./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CHN/20
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/20
8 May 2003
(03-2462)
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 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 1
Regarding the Notification of CHINA2
The following communication, dated 6 May 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of China.
_______________
Q1. Articles 6, 7, 13, 22 and 23 of the provisional rules for questionnaires set out rather
demanding requirements for responding companies.
(a) Can the PRC please explain what will be the consequences for a company not complying
with all or some of these requirements such as: registration with MOC within 20 days,
response in Chinese, supporting material in Chinese, questionnaire bound in a book
with pages numbered together with authorized certificates?
Reply
Articles 6, 7, 13, 22 and 23 of the Provisional Rules for questionnaires  regulate different
actions.  A company will be treated as not responding to the countervailing duty investigation
proceeding, without complying with Articles 6 and 7.  And a company will be treated as not fullycooperating and the materials provided by it will be disregarded, but if the reasons are sufficient, the
materials will be taken into account to a certain degree.
(b) Please elaborate on how Article 30, stating that replies not in accordance with these
requirements may lead to determinations on the basis of "facts avaialable", relates tothe obligations in Art12.11 ASCM?  In this regard, do the rules allow that documents
submitted in English, as a WTO language, but not translated into Chinese are
considered to trigger the "facts available" provision (Article 12.7 ASCM)?
Reply
The investigating authorities will implement Art.30 of the Provisional Rules for
questionnaires taking into account of Art12.11 of the ASCM.
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/12-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/12
2 G/SCM/N/1/CHN/1/Suppl.1G/ADP/Q1/CHN/20
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/20
Page 2
There is no provision in the WTO Agreement on the language in which the documents of the
responses are submitted.  In practice, Members always use their native official language in the
investigation.  Therefore, Chinese investigating authorities request that the responding company
should submit the responses in Chinese in accordance with the tradition.
Q2. The provisions of Art.25 and 26 request responding companies to submit written
responses by an electronic medium and free of viruses otherwise being regarded as non
cooperative.  Can the PRC please explain how this provision relates to Art.12 ASCM .
Reply
The aim of Art.25 and 26 is to carry out the countervailing duty investigations efficiently and
timely. They can not be regarded as a vilotion of Art.12of the  ASCM .
Q3. Art.27 states that the questionnaire resp onse of the responding company shall be
submitted by representation of a practicing lawyer of the PRC.  What will be the consequencesfor a responding company submitting its response directly to the investigating authority or by
any lawyer?  How does this provision relate to the obligation contained in Art12.11 ASCM?
Reply
In accordance with the Chinese laws, regulations and the Protocol on the accession of the
PRC, during the period of transit, only the practicing lawyers of the PRC can engage in this kind of
substantive legal work.
Up to now, China hasn’t initiated any countervailing duty investigation.  But, at present, there
are many Chinese lawyers who have a profound knowledge and aboundant experiences on
countervailing duty investigation.  It is more convenient for a responding company to submit the
questionnaire and deal with relative work through a practicing lawyer of the PRC, than otherwise.  All
these are consistent with Art12.11 ASCM.
Q4. Art.12, paragraph 2 of the provisional rules for on the spot investigations provides that
where non-governmental experts take part in th e on-the-spot verificati on, they shall strictly
abide by the obligation of confidentiality.  Are such experts subject to effective sanctions for
breach of confidentiality requirements, in a ccordance with Art.2 of Annex VI of the ASCM?
Reply
There is no countervailing duty case by Chinese authorities so far and therefore we have no
experiences in that regard.  If there are any experts subject to effective sanctions for breach of
confidentiality requirements, the Chinese investigat ing authorities will treat it, according to the
relative domestic laws and regulations strictly.
__________