered
bytheCommittee. Thus thecontinuing failure ofMembers tosubmit complete semi-annual reports
inatimely fashion limited theCommittee 'sability toconsider thesubstance ofthose notifications.
Transparency wasthusreduced andtheability toconduct theimportant tasks ofsurveillance and
monitoring waslimited. Further, latesubmissions puttheSecretariat inthedifficult position ofhaving
towaituntilthelastminute toprepare tables andannexes fortheannual report.
44. Moreover, semi-annual reports thatweresubmitted wereoften incomplete, lacking important
information thatwasrequired, suchasthelistofmeasures inforce attheendofthereporting period.
TheChairman urged Members totaketheirobligations withregard tonotifications seriously andmake
efforts toimprove theircompliance.
45. Thedelegate ofSenegal stated that,having justreceived information fromcapital, thereport
fortheentire yearof1995 andthefirstsixmonths of1996 would besenttotheSecretariat within
theweek.
46. Thedelegate ofEgypt saidthathisdelegation hadthatdayreported thatitdidnottakeany
anti-dumping actions onimports from anyWTO Member during theperiod January-June 1996.
47. ThedelegateoftheUnitedStatessupportedtheChairman'sstatementconcerningthecompleteness
ofnotifications thathadbeensupplied. Asonewhoworked withthese notifications onaregular basis
providing information tothegeneral public intheUSaswellaspolicy makers, hehadoften faced
difficulties when notifications were notcomplete. Hereminded Members thatalloutstanding
investigations weretobeincluded onthesemi-annual reports irrespective ofwhether ornotanyactions
hadbeentaken during theperiod covered bythereport. Thiswasachange fromthesituation under
theTokyo Round Code, where ifnoaction wastaken inanindividual case, thecasewould notbe
reported inthesemi-annual report. TheCommittee hadagreed thatsuchcases would beincluded
inthesemi-annual reports soMembers could adequately monitor theirprogress, since theWTO Anti-
Dumping Agreement established newtimelimits. IfaMember didnotinclude aparticular case,because
noaction wastaken during theperiod covered bythereport, there would benoindication ofwhether
ornotthedeadlines intheAnti-Dumping Agreement hadbeenmet.
48. TheChairman reminded Members thataformat forreports wastobefound indocument
G/ADP/1andthattheAnnexeswerepartoftheformat.Questionsconcerningthereportingrequirements
could beputtotheSecretariat.G/ADP/M/9
Page9
49. Thedelegate ofIndonesia informed theCommittee thatIndonesia 'ssemi-annual report forthe
period of1January-30 June1996 hadbeensenttotheSecretariat theprevious week.
50. Thedelegate ofThailand informed theCommittee thatduring thefirsthalfof1996therewere
noanti-dumping actions taken byhisgovernment, andthatawritten notification would besentinas
soonaspossible.
51. Thedelegate ofHong Kong supported theChairman 'sandtheUS'sconcern onthepoorstate
ofreporting.
52. Thedelegate ofIndia tooknoteofthecomments ofUS,andundertook tocommunicate them
tocapital, sothenextsemi-annual reports would include those pending cases where noaction was
taken.
53. Turning tothereview ofnotifications submitted, thedelegate ofChile raised questions onthe
status ofinvestigations initiated byArgentina onfluorescent lamps andsemolina from Chile. These
investigations werereported inthepriorsemi-annual report butdidnotappear inthesemi-annual report
being examined.
54. Thedelegate ofArgentina saidthattheNational Foreign Trade Commission hadpractically
finalized itsinvestigation intoinjury, andafinaldecision would bemade bytheendof1996.
55. Thedelegate oftheUnited States asked forclarification onwhen theArgentine authorities
initiated theinvestigation andwhen thecasewasexpected tobefinalized.
56. Thedelegate ofArgentina saidthattheinvestigation wasinitiated on24November 1995 and
hebelieved there would beafinaldecision bytheendof1996.
57. Thedelegate oftheUnited States requested clarification from Chile onwhether theUnited
States hadbeennotified oftheinitiation ofaninvestigation concerning respirators andparts thereof,
reported ashaving beeninitiated inApril 1996. Hewasnotaware ofanynotification having been
received.
58. Thedelegate ofChile indicated hewould consult withhisauthorities andthenanswer theUS
request forclarification.
59. Thedelegate ofHong Kong pointed outthatinAnnex 6oftheECsemi-annual report there
seemed tobeanerror concerning ananti-circumvention casewhich wasreported under theproduct
listing, butdidnotappear inthecountry listing. Henoted thattheEChadterminated theproceeding
inJuly1996. HealsosaidthatAnnex 6didnotdistinguish anti-circumvention cases fromother normal
anti-dumpinginvestigationsandreviews.HesuggestedthattheEuropeanCommunitiesconsiderwhether
theyshould specify those caseinitiated asanti-circumvention investigations.
60. Thedelegate oftheECconfirmed thattheparticular anti-circumvention casereferred tohad
beenterminated andthatitsreporting inoneofthelistsinAnnex 6wasamistake thatwould be
corrected. Astothesuggestion made byHong Kong thatareference should bemade tothefactthat
thiswasananti-circumvention investigation, suchareference hadalready beenincluded intheform
ofafootnote totherelevant cases contained inthefirsttableoftheirsemi-annual report.
61. Thedelegate ofHong Kong suggested thatthesame typeofreference beincluded inAnnex 6
oftheECsemi-annual report, inorder toavoid confusion andtheneedtorefer backtothetable
contained inAnnex 1ofthatreport.G/ADP/M/9
Page10
62. Thedelegate oftheUnited States asked thedelegate ofGuatemala toclarify whether ornot
Guatemala hadanyoutstanding orders since thisinformation wasnotreported.
63. Thedelegate ofGuatemala confirmed thatGuatemala didnothaveanyoutstanding orders.
64. Thedelegate oftheUnited States asked thedelegate from India toclarify thestatus ofthe
investigation onBisphenol Aandwhether ornotIndia hadanyoutstanding orders.
65. ThedelegateofIndiasaidthatthereweresomecasesoutstanding,andthatthiswouldbereported
intheirnextsemi-annual report. Withrespect tothecaseonBisphenol AIndia would provide further
detail inwriting.
66. Thedelegate ofJapan noted acorrection toAnnex 1ofJapan'ssemi-annual report, which should
refertoanti-dumping measures inforce asof30June1996, not31December 1995.
67. Thedelegate ofMexico clarified thetranslation ofMexico 'ssemi-annual report intoEnglish.
InAnnex 1where theEnglish version said"noquota", thismeant thatthere wasnoparticular duty
applied atthatparticular stage. Mexico would prefer ifthephrase "noduty" wereused. Mexico would
alsoprefer useofthephrase "review concluded atthisstage owing tolackofelements", instead of
"review concluded atthisstageowing tolackofevidence" which appeared inthe"Provisional Measures"
column oftheinvestigation onCationic Starch from theNetherlands.
68. Thedelegate oftheECasked theMexican delegation forclarification ontheterm"elements",
since theECunderstood ittobeelements ofevidence.
69. Thedelegate ofMexico saidthattherelevant resolution made thisclear, butthattheevidence
provided bytheNetherlands inthatcasewasinsufficient tosupport theirposition.
70. Thedelegate ofHong Kong referred toanitemintheUSsemi-annual report regarding an
anti-circumvention caseagainst Korea concerning colour television receivers. Thisenquiry arose from
anti-dumping duties already inforce oncolour televisions from Korea. Itwasalleged bythe
United States thatcolour television receivers manufactured inThailand andimported intotheUSwere
circumventing theanti-dumping duties against Korea. Herecalled thatcircumvention cases intheEC
report wererecorded as"Reviews" pursuant toArticle 13oftheECRegulation. There thusseemed
tobeadivergence ofpractice between theUSandECreports, when itcame toreporting anti-
circumvention cases. Hesuggested thatforthepurposes oftransparency andeasier comparison, itwould
bedesirabletofindaunifiedwaytoreportanti-circumventionandtoconsiderwhetheranti-circumvention
casesshouldbetreatedas"Reviews"forreportingpurposes.HealsoremindedMembersofHongKong's
principal objection toallanti-circumvention cases. Hewasoftheviewthatthedivergence ofpractice
inreporting wasareflection oftheridiculous nature ofanti-circumvention actions.
71. Thedelegate ofKorea shared Hong Kong'sconcern with regards toanti-circumvention
investigations.
72. Thedelegate oftheUnited States saidthatthecaseinquestion wasmarked asacircumvention
enquiry. Butiftherewasotherinformation thatmight behelpful, theUSwould consider thesuggestions
made byHong Kong.
73. Thedelegate oftheECnoted thattheECwasready todiscuss ways inwhich thereporting
format might beimproved inorder toincrease transparency.G/ADP/M/9
Page11
74. Thedelegate oftheUnited States asked thedelegate ofVenezuela toclarify whether Venezuela
hadanyoutstanding orders.
75. Thedelegate ofVenezuela clarified thatthere wereoutstanding orders oncrystal polystyrene
andhigh-impact polystyrene from theUS.
76. TheCommittee tooknoteofallthestatements made.
E. Preliminary andFinal Anti-dumping Actions: Notifications (G/ADP/N/12, N/13, N/15, N/17
andN/18)
77. TheChairman noted thatlistsofnotifications ofpreliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions
received bytheSecretariat hadbeencirculated totheCommittee indocuments G/ADP/N/12, 13,15,
17and18.Since thelastregular meeting oftheCommittee, Argentina, Australia, Canada, theEC,
Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, NewZealand, South Africa, Turkey, theUSandVenezuela hadnotified
preliminary and/or finalactions. Such actions hadalsobeennotified byGuatemala andwould be
reflected indocument G/ADP/N/19.
78. Aswithother notification requirements, there appeared tobealackoffullcompliance inthis
area,assome Members whohadsubmitted semi-annual reports indicating actions inprogress hadnot
submitted anyreports ofpreliminary orfinalactions tobetaken. TheChairman pointed outthatan
important aspect oftheCommittee 'staskwasmonitoring anddiscussing actions taken byMembers.
IfMembers didnottaketheirobligations tonotify seriously andcomply theCommittee would be
prevented from accomplishing thisgoalofconsidering Members 'compliance withtherequirements
oftheAgreement.
79. Thedelegate ofJapan requested confirmation concerning thenotification obligation forthe
resultofthenewcomerreviewsunderArticle9.5oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement.Japanalsoexpressed
theviewthatsuchresults should benotified, toincrease transparency.
80. Noremarks were made concerning thesubstance ofanyofthereports.
81. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements.
F. Observers: International Organisations
82. The Chairman noted thatthecriteria forgranting observer status tointernational
intergovernmental organizations hadbeenapproved bytheGeneral Council. Heproposed toconsult
informally onwhich international intergovernmental organizations would begranted observer status
intheCommittee. Pending theoutcome ofsuchconsultations, heproposed thattheCommittee continue
toinvite those organizations which hadbeenfollowing theCommittee 'smeetings upuntilnowonan
adhocbasis, theIMF, OECD, UNCTAD andtheWorld Bank.
83. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
G. Notification ofCompetent Authorities (Article 16.5) (G/ADP/N/14 +Addenda)
84. TheChairmanrecalledthatatitslastregularmeetingtheCommitteehaddecidedtoaskMembers
tonotify totheSecretariat thename, address, telephone number andfaxnumbers, andwhere available
electronicmailaddress,oftheirauthoritiescompetenttoinitiateandconductanti-dumpinginvestigations.
Asof18October 1996thefollowing 30Members hadnotified relevant information totheSecretariat:
Argentina,Australia,Bolivia,Brazil,Canada,Chile,theEC,Guatemala,HongKong,Hungary,Iceland,G/ADP/M/9
Page12
Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Korea, Mauritius, Mexico, NewZealand, Norway, Peru, Romania, Singapore,
Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, theUS,Venezuela andZambia.
85. Thedelegate ofKorea proposed thatMembers alsonotify theCommittee oftheirdomestic
procedures governing theinitiation andconduct ofanti-dumping investigations, assetforth in
Article 16.5(b) oftheAgreement. Itcould beargued thatitwasunnecessary tospecifically notify
investigationprocedures,giventhatthedomesticlegislationofMembersalreadyincludestheprocedures.
However, domestic legislation didnotalways clearly demonstrate suchprocedures, andmaynotactually
include anyprovisions about procedures atall.Moreover, itwasverydifficult tounderstand how
aninvestigation would proceed based onthefulltextofdomestic legislation, which might notbefamiliar
toother Members andtheprivate sector officials subject toinvestigation. Heproposed that,inorder
toincrease transparency, fortheconvenience ofpotential users, andtoreduce theuncertainty of
Members, eachMember would notify aclearsummary ofitsinvestigation procedures. Since every
country haddifferent procedures, itwould bebetter nottouseastandard format. However, each
notification would show, bystage ofinvestigation, suchdetails aswhatisinvestigated, theduration
oftheinvestigation, theinvestigating agency, requirements ofthecompany subject toinvestigation,
necessary requirements toproceed tothenextstage, measures expected asaresult ofaparticular stage
andreferences totherelevant provisions inthedomestic legislation.
86. Thedelegates ofCanada andMexico noted corrections totheirnotifications.
87. Thedelegate ofIndonesia stated thatIndonesia hadnotified itscompetent authorities together
withitsanti-dumping legislation inAugust.
88. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheproposal made byKorea, andoftheother statements made.
H. Selected European Union (EU) Anti-Dumping Practices -Statement byIndonesia
89. Thedelegate ofIndonesia drewtheattention oftheCommittee toIndonesia 'sgrowing concerns
regardingEUactionsrelatedtoanti-dumpingpractices.Theconcernwaswiththeinvestigationconducted
bytheEUoncertain textile products originating inIndonesia, i.e.cotton fabrics unbleached, cotton
fabrics andpolyester textiles andyarn. Indonesia wished toexpress grave concern regarding theclosure
andreopeningofanti-dumpingproceedingsoncottonfabricsfromseveralcountries,includingIndonesia.
During theperiod of1994-1996, thehistory oftheproceedings initiated bytheEUontheproducts
concerned wasasfollows: On20January 1994, theEUissued anotice ofinitiation ofanti-dumping
proceedings concerning imports ofcotton fabrics originating inthePeople 'sRepublic ofChina (PRC),
India, Indonesia, Pakistan andTurkey. Following theCommission 'sdecision on19February 1996,
theseanti-dumping proceedings wereterminated. However, lessthanaweeklater, on21February 1996
theEUissued anotice oftheinitiation ofanti-dumping proceedings onimports ofunbleached cotton
fabrics originating inIndonesia andthePRC, Egypt, India, Pakistan andTurkey.
90. ItwasIndonesia'sunderstandingthattheCommissionhadintendedtoterminatetheinvestigation
initiated on20January 1994 without taking measures duetoalackofsupport from theEUindustry
concerned.ButfacedwithpressurefromMemberstatesandthecomplainant,Eurocotton,acompromise
wasreached whereby Eurocotton agreed towithdraw thecomplaint inexchange fortheinitiation of
anewproceeding covering largely thesame range ofproduct.
91. Atthisjuncture, andinviewofthetradeharassment thissituation wascausing, Indonesia wished
toreceiveconfirmationfromtheCommissionregardingthereasonsforwithdrawalofthefirstcomplaint,
andtoposethequestion totheCommittee, whether itwasintheinterest oftheMember concerned
toallow investigating authorities tofollow suchpractices. Theimplication seenbytheIndonesian
Government wasthattheclosing andreopening ofcases could leadtosystematic trade harassmentG/ADP/M/9
Page13
overseveral years untilsuchtimeastheinvestigating authorities were inaposition toprove the
allegations made.
92. Hisdelegation alsowished todraw theattention oftheCommittee tothenotice ofinitiation
ofanti-dumping proceedings concerning imports ofunbleached cotton fabric originating inthePRC,
India, Indonesia, Pakistan andTurkey, mentioned indocument 96/C/50/04 (31February 1996) Official
Journal C/50. Theproceedings wereinitiated onthebasisofacomplaint received fromEurocotton.
Initscomplaint Eurocotton asserted acausal linkbetween thealleged dumping andinjury inthatthe
imports fromthecountries alleged toberesponsible forthedumping increased compared withthose
fromthirdcountries. However, thisallegation could havebeenreadily disproved ifreference hadbeen
made totheEurostat figures available atthetime. These figures would haveshown thatimports from
countries alleged tobedumping wentdown compared withthose from thirdcountries.
93. Inaccordance withtheterms ofArticle 5oftheAgreement, hisGovernment tooktheview
thattheinvestigating authorities were under arealobligation to,interalia,check theaccuracy and
adequacy oftheevidence provided inthecomplaint inorder todetermine whether theopening ofa
proceeding wasjustified. Furthermore, iftheallegations pertaining tocausality werebased onsimple
assertions andunsubstantiated byavailable evidence, thisproceeding should nothavebeeninitiated
astheobligation stemming from Article 5oftheAgreement wasnotfulfilled.
94. Inviewoftheabove, hisGovernment wished toseekclarification from theMembers ofthe
Committee astowhether aproceeding should bepromptly terminated ifitisestablished thatthe
investigating authorities have notapplied Article 5oftheAgreement. Inthiscontext, Indonesia
considered thatoneoftheprinciple achievements oftherevision oftheAnti-Dumping Code hadbeen
theadditional responsibility placed ontheinvestigating authority toensure thatcomplaints werewell-
founded before initiating proceedings.
95. Theimportance ofArticle 5wasself-evident, taking intoaccount thetimeinvested byall
interested torespond totheallegations made. However, Article 5wasundermined when theECimposed
aprovisional anti-dumping dutyonimports ofpolyester textiles andfilament yarnoriginating form
Indonesia andThailand through Commission Regulation No.940/96 (20May1996). TheCommission
hadmade acalculation inwhich most ofthecostofproduction wasallocated tospecific types of
products. Thiscalculation resulted inhigher costsofproduction. Further, costswereonlyallocated
foracertain proportion ofactual imported goods. Thisaffected thedetermination ofprofitability and
resulted inanormal value based onaninflated costofproduction. Indonesia understood thatthis
approach might havebeenusedbytheCommission inother textile cases.
96. Article 2.2.1.1 oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement stipulates thatcostsshallnormally becalculated
onthebasis ofthecostrecords keptbytheexporter orproducer under investigation, provided that
suchrecords areinaccordance withthegenerally accepted accounting principles oftheexporting country
andreasonably reflect thecosts associated with theproduction andsaleoftheproduct under
consideration. Indonesia considered thatthepractice oftheCommission wentagainst theprinciples
contained inthatArticle. Moreover inthepolyester filament case, theEC'spractice didnotreflect
thecostallocation historically usedbytheIndonesian exporters concerned.
97. Indonesia wished torequest theCommission tocomment onthemethod ofcalculation referred
toabove andinparticular, toexplain thecircumstances inwhich theCommission considered thatit
wasjustified toestablish overall costs ofmanufacturer onanyother basis thantotaloutput.
98. Thedelegate ofIndonesia reiterated theconcern ofIndonesia andmost ofthedeveloping
Members oftheWTO inthefaceoftheanti-dumping actions which developed countries continued
totake. Thissituation would create unpredictable trade andthesuccessful reduction oftariff levelsG/ADP/M/9
Page14
toanaverageof0to5%inindustrializedcountriesattainedintheUruguayRoundwouldbemeaningless.
Indonesia hadnoobjection toandfullyrecognized thelegitimacy ofaction taken todefend domestic
industry against theunfair import ofproducts. However, aproliferation ofanti-dumping measures
thatresulted in,interalia,trade harassment wasunnecessary anddamaging, particularly when most
oftheseanti-dumping actions weredirected against products which wereveryessential totheeconomy
ofIndonesia andother developing countries, suchastextiles andclothing.
99. Healsostressed theimportance ofreceiving answers totheconcerns expressed. AsIndonesia
hadrecently initiated itsfirstanti-dumping action, itwasitsintention toscrupulously adhere tothe
spirit andletter oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement, butIndonesia expected itstrading partners tofollow
suit.
100. Thedelegate ofHong Kong expressed deepconcern regarding possible abusive useofanti-
dumping measures bytheECasrevealed byIndonesia 'sstatement. Hong Kong wasnotprivy tothe
details ofthecaseandwished tobeenlightened byresponses from andclarification bytheEC. In
general,thediscontentharbouredbyIndonesiacoincidedwithHongKong'sunderstandingofthepotential
ofanti-dumping measures forabusive use.
101. Based onHong Kong'sexperience asthesubject ofanti-dumping action, anti-dumping measures
could have apowerful trade stifling effect. Assoon astheauthorities initiate ananti-dumping
investigation, normal trade intheconcerned product would beadversely affected. Purchase orders
could bewithdrawn, neworders could beputonhold, market access would beimpeded. Itdidnot
matter whether dumping andinjury within themeaning oftheAgreement hadtaken place ornot.A
mereallegation andinitiation ofproceedings would suffice. Thiswaswhyprivate firms could employ
astrategy ofseeking anti-dumping measures aspartoftheir corporate strategy todisadvantage
competitors.
102. Second, examination oftheaccuracy andadequacy ofevidence bytheauthorities wasofutmost
importance. TheAgreement putthisimportant obligation ontheauthority atanearlystage. Article 5.8
further provided thataninvestigation shallbeterminated promptly assoonastheauthorities concerned
aresatisfied thatthere isnotsufficient evidence ofdumping orinjury tojustify proceeding withthe
case. Toreapthegains oftheUruguay Round, Hong Kong looked toallparties concerned tofaithfully
implement andfollow theprovisions oftheAgreement.
103. Third, dumping waslargely atechnical offense. Itwasbased onamechanical comparison
oftwonumerical values -normal value andexport price. Today, thedetermination ofthesearithmetic
values required many technical calculations. Thiscould besubject todiscretion andpossible arbitrary
manipulation.HongKongagainlookedtoallconcernedtofaithfullyimplementandfollowtheprovisions
oftheAgreement.
104. Hereiterated thatHong Kong didnotknow thedetails ofthepresent dispute between theEC
andIndonesia andhewould bereluctant topasshasty judgement onthis. Buthebelieved hisgeneral
observations weregenuine, andlooked forward tosatisfactory resolution ofthematter byallparties
concerned.
105. Thedelegate ofIndia supported thestatement made byIndonesia. Henoted thatthetextile
industry wasthebackbone oftheeconomy ofthedeveloping countries concerned, withalarge work
force depending onthisindustry foritslivelihood. Itwasregrettable that,without looking intothe
merits ofthecomplaint received from itsdomestic industry, theEChadinitiated anti-dumping
proceedings onimports ofunbleached cotton fabric fromIndia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, thePRC,
andTurkey, afterterminating another proceeding involving many ofthese countries. ThisconstitutedG/ADP/M/9
Page15
trade harassment andresulted inthedestabilization ofthetextile industry affecting thelivelihood of
alarge number ofworkers inhiscountry.
106. Ithadcome toIndia'snotice thattheECdidnotexamine todetermine thedegree ofsupport
forthecomplaint bytheCommunity industry before initiating theanti-dumping investigation on
21February 1996. Thiswasinconsistent withtheprocedure described inArticle 5.4oftheEC'sown
Regulation No.384/96 of22December 1995.
107. Indiacalled ontheECtoexplain thefactsofthecaseandurged theECtoreconsider itsdecision
andterminate theproceedings immediately.
108. ThedelegateofMalaysia,onbehalfoftheotherASEANcountries(BruneiDarussalam,Malaysia,
Singapore, thePhilippines andThailand) echoed theconcerns expressed byIndonesia andrepeated
byHong Kong andIndia. Hereiterated therequest oftheprevious speakers thatanti-dumping measures
should notbeusedinsuchawayastounnecessarily disrupt trade between Members. Members who
havereasons totakeanti-dumping action should dosowithcareandresponsibility andensure that
anyaction wasincompliance withtheAgreement.
109. Thedelegate ofEgypt registered support forthestatement made bytheIndonesian delegation
andwished todraw attention toArticle 15,which recognizes thatspecial regard must begiven by
developed countries when considering theapplication ofanti-dumping measures against developing
countries. Duetothecritical economic situation ofhiscountry, Egypt hoped more attention would
begiven totheimplementation ofthatArticle.
110. Thedelegate ofKorea supported theprevious speakers, andexpressed thehopethatthetwo
parties could reach amutually satisfactory resolution inthenearest future.
111. Thedelegate ofJapan noted that,while itdidnothavedetailed information, ifasIndonesia
stated theinitiation oftheinvestigation wasnotbased onsufficient evidence, Japan shared theconcerns
ofIndonesia, andwould liketohaveanexplanation from theEConthismatter.
112. Thedelegate oftheECnoted that,while hewasaware ofIndonesia 'sintent toraisethiscase,
hehadnotbeeninformed oftheexact details thatcaused concern. Therefore, hewasnotinaposition
toreply toeachandevery point raised, buttheECwasready onabilateral basistoprovide additional
information toIndonesia.
113. Heobserved thattheIndonesian delegate andothers hadreferred totrade harassment. The
ECdenied theexistence ofanytradeharassment. Having saidthat,heunderlined thattradeharassment
wasnotanotion oraconcept found intheAnti-Dumping Agreement orintheGeneral Agreement.
IfIndonesia considered thatanyoftheCommunity actions referred toinitsstatement resulted inany
nullification orimpairment ofbenefits accruing toitunder theAgreement, orifIndonesia considered
thatthere hadbeenabreach ofanyprovision oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement oroftheGeneral
Agreement, Indonesia should clearly sayso.Intheabsence ofsuchaclaim, theECunderstood that
Indonesia lacked anylegalbasisforobjecting totheactions qualified as"harassment" andforthatreason
hadchosen tousenotions completely foreign totheAnti-Dumping Agreement.
114. Thiswasallthemore serious, andwasofdeepconcern totheEC,since theconclusions that
Indonesia hadreached were, intheirownwords, based onpresumed intentions andimpressions. The
ECcould notargue about intentions andimpressions, much lessabout thewaythatMembers interpret
them. TheECwould always beready todiscuss factsestablished during investigations andcompliance
withtheprovisions oftheAgreement, butsimply could notaccept adebate intheCommittee onthe
basis ofalleged intentions.G/ADP/M/9
Page16
115. Regarding thespecific issues raised bytheIndonesian delegate, astothereasons whythefirst
complaint waswithdrawn, thiswasaquestion which should beaddressed tothepetitioners andnot
totheEC.IntheECsystem acomplaint could bewithdrawn atanytime, andtherewasnoobligation
tojustify ormotivate suchawithdrawal. Itwasuptotheadministering authority todecide when a
complaint waswithdrawn whether theinvestigation should continue orshould beterminated. Inthis
particular casetheCommission haddecided toterminate theinvestigation.
116. ThestatementoftheIndonesiandelegategavetheimpressionthattwoinvestigationswereopened
inrespect ofthesame product. Acareful examination oftheinvestigations showed thattheycovered
different products, withthesecond onecovering amuch more restricted range ofproducts thanthe
firstone. Atthesame time, thecountries subject totheinvestigations were notthesame.
117. TheIndonesian delegate tooktheview thattheinvestigation should nothavebeeninitiated
assome oftheallegations werenotsufficiently substantiated. TheCommunity wassatisfied thatall
standards ofevidence inaccordance withArticle 5weremetinthisparticular case. Asstated inthe
notice ofinitiation, thecumulated imports from thecountries under investigation hadincreased
significantly interms ofmarket share, andevidence wasprovided inthatrespect. Thefactthatthe
imports ofsome other third countries might alsohaveincreased didnotdetract from thefactthat
increasing imports from theconcerned countries atextremely lowprices appeared, prima facie,to
substantially contribute totheinjuries suffered bythedomestic producers.
118. TheIndonesian delegate alsoreferred tothemethodology usedintheinvestigation inrespect
ofpolyester textile filament yarnandmore specifically tothemethodology used inestablishing
constructed values. Inthatparticular case, dueconsideration wasgiven tothecostallocation method
historically utilized bytheIndonesian producers concerned. However, though therecords keptby
theseproducers wereinaccordance withthegenerally accepted accounting principles ofIndonesia they
didnotreasonably reflect thecosts associated withtheproduction andsaleoftheproduct under
consideration, firstquality polyester textile filament yarn. Thecosts resulting from thereallocation
method utilized bytheIndonesian producers hadbeenadjusted accordingly. Theapproach taken by
theinvestigating authority wasinconformity withthelastpartofthefirstsentence ofArticle 2.2.1.1.
oftheAgreement which requires thatforcoststobetaken onthebasisofrecords keptbytheexporter
theymust "reasonably reflect thecosts associated withtheproduction andsaleoftheproduct under
consideration". Headded thatofallexporters towhom thismethodology hadbeenapplied onlyan
extremely limited number hadobjected.
119. Finally, thedelegate oftheECnoted thattheECfullyunderstood theconcern ofIndonesia
when itsexports weresubject toananti-dumping investigations. TheECwasalsoconcerned when
itsexportsweresubjecttoanti-dumpinginvestigationsanduponrequesttheCommunitycloselymonitored
anti-dumping investigations byother Members toensure thatallrights under theAgreement were
respected andallobligations wereadhered to.Forthisreason theECwelcomed thestatement ofthe
Indonesian delegate recognizing thelegitimacy ofactions taken todefend industry from injurious
dumping. However, when headded thatanti-dumping actions ofdeveloped countries rendered tariff
reduction meaningless, theEChadtodisagree. Thiswassimply anexaggeration without anysupporting
facts. Exports fromIndonesia totheEChadgrown fromECU1.64million in1986toECU6.1million
in1995. In1995, Indonesian exports totheCommunity affected byanti-dumping measures accounted
forECU 28,000 outofatotalofECU 6.1million, thatis0.46% oftotalexports. IntheEC'sview,
these figures clearly showed thattheimpact ofanti-dumping measures wasaverylimited one.
120. TheECdelegate noted theconcerns expressed byHong Kong, India andother Members.
However, especially withrespect toHong Kong'sstatement, mostoftheconclusions drawn appeared
tobebased onassumptions, asHong Kong itself hadacknowledged.G/ADP/M/9
Page17
121. Regarding Egypt 'sreference toArticle 15andtothespecial treatment duetodeveloping
countries, theECfirmly believed thatArticle 15wasnotvoidofcontent. Itwasanimportant obligation
intheAgreement andassuchtheEChadalways adhered toitscrupulously.
122. Thedelegate ofIndonesia thanked theECforitsresponse.
123. Thedelegate ofHong Kong reiterated thatHong Kong wasnotaparty tothedispute and
consequently didnotwishtoinvolve itself indebate. Heclarified that,asHong Kong wasnotprivy
tothedetails ofthecase, hisearlier intervention served asageneral observation ofpossible abusive
useofanti-dumping measures which mayberelevant totheCommittee.
124. Thedelegate oftheECrecognized therightofHong Kong tomake general comments atany
timeintheCommittee, butwarned against linking comments ongeneral questions withaparticular
investigation under discussion.
125. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
I. EC-Investigations Concerning Anti-Circumvention Measures onImports ofRetail Electronic
Weighing Scales ortheParts Thereof from Japan, Singapore andIndonesia
126. Thedelegate ofJapan stated thatinAugust of1996, theEChadinitiated twoinvestigations
concerninganti-circumvention.OnewasonimportsofcertainelectronicweighingscalesfromIndonesia
originating inJapan byimport ofthesameproduct assembled inand/or transhipped through Indonesia.
TheECputtheimports from Indonesia under registration. Theother investigation wasonimports
ofcertain electronic weighing scales originating inJapan andSingapore, byimports ofparts thereof
assembled intheEC. TheECputtheimports ofparts under registration.
127. TheEChadtaken these measures based ontheanti-circumvention provision inArticle 13of
itsAnti-Dumping Regulations. There is,however, noprovision intheWTO Anti-Dumping Agreement
which allows Members totakeanti-circumvention measures. Therefore, Japan wasoftheviewthat
theEC'santi-circumvention provision wasinconsistent withtheWTO Agreement. TheWTO Anti-
Dumping Agreement provides that"ananti-dumping measure shall beapplied only under the
circumstances provided forinArticle VIofGATT 1994 andpursuant toinvestigations initiated and
conducted inaccordance withtheprovisions ofthisAgreement". TheEU'sRegulation andthemeasures
taken based onthisRegulation were allinconsistent withtherequirements oftheAnti-Dumping
Agreement. Tobeconsistent withtheWTO Agreement, theinvestigation concerning theimports
fromIndonesia should follow theusual procedures ofananti-dumping investigation towards Indonesia
andshould notbeananti-circumvention investigation.
128. Regarding theinvestigation concerning theimports fromJapan andSingapore, theECshould
separately investigate imports ofparts. Inaddition, therequest forinvestigation submitted bytheEC
companies citedthewrong company asthesubject oftheinvestigation andaccordingly theECauthorities
hadsentthewritten enquiries tothewrong company. Thisfactraised concerns about thereliability
oftheinvestigation conducted bytheEC.
129. Japanwishedtoregisterseriousconcernabouttheseanti-circumventioninvestigationsandwould
continue tofollow them carefully. Japan reserved itsrighttotakeappropriate measures.
130. ThedelegateofHongKonglookedwithdeepconcernatthecontinuoususeofanti-circumvention
measures bytheECpursuant toArticle 13ofitsRegulation. Hong Kong, together witheight other
countries, wasthevictim ofaction pursuant tothisanti-circumvention provision inacaseconcerning
anti-dumping duties onmicrodisks originating inthePRCandTaiwan. Hong Kong andotherconcernedG/ADP/M/9
Page18
parties hadraised serious objections bothbilaterally andmultilaterally. TheCommunity terminated
thatcaseinJuly1996. InHong Kong'sview, thatcaseshould nothavebeeninitiated atall.Asnoted
atmany previous meetings andonother occasions, Hong Kong tooktheviewthatanti-circumvention
actions pursuant toArticle 13oftheECRegulation areasamatter ofprinciple inconsistent withWTO
disciplines. Thereasons forthiswere asfollows: Article VIallows aWTO Member tolevyona
dumped product ananti-dumping dutyonlyinorder tooffset orprevent dumping andprovides that
noWTO Member shalllevyanyanti-dumping dutyunless itdetermines theeffect ofdumping issuch
astocauseorthreatenmaterialinjurytoanestablisheddomesticindustry;Article1oftheAnti-Dumping
Agreement provides thatananti-dumping measure shallbeapplied onlyunder theprovisions provided
forinGATT Article VIandpursuant toinvestigations initiated andconducted inaccordance withthe
provisions oftheAgreement; Article 18.1prohibits countries fromtaking action against thedumping
ofexports byaMember except inaccordance withtheprovisions oftheAgreement. Above allthe
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement doesnotcontain anyanti-circumvention provisions which would allow
Members toderogate fromtheseobligations. Anti-dumping measures could therefore onlybeimposed
onaproduct afterproof ofdumping, injury andcausation inaccordance withGATT Article VIand
procedures prescribed intheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Contrary tothese obligations, Article 13of
theECAnti-Dumping Regulation provided forimposition ofanti-dumping duties onaproduct without
proof ofdumping, injury andcausation inaccordance withGATT Article VIandtheprocedures
prescribed intheAgreement. Consequently anyanti-dumping action taken bytheCommunity pursuant
toArticle 13isaviolation ofthisobligation under theWTO.
131. Regarding thepresent case, Hong Kong didnothavemany details butnoted thattheaction
wastaken pursuant toArticle 13.Should theCommunity 'sdetermination include nodetermination
ofdumping, injury andcausation within theproper meaning oftheAgreement, Hong Kong would
joinJapan andothers inraising anobjection tothis.
132. TheCommittee hadalready embarked onimportant workinresponse totheMinisterial Decision
toresolve theanti-circumvention matter. Atthisjuncture itwould beunfortunate foranyparty to
takeunilateral anti-circumvention action inviolation oftheAgreement obligations, asthiswould not
contribute toaconducive environment fortheinformal consultations. Hong Kong invited theECto
consider seriously theviews expressed byMembers andforthwith terminate theanti-circumvention
case.
133. Thedelegate ofSingapore thanked Japan forbringing thismatter totheattention ofthe
Committee, andwelcomed theintervention ofHong Kong, thecontents ofwhich Singapore fully
supported. ASingapore company wascurrently thesubject oftheEC'santi-circumvention investigation
ontheimports ofelectronic weighing scales.
134. Singapore agreed withtheviews expressed byJapan thattheEC'sinitiation ofananti-
circumventioninvestigationonimportsofelectronicweighingscalesoriginatingfromJapanandSingapore
wasinconsistent withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement andGATT 1994andalsothatithadnolegalbasis
whatsoeverunderGATTandtheWTOAgreement,particularlyArticles1and18oftheWTOAgreement
andArticle VIofGATT 1994. AsfarasSingapore wasconcerned there werenoanti-circumvention
provisions inGATT 1994 ortheWTO Agreement which permitted anyMember totakeanti-
circumvention action.
135. Singapore wished toplace onrecord itsgrave concern attheEC'sinvestigation andurged the
ECtoterminate suchinvestigations, astheyhaddonewithrespect totheprevious actions onpaper
andmicrodisks. Singapore reserved itsrights topursue thismatter further ifthismatter could not
beresolved.G/ADP/M/9
Page19
136. Thedelegate ofIndonesia shared theviews ofandsupported thestatements made byJapan,
Hong Kong andSingapore.
137. Thedelegate ofKorea observed thatithadbeenKorea 'sfirmandlong-standing position that
noMember should apply itsdomestic legislation totackle theanti-circumvention problem intheabsence
ofinternational laws. Furthermore, Korea wasalsoconcerned about thepossible adverse effect of
thearbitrary application ofunilateral lawsontheongoing consultations onanti-circumvention. Korea
believed itwasthecommon understanding thatMembers should conduct thisnegotiation without any
prejudice orprejudgment. Korea urged Members toavoid theproliferation ofanti-circumvention
measures andtodouble theirefforts toexpedite theongoing consultation onharmonized rulesinthis
area.
138. Thedelegate oftheECconfirmed thattheEChadopened twoinvestigations about allegations
ofcircumvention. Oneconcerned assembly operations within theCommunity, theother onealleged
assembly operation inIndonesia andconcerned twocompanies inJapan andSingapore. Against Japan
andSingapore, there were definitive anti-dumping duties inforce. TheCommunity hadreceived a
petition supported byamajor proportion oftheindustry ofthatproduct intheCommunity. There
was,intheEC'sview, sufficient evidence inbothcases ofachange inthepattern oftrade since the
initiation oftheoriginal case,andtherewasanongoing practice forwhich therewasinsufficient cause
oreconomic justification other thantheexistence oftheanti-dumping duties. Alsotherewassufficient
evidence thatthispractice undermined theremedial effects oftheexisting anti-dumping duties and
thatthegoods were soldinortotheECatprices lower thannon-dumped products.
139. ThepositionexpressedbyseveralMembers,includingJapan,thatanti-circumventionproceedings
areillegal inthepresent legalframework oftheWTO andtheAnti-Dumping Agreement, hadbeen
heard before, andtheECdidnotagree. IntheEC'sview, therightofanyMember totakeactions
inorder toenforce legitimate anti-dumping orders wasnotrestricted. Thatwassupported bythe
Ministerial Decision which tooknoteoftheefforts made inthenegotiations tohaveanagreement on
anti-circumvention butthatthisproblem could notbesolved, andwent ontostatethatitmight be
desirable iftherewereuniform rulesinthisarea,butdidnotdenytherightofanyparty totakeaction
ifnecessary.
140. Inthecourse oftheongoing informal consultations ontheissue ofanti-circumvention, some
Members hadtaken theposition thatwhile these talkswereongoing, there should beaperiod during
which noanti-circumvention measures could betaken. TheECdisagreed withthatposition, which
would notreflect thelegal situation andwould notreflect thenegotiating mandate ofMinisters at
Marrakesh.
141. Thedelegate ofJapan expressed Japan'stotaldisagreement withtheEC. InJapan'sview,
anti-circumvention measures wereinconsistent withArticle 1andArticle 18andother provisions of
theAnti-Dumping Agreement andalsowithArticle VIofGATT 1994. Regarding thereference to
theMinisterial Decision, henoted thattherewasnolanguage intheMinisterial Decision which allowed
anycountry tohaveanti-circumvention regulations oranti-circumvention measures.
142. Thedelegate oftheECnoted thedeepdisagreement ofMembers onthisissue, andreiterated
thatintheEC'sview, theMinisterial Decision didnotprevent anyMember from taking anti-
circumvention actions.
143. Thedelegate oftheUnited States reiterated thelong-standing USposition onthematter of
anti-circumvention, which wasinagreement withthestatement oftheEC.TheUSbelieved thatanti-
circumvention measures were legitimate under theAgreement andwere necessary toprotect rights
thattheparties totheAgreement hadobtained intheUruguay Round negotiations.G/ADP/M/9
Page20
144. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
J. AdHocGroup onImplementation (G/ADP/W/399)
145. TheChairman recalled that,atitsregular meeting on29April 1996, theCommittee had
establishedanAdHocGrouponImplementationtopreparerecommendationsonissueswhereagreement
seemed possible andreport totheCommittee, andconsider other issues regarding implementation on
which Members believed discussion would behelpful. Members 'suggestions oftopics fortheAdHoc
Group todiscuss werecirculated toMembers inSeptember. Ataninformal meeting on1October 1996
Membersconsideredthosesuggestionsandgenerallyagreedonaseriesoftopicsthatmightappropriately
bereferred bytheCommittee totheAdHocGroup forconsideration, identified indocument
G/ADP/W/399 asnumbers 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,23,24,25,26and31.Asecond setoftopics, those
numbered 13,14,18,27,30,32and28,wasgenerally considered interesting andperhaps worthy
ofdiscussion atsome point inthefuture. Itwasgenerally agreed thatthenumber oftopics referred
totheAdHocGroup atthistimeshould notbetoolarge soastoavoid overwhelming Members
participating inthediscussions. Thefinalgroup oftopics, numbered 3,10,11,12,15,16,17,19,
20,21,22and29,wasgenerally considered notappropriate fordiscussion intheAdHocGroup and
there wastherefore noagreement toreferthese topics fordiscussion.
146. TheChairman opened thefloorfordiscussion ofthefirstgroup ofsuggested topics, andasked
whether Members would agree toreferthese topics totheAdHocGroup fordiscussion.
147. Thedelegate oftheUnited States requested clarification regarding topic2fromthedelegation
ofJapan, which hadproposed it.Heenquired whether theproposal wastodiscuss theperiod of
investigation fordeterminations ofinjury, ordumping, orboth.
148. Thedelegate ofJapan indicated thattheintention hadbeentopropose discussion ofboth.
149. Thedelegate ofArgentina noted thatsome ofthetopics proposed, specifically numbers 7,8,
9and23,were, inArgentina 'sview, sufficiently explicit intheAgreement, andArgentina wasnot
sureoftheusefulness ofpursuing thismatter. Nevertheless, Argentina didnotobject tothediscussions.
150. Thedelegate oftheUnited States observed thatwhen theAdHocGroup hadbeenestablished,
theUShadstarted withthenotion thatitwould, atleastatfirst,discuss verytechnical procedural issues.
While some oftheseareaddressed intheAgreement, different Members handled thesethings different
ways. Oneofthefirstfocuses oftheGroup might bethose types ofissues where Members could learn
fromeachotherhowdifferent Members approached anissue, andperhaps agree uponsimple guidelines
where there were minor differences.
151. Thedelegate ofJapan asked forclarification oftheEC'sproposal intopicnumber 26,minimum
standards inprovisional measures.
152. Thedelegate oftheECexplained thattheintent wastodiscuss whattheminimum standards
inaninvestigation should be-whatwasthenecessary content ofaninvestigation inaccordance with
Article 7,sufficient thatprovisional measures might beadopted. Article 7.1established thatprovisional
measures could onlybeapplied ifaninvestigation hadbeenconducted andapreliminary affirmative
determination hadbeenmade ofdumping andconsequent injury todomestic industry, andtheauthorities
concerned hadjudged suchmeasures necessary toprevent injury being caused during theinvestigation.
TheECproposed discussions especially onpoint two;howthispreliminary affirmative determination
should beestablished andwhatwere theminimal standards thatcould berequired forauthorities to
adopt suchapreliminary affirmative determination.G/ADP/M/9
Page21
153. Thedelegate oftheUnited States observed thatthistopicraised some concerns. TheAgreement
wasclear thatprior toputting provisional measures inplace, authorities hadtomake apreliminary
determination thatthere wasevidence ofdumping andinjury. Beyond that,itwasunclear what
"standards" were inquestion. ItwasnottheroleoftheAdHocGroup todetermine standards.
154. Thedelegate ofArgentina expressed concern similar tothatoftheUnited States.
155. Thedelegate oftheECnoted thatperhaps thechoice ofwords wasinadequate toexpress the
topictheECwished toraise, which itdidnotseeascontroversial. TheECbelieved there wassome
room fordiscussion andpotential forpossible recommendations orguidelines astowhatthecontents
ofpreliminary affirmative determination under Article 7.1.2 should be.Hesuggested changing the
wording to"content ofpreliminary affirmative determination", which waswhattheECreally wanted
todiscuss.
156. Thedelegates ofJapan andCanada sought clarification oftheUSproposal forthediscussion
ofdutyassessments under Article 9.
157. Thedelegate oftheUnited States explained thatintheareaofdumping, thebiggest divergence
inpractice wasprobably intheareaofactually assessing duties -howwasthemoney tobecollected?
Itwasnotclear thatguidelines could bedeveloped, orwhattheymight be,buttheMembers might
beabletolayoutthedifferent practices sothatnewusers could getabetter sense ofthemeans that
wereusedinvarious countries. Thelanguage ofArticle 9oftheAgreement, referring toretrospective
versus prospective systems, wasconfusing, anddidnotdefine whatthetwosystems were. TheAdHoc
Group might beabletoaddclarification.
158. Thedelegate oftheECagreed thatthere wasprobably confusion inthisarea, andprovided
thattheaimwasnottoexpress apreference foroneortheother system, theECwould behappy for
anyclarification inthisarea.
159. Thedelegate ofHong Kong shared theconcerns expressed bytheUnited States.
160. Thedelegate ofBrazil observed thatallMembers wereonequal footing under theAgreement,
anditwould notbeappropriate tosuggest thatonlypastpractices ofusers ofanti-dumping measures
wereadequate toimplement theAgreement. Discussion, atransparency exercise, andlearning from
eachother wereallpositive goals. Going further todevelop simple guidelines where minor differences
existed might alsobeapositive outcome. However, whatever theresult ofthework oftheAdHoc
Group was,itcould not,inBrazil 'sview, affect therights andobligations thatwere already inthe
Agreement. Brazil wanted tomake itveryclear thattheAdHocGroup wasnotembarking onan
exercise theresults ofwhich would havethesame legal status asobligations already setoutinthe
Agreement. Brazil would monitor thework oftheAdHocGroup, andparticipate tothebestofits
ability, butdidnotwanttoseeanewnegotiation ofissues thatwerenotagreed during theUruguay
Round negotiations.
161. TheChairman recalled thatintheinformal meeting, ithadbeenmade clearthattheAdHoc
Group would notberenegotiating theAgreement. Infact,some topics were leftoutside thescope
ofthediscussions intheAdHocGroup precisely because itwasfelttheyweretooclosetorenegotiating
theAgreement ortoraising points again thatwere thoroughly discussed during theUruguay Round
butonwhich Members could notagree. Thefunction oftheGroup wasapractical one,totrytoreach
agreement onpoints which Members would findituseful toclarify under theAgreement andtomake
recommendations totheCommittee. Only theCommittee could decide anything.G/ADP/M/9
Page22
162. ThedelegatesoftheUnitedStates,theEC,MexicoandJapanexpressedsupportfortheBrazilian
delegate 'sstatement.
163. Thedelegate oftheECstressed thattheEChoped thatparticipants intheAdHocGroup 's
work would beexperts fromcapital, ifatallpossible. Forthisreason itmight beuseful formeetings
oftheAdHocGroup tobescheduled asclose aspossible totheregular meetings oftheCommittee.
164. TheChairman emphasized thattheAdHocGroup could nottakedecisions, butcould only
make recommendations totheCommittee.
165. TheChairman noted, inresponse toaquestion fromHong Kong, thattheCommittee would
haveanopportunity tocome back, atalaterdate, tothose topics notreferred totheAdHocGroup
fordiscussion, andthatMembers could propose newtopics atalaterdateaswell. Thedecision proposed
forthemeeting wastodetermine aninitial group oftopics tobediscussed bytheAdHocGroup so
thatithadasensible agenda tostartwith.
166. Thedelegate ofJapan suggested thattheChairman holdinformal consultations toarrive at
aproposal forprocedures, sothatthegroup could discuss theissues inaconstructive manner. Itwould
beimpractical tobegin evaluation ofalltopics atthesame time. Thetopics forthefirstround of
discussions needed tobeselected.
167. TheChairman reminded Members thatthequestion ofprocedure hadbeendiscussed inthe
informal meeting, andithadbeeninformally agreed nottodiscuss procedure inCommittee assuch
buttorefertheprocedural discussion totheAdHocGroup itself.
168. TheCommittee decided torefer thelistoftopics discussed totheAdHocGroup on
Implementation.2
169. TheChairman proposed thatMembers interested inparticipating intheAdHocGroup convene
todiscuss procedural matters thenextday.Hehoped thatalargegroup ofMembers would participate
inthework oftheAdHocGroup, particularly newusers ofanti-dumping measures andMembers who
were contemplating using anti-dumping measures.
K. Other Business
170. TheChairman recalled thaton2May 1996, hehadreceived aletter from theChairman of
theCommitteeonTradeandDevelopmentrequestinginformationontheimplementationofdevelopment
related provisions inagreement. Thisinformation wasnecessary inorder fortheCommittee onTrade
andDevelopment tocarry outitstasks. Because theCommittee would notmeet again intimeto
formulate aresponse totherequest, hehadsubmitted aresponse under hisownresponsibility. The
Secretariat hadsubsequently compiled thatresponse, along withtheresponses ofother Committees
indocument WT/COMTD/W/16 dated 27August 1996 andanaddendum. Based onthisdocument
thematter wasunder consideration intheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment. Henoted thatif
anyMember wished toseehisresponse totheChairman ontheCommittee onTrade andDevelopment,
theyshould contact theSecretary oftheCommittee foracopy.
171. Thedelegate ofJapan expressed concern regarding anon-going USanti-dumping investigation
intoJapanese super-computers. InMay, aJapanese manufacturer wonthesuper-computer procurement
carried outbytheUSNational Centre forAtmospheric Research (NCAR). Thiswasthefirsttime
2Thelistofagreed-upon topics wassubsequently circulated indocument G/ADP/W/401.G/ADP/M/9
Page23
aUSinstitution hadselected aJapanese super-computer, andtheevent hadbeenaccompanied bysome
extraordinary anddisturbing developments.
172. Firstly, before theprocurement hadbeencompleted, oranyformal complaint hadbeenmade,
theCommerceDepartmentsentalettertotheNationalScienceFoundation,theprimaryfunderofNCAR,
stating thatthepricebidbytheJapanese manufacturer wassubstantially lessthanthecostofproduction
andthatconsequently thedumping margin waslikely tobeveryhighandtheUSindustry wasthreatened
withinjury. Notsurprisingly theletter caused animmediate delay intheprocurement.
173. Atthesame timeasthese events were occurring, anequally disturbing story wasunfolding
intheUSCongress. Serious consideration wasbeing given toaproposal byCongressman Obey that
thepersonnel whoapproved thecontract forsuper-computer equipment havetheirsalaries withheld
iftheCommerce Department made afinding ofdumping. Theproposal constituted amostunfortunate
intervention intheprocurement process, andanysuchameasure would beincontravention ofArticle 18
oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement, aswaspointed outbyamember oftheUSInternational Trade
Commission. Theproposal waseventually rejected butonlyaftertheprocurement authority had
announced thatitwould postpone itsdecision untilthedumping issue wasresolved, ignoring letters
from themanufacturer andtheJapanese Government.
174. TheCommerce Department thenformally initiated ananti-dumping investigation. Japan was
concerned thatthisinvestigation should show particular concern forfairness andtransparency andbe
conducted inamanner consistent withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Japan would closely monitor
itsprogress.
175. Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated that,while hewasnotprepared torespond indetail,
theUnited States understood theconcerns raised byJapan, andwould respond ingeneral. First, the
amendment proposed intheCongress wasnolonger anactive proposal, andwould notbeconsidered
unless itwasraised again atalaterdate.
176. RegardingtheactivitiesoftheCommerceDepartment,itwasnormalforoneGovernmentagency
tospeak toanother Government agency regarding areasinwhich theyhadoverlapping expertise. Thus,
thecommunications between theDepartment ofCommerce andtheNational Science Foundation and
NCAR were notunusual occurrences.
177. Finally, toclarify, theanti-dumping investigation wasnotinitiated bytheDepartment of
Commerce onitsownauthority, butrather inresponse toapetition submitted bytheUSindustry.
178. Thedelegate ofJapan raised another USanti-dumping investigation, involving largenewspaper
printing presses andcomponents thereof, whether assembled orunassembled, fromJapan andGermany.
TheUSDepartment ofCommerce hadmade afinaldetermination inthisanti-dumping investigation.
TheDepartmentofCommercehadexpandedtheproductcoverageforthedutiesatthefinaldetermination
andincluded subcomponents which were notexamined intheinvestigation, provided thatsuch
subcomponents represented atleast50%ofthevalue ofthesubject component. Thisarbitrary expansion
oftheproduct coverage wasinconsistent withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Duties should onlybe
imposed onthese subcomponents ifseparate investigations concerning them substantiated thatthe
components were dumped andcausing injury.
179. Thedelegate oftheUnited States noted thatthisinvestigation wasunique dueprimarily tothe
unique waythatprinting presses were sold. Aprinting press wasafairly large piece ofequipment
andwasnotsoldasonepiece, butbasically incomponents. Throughout theinvestigation theDepartment
ofCommerce haddealtwiththeissue ofhowtoadequately implement anorder onprinting presses.
Itwaswellknown toalltheparties intheproceeding thatthiswasanissue, astheDepartment ofG/ADP/M/9
Page24
Commerce hadsought comments onit.Itwasthoroughly briefed throughout theproceeding andthe
Department ofCommerce provided adetailed explanation astowhyexactly itreached thedetermination
itdid.
180. IntheUnited States 'view, themethodology usedindefining thescope oftheorder wasthe
onlywaytheremedy called forunder Article VIcould beadequately applied tothisparticular product.
181. ThedelegateoftheECcommentedthattheinvestigationalsoinvolvedtwoGermanmanufacturers
ofprinting presses. TheECwasstillintheprocess ofstudying thedecisions taken bytheUS.The
ECmight havesome concerns about thescope decisions mentioned byJapan. TheECunderstood
thatthiswasaveryspecial case, posing particular problems towhich solutions hadhadtobefound.
TheECwasnot,forthetimebeing, quitecertain whether thesolutions found bytheUSGovernment
weretheonlywaytodealwiththese issues. Inaddition, other issues inthedecision, concerning the
injury determination, werestillunder scrutiny, andtheECmight raisethematalaterdate,orbilaterally.
182. Thedelegate oftheECraised amatter involving the1916 Anti-Dumping Actofthe
United States. Thiswasapparently oneoftheroots ofanti-dumping legislation, surprisingly stillin
force, although apparently notoften used. Ithadbeendrawn totheEC'sattention through anaction
recently brought inUSCourt onthebasisofthislaw.Thislawprovides foraprivate action andgives
trebled damages incasesomebody intheUSsellsdumped goods withtheintention toinjure aUS
industry. Without going intodetail, theECwished theUStoconsider thatthiscould beapiece of
legislation which ought tobenotified under theAgreement.
183. Thedelegate oftheUnited States noted thatthelawhadhistorical interest from different
perspectives, andreiterated thatitwasaveryrarely usedpiece oflegislation, which shebelieved had
never successfully beenused. Inaddition, sheemphasized thattheaction wasaprivate action, inwhich
aprivate party brought acasetotheUSCourt, aswastheirright. ItwasnotaGovernment action.
Finally, theUnited States undertook tolookatthelegislation anditsobligations under theAgreement
andconsider notification.
184. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
L. Annual Report totheCouncil forTrade andGoods (G/ADP/W/400)
185. TheChairman recalled forMembers that,inaccordance withtheCommittee 'sinstructions,
theSecretariat hadprepared andcirculated adraftannual report intheformofafactual report ofthe
Committees activities (G/ADP/W/400). Members hadmetinformally todiscuss thereport theprevious
week, andarevised draftreflecting those discussions hadbeenmade available toMembers.
186. Inresponse toquestions fromseveral delegations, arepresentative oftheSecretariat clarified
thattheconvention forputting together thetables inAnnex Btothereport wasthatreview investigations
ofanysortwerenotincluded. Inaddition, sheclarified thatthelastcolumn inthetableinAnnex B
didnotnecessarily include allofthedefinitive duties reported inthemiddle column ofthattable.
Themiddle column showed definitive duties imposed either inthesecond halfof1995orthefirsthalf
of1996. Thelastcolumn reported definitive duties inforceon30June1996, asreported intheAnnex
tothesemi-annual report submitted bytheMember. Members didnotalways report intheAnnex
theduties imposed during theperiod covered bythereport. Thus, those measures might onlyappear
inthelastcolumn ofthetableinAnnex Binthenextreport.
187. TheChairman asked whether Members wereprepared toapprove thedraftoftheannual report,
subject tofinalapproval regarding inclusion ofmatters discussed inthemeeting when theCommittee
reconvened thefollowing day.G/ADP/M/9
Page25
188. Thedelegate ofJapan proposed including dispute settlement matters intheAnnual Report of
theCommittee.
189. Thedelegate ofBrazil noted thatJapan'sproposal wasahorizontal one.Itappeared thatJapan
would liketohavereferences todispute settlement inallofthereports ofallbodies intheWTO.
Unfortunately, there wasnoprocess inplace thatwould harmonize everything inallofthereports.
The"skeleton" forannual reports drawn upintheGeneral Council didnot,inanyevent, contain specific
sections dealing withdispute settlement.
190. Brazil 'smain concern withthisproposal wasthatitmight leadreaders ofthisreport tohave
adifferent perspective ofthework andthestructure oftheWTO. Including specific references to
disputes inthese reports would inBrazil 'sviewinclude misleading information inthese reports. The
onlymultilateral bodyintheWTO withtheauthority todealwithdisputes wastheDispute Settlement
Body. Noother Committee orCouncil hadtheauthority todealwithdisputes.
191. TheJapanese proposal raised some other questions. Wastheannual report under discussion
thereport oftheCommittee orthereport oftheAgreement? ItwastruethattheAgreement didcontain
dispute settlement provisions. However, thisCommittee hadnoauthority todealwithdisputes. Brazil
understood thattheannual report wasthereport ofactivities oftheCommittee andnotareport ofthe
Agreement. Dispute settlement wasnotoneoftheactivities oftheCommittee.
192. Moreover, inclusion ofdisputes would raiseproblems. Forinstance, howwould onereflect
disputes inwhich provisions ofmorethanoneofthecovered Agreements werecitedbythecomplainant?
Would therebeanyassurance thatalloftherelevant Committees andCouncils would include areference
tothatdispute intheirreports? What about requests forPanels thatwere withdrawn? Would they
beincluded? Would thereferences todisputes include requests forconsultations aswellasrequests
forPanels? What about disputes thathadalready passed through theAppellate Body, howwould they
bereflected inthereport?
193. InBrazil 'sview, ifother bodies intheWTO didnotinclude reference todisputes intheirannual
reports, there wasnoreason whytheCommittee should doso.
194. Thedelegate ofJapan confirmed thattheJapanese proposal washorizontal, andthatJapan
wanted consistency among thereports oftheCommittees intheWTO.
195. Secondly, Japan agreed thattheCommittee hadnotdiscussed dispute settlement activities, but
noted thattheSubsidies Committee diddiscuss adispute matter. SoifBrazil adopted thecriteria that
items thatwerediscussed intheCommittee should beincluded inthereport, thenatleastthatonecase
should bereflected inthereport oftheSubsidies Committee. Japan didnotnecessarily seekinclusion
ofdispute settlement aspects intheAnti-Dumping Committee report, butwould liketoinclude the
onecaseintheSubsidies Committee report.
196. Finally, Article 17oftheAgreement addressed consultations anddispute settlement under the
Agreement. Dispute settlement wasoneofthemost important aspects oftheimplementation ofthe
Agreement. Thiswasthebasis oftheproposal toinclude dispute settlement aspects inthereport.
Inthisregard, theproposal wastomake some reference todispute settlement intheAnnex ofthereport
oraddsome similar mention tothereport.
197. Thedelegate ofHong Kong observed thatafactual statement ofdispute settlement matters
involving theprovisions oftheAgreement would beauseful piece ofinformation forthereport, but
hewould notinsist onthatposition. However, hecommented onapointmade bytheBrazilian delegate
regarding theroleoftheCommittee ondispute settlement. Ifhehadunderstood correctly, inBrazil 'sG/ADP/M/9
Page26
view, theCommittee hadnoroleindispute settlement. Hong Kong didnottakesuchanarrow view
ofdispute settlement. InHong Kong'sviewthere wasnoquestion thattheDSBwasthebody with
responsibility fordispute settlement. However, theCommittee andotherbodies hadaroleinfacilitating
consultations, which hopefully would leadtosettlement ofdisputes between Members relating tothe
operation andimplementation oftheAgreement. TheAgreement provided inArticle 16.1that"the
Committee shallcarry outresponsibilities asassigned toitunder thisAgreement orbytheMembers
anditshallafford Members theopportunity ofconsulting onanymatters relating totheoperation of
theAgreement". Article 17.3provided "IfanyMember considers thatanybenefit accruing toit,directly
orindirectly under thisAgreement isbeing nullified orimpaired, orthattheachievement ofanyobjective
isbeing impeded, byanother Member orMembers, itmay, withaview toreaching amutually
satisfactory resolution ofthematter, request inwriting consultations ...". Thefirstsentence of
Article 17.4spelled outaclear hierarchy between thedispute settlement roleoftheCommittee and
theDSB. ItwasHong Kong'sviewthat,ifaMember wanted tobring upamatter intheCommittee
under Articles 17.4and16.1, there wasnoreason whyitcould notdoso,without undermining the
primary roleofDSB. Hong Kong would hesitate toagree thattheCommittee hadnorights whatsoever
ondispute settlement.
198. Finally, thedelegate ofHong Kong remarked thatthepractice adopted thisyearfortheannual
report would notsetaprecedent forfuture reports.
199. Thedelegate ofBrazil spoke toemphasize thatBrazil could notagree thatanyother bodybut
theDSBhasaroleindispute settlement intheWTO. AlloftheAgreements were covered bythe
DSB, andfootnote 4oftheDSBreferenced allofthecorresponding Articles regarding consultation
inalltheother Agreements. Brazil considered itverydangerous thatatthisstagetheCommittee might
suggest aninterpretation thatanyotherbodyhadtheauthority todealwithdispute settlement byreferring
tothesubject intheCommittee 'sreport.
200. TheChairman noted that,while Japan'sconcern wasahorizontal one,heunderstood thatJapan
didnotinsist onincluding dispute settlement intheCommittee 'sreport. TheSubsidies Committee
report would bediscussed inthatCommittee 'smeeting. Hesuggested thatasthiswasahorizontal
issue itmight appropriately beraised intheGoods Council orintheGeneral Council. Hedidnot
believe anyMember would liketoseetheCommittee 'sreport adopted subject toother Committees '
reports, since thiswasanindependent Committee. Asthere didnotappear tobeanyconsensus for
inclusion ofdispute settlement aspects, heproposed thatnosuchreferences bemade inthereport.
201. TheCommittee agreed.
M. Dateofthenextregular meeting
202. TheChairman indicated thatthenextregular meeting oftheCommittee would beheldinthe
week of28April 1997. Previously reviewed legislation would beplaced ontheagenda ofthatmeeting
ifquestions concerning suchlegislation werereceived from Members nolaterthansixweeks before
themeeting orby14March 1997. Suchquestions should besubmitted totheSecretariat anddirectly
totheMember whose legislation isconcerned. Members receiving questions should submit written
answers by11April 1997. Members whose previously reviewed legislation notifications wereonthe
agenda forthismeeting, Canada, theEC,NewZealand andtheUS,werereminded thattheirlegislation
notifications would beontheagenda forApril 1997 andtheyshould therefore submit theirwritten
answers by11April 1997.
203. TheCommittee adopted theannual report thefollowing dayandthemeeting wasadjourned.