 
 RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/M/25 
9 March 2004 
 (04-1037) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 23-24 OCTOBER 2003 
 
Chairman :  Mr. David Evans (New Zealand) 
  
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
23-24  October 2003. 
 2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
 
A. ARMENIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION .....................................................................2  
B. CHINA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ..........................................................................2  
C. ESTONIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ......................................................................2  
D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ..........................................3  
E. MEXICO – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION .......................................................................3  
F. PAKISTAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ....................................................................3  
G. PERU – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ............................................................................3  
H. CHINA – REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION ..........................................4  
I. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS ..............................................................................5  
J. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS ..............................................................................10  
K. EFFECT OF MEMBERSHIP ENLARGEMENT ON TRADE REMEDIES CURRENTLY IN FORCE IN THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES :  TEN QUESTIONS – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES ................11  
L. TRANSITION REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE 'S 
REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ............................................................21  
M. CHAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION ..............27  
N. CHAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION ..............................28  
O. OTHER BUSINESS ............................................................................................................................... ......28  
(i) European Communities – Anti-Dumping duty imposed by the Andean Community on Sorbitol originating 
in France ...................................................................................................................... ...............................28  
(ii) European Communities – US consideration of whet her to deduct countervailing and 201 safeguard duties 
from the export price in an ti-dumping pr oceedings .............................................................................. ......30  
(iii) United States – Proper understanding of Annex D of the Committee's Annual Report – Avoiding a 
Misunderstanding of the Number of Prel iminary and Final Ac tions Notif ied ............................................32  
(iv) Procedures for Members' requests for national tec hnical assistance activities – Statement by the  
 Chairman ...................................................................................................................... ..............................33  
P. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ........................................................................................................33  
Q. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ..................................................................34  G/ADP/M/25 
Page 2  
 
  
A. A
RMENIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
3. The Chairman  noted that the first eight items on the agenda were the review of notifications 
of anti-dumping legislation and/or  regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the 
Committee at its special meeting in April 199 6 (document G/ADP/W/284, 12 February 1996). 
 4. The Chairman recalled that questions concerning ne w notifications of legislation were to have 
been submitted to the Member concerned and the S ecretariat no later than three weeks before the 
meeting, that is, by 2 October 2003.  As provide d for in the agreed procedures, Members which had 
received written questions in time were asked to resp ond orally to those questions in the meeting, and 
subsequently to respond in writing to all questions received in written form.  The Chairman reminded 
Members that follow-up questions could be asked in the meeting.  Such follow-up questions were to 
be submitted in writing no later than 7 November 20 03 if the Member posing the question wished to 
receive a written answer.  He reminded Member s to submit the written answers to all written 
questions by the deadline of 7 November 2003 to  the Secretariat no later than 8 January 2004. 
 5. The Committee then turned to the notification of Armenia. 
 6. The questions regarding the notification of Armenia
 can be found in the following 
documents: 
 
  G/ADP/Q1/ARM/1 Submitted by the European Communities    G/ADP/Q1/ARM/2 Submitted by the United States    
TO DATE NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. 
 7. The Committee took note
 of the notification. 
 
B. CHINA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 
8. The questions regarding the notification of China  can be found in the following documents: 
 
  G/ADP/Q1/CHN/26 Submitted by the United States   G/ADP/Q1/CHN/28 Submitted by Mexico   G/ADP/Q1/CHN/35  Follow-up question submitted by the United States    
Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:  
   G/ADP/Q1/CHN/32   Replies to United States (G/ADP/Q1/CHN/26)   
TO DATE NO WRITTEN ANSWERS TO  THE QUESTIONS FROM MEXICO 
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/28, OR TO THE US FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS (G/ADP/Q1/CHN/35) 
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.  
C. E
STONIA – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 
9. The questions regarding the notification of Estonia  can be found in the following document: 
 
  G/ADP/Q1/EST/1 Submitted by the United States  
TO DATE NO WRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 3 
 
 
  
10. The delegate of Estonia  stated that the Anti-dumping Act had been in force since 
1 September 2002.  Estonia had had no anti-dum ping cases since then.  There had been no anti-
dumping complaints.  The Anti-Dumping Act contai ned a special provision concerning the duration 
of the Act, in Paragraph 72, entitled "Repeal of the Act", which provided "This Act is repealed upon 
Estonia's accession to the European Union." 
 11. It was most unlikely that Estonia could make use of the Act as the time was running short for 
any use of anti-dumping measures solely managed by Estonia.  In the case of problems, namely if there were any complaints to come during th e period until accession, the law would have to be 
interpreted under Article 123 of Estonia's Consti tution, ensuring this Act's conformity with the 
relevant WTO rules as well as with the perspective of becoming an EU member.  
D. E
UROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 12. The questions regarding the notification of the European Communities
 can be found in the 
following document:    G/ADP/Q1/EEC/21 Submitted by the United States  Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
 
  G/ADP/Q1/EEC/22 & corr.1  Replies to the United States  
E. M
EXICO – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 13. The questions regarding the notification of Mexico
 can be found in the following documents: 
   G/ADP/Q1/MEX/1 Submitted by the European Communities   G/ADP/Q1/MEX/3 Submitted by Chile   G/ADP/Q1/MEX/4 Submitted by the United States  
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
   G/ADP/Q1/MEX/5 Replies to the European Communities 
 
TO DATE NO WRITTEN ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHILE AND 
THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.  
F. P
AKISTAN – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 
14. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Pakistan .  The Committee took note  
of the notification. 
 
G. PERU – REVIEW OF NEW LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 
15. The questions regarding the notification of Peru  can be found in the following documents: 
 
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/19 & Suppl.1 Submitted by the European Communities 
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/20  Submitted by the United States   G/ADP/Q1/PER/23   Follow-up questions submitted by the EC  G/ADP/M/25 
Page 4  
 
 Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:  
   G/ADP/Q1/PER/ 21 & Suppl.1 Replies to the European Communities   G/ADP/Q1/PER/ 22  Replies to the European Communities   G/ADP/Q1/PER/ 24  Replies to follow-up questions submitted by the EC 
  G/ADP/Q1/PER/ 25  Replies to the United States 
   
H. C
HINA – REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVI EWED LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATION  
 
16. Turning to the previously reviewed legislative notification of China, the Chairman noted that 
questions concerning the legislation of China ha d been received in a timely fashion from the 
United States, in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/24.  An swers to those questions were to have been 
submitted in writing no later than two weeks before th e meeting, that is, by 9 October 2003.   Written 
answers were in fact received at the end of the day preceding the meeting, and advance copies of the document, G/ADP/Q1/CHN/33, had been made avai lable in the room.  The United States submitted 
follow-up questions in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/36, to which written answers have not yet been 
received.  17. The Chairman
 thanked all delegations for their replies to the questions posed, as well as the 
Members who had formulated questions.  The process of reviewing notifications continued to be a 
positive one, of benefit to all Members.  He re minded Members to submit follow-up questions in 
writing to the Member whose legislation was con cerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than 
7 November 2003 if the Member posing the follow-up question wished to receive a written response.  
Members were requested to submit written answers to  all questions received in writing by that date.  
Members were requested to submit such answers to  the Secretariat no later than 8 January 2004. 
 
18. The Chairman informed Members that the new legislative notification of Jordan, document 
G/ADP/N/1/JOR/2, was expected to be on the agenda  for the next regular meeting of the Committee 
in Spring 2004.    19. The Chairman reminded Members that, pursuant to the adopted procedures for review of 
notifications of legislation cont ained in document G/ADP/W/284, in order for a new notification of 
legislation to appear on the agenda of the spri ng 2004 meeting of the Committee, it had to be 
circulated in three languages no later than 11 Marc h 2004.  As a practical matter, in light of the 
translation requirements, the Chairman informed the Committee that notifications of legislative text 
received after 31 January 2004 were unlikely to be translated in time to meet the above agreed 
deadline.   
 
20. As was its practice, the Secretariat would info rm Members of any additional new notifications 
to be considered at that meeting.  The d eadline for submission of questions regarding new 
notifications of legislation for next autumn's meeting would be 1 April 2004.  The Chairman 
encouraged Members to submit questions as early as possible, and Members receiving questions were encouraged to submit written answers in advance of the spring meeting to the extent possible. 
 
21. The Chairman informed Members that in orde r for a previously reviewed notification of 
legislation or regulations to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in Spring 2004, 
questions regarding such notification must be submit ted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose 
notification was in question, no later than 11 March 2004. 
 
22. Finally, the Chairman expressed continuing c oncern over the failure of some Members to 
submit any notification at all concerning legislation or regulations relevant to  anti-dumping.  He noted 
that for many, if not most, of these Members, it was likely that a single nil notification, indicating that 
there was no such legislation or regulation currently in effect, would have been all that was required.  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 5 
 
 
 He further remarked that for those Members who conducted anti-dumping investigations but had not 
yet notified their legislation, it was obviously importa nt, from the point of view of all Members, that 
such legislation be notified, in the interest of  transparency and better understanding. He thus 
encouraged Members who had not yet done so to ma ke their notification of legislation promptly. 
 I. S
EMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
 
23. The Chairman  recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the first half of 2003, to 
be submitted by 29 August 2003, had been circul ated to Members in document G/ADP/N/105, dated 
10 June 2003.  He reported that it appeared that most Members taking actions had submitted semi-
annual reports, although not all repor ts were submitted in a timely fashion.  He expressed the hope 
that there would be continued improvement in this respect.  He noted that particularly for Members 
making a nil notification, reporting consisted simp ly of submitting a letter reporting that no actions 
had been taken, once before the end of Febr uary and again before the end of August. 
 
24. He reported that although there continued to be some problems in the form of reports, 
Members had clearly made an effort to submit reports in the format established by the Committee.  He reminded Members that guidelines for the format of  semi-annual reports were set out in document 
G/ADP/1, and noted that the Secretariat was always available to assist Memb ers with questions about 
the format of reports.    
25. The Chairman stated that Members who had su bmitted semi-annual reports were identified in 
paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/ 105 Addendum 1, dated 13 October 200 3.  To the extent possible, 
the semi-annual reports had been translated and circ ulated to the Committee, and were included in the 
documents made available for the meeting.  In  addition to those Members listed, Poland had 
submitted a semi-annual report too late to be included in that document. 
 
26. In addition to the Members who submitted se mi-annual reports, a number of Members, listed 
in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP /N/105 Addendum 1, had notified the Committee that they had not 
taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  In addition, Colombia, Croatia, El 
Salvador, Oman, Paraguay and Romania had submitted such a notification too late to be included in 
that document. 
 
27. The Chairman noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with the 
obligation to submit semi-annual repor ts, or reports of no actions taken, there remained a significant 
number of Members who had not subm itted either type of report and th us failed to comply with this 
aspect of the requirements set out in Article 16.4 of the Agreement.  These Members were identified 
in document G/ADP/N/105 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.   
 28. The Chairman strongly urged all Members to co mply with the requirement to submit semi-
annual reports in a timely fashion in the future.  29. The Committee then turned to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted. 
 
30. With respect to the semi-annual report of Argentina , the delegate of New Zealand
 observed 
that, at the last Committee meeting, New Zealand had asked Argentina a series of questions which 
were subsequently submitted, in writing, regard ing Argentina’s notification on the case initiated on 
2 October 2001 into glass wool from New Zealand.   New Zealand had yet to receive a written 
response to these questions.  First, it appeared that  the duration of the investigation was greater than 
12 months.  Given that Article 5.10 of the ADA stat es that investigations shall, except in special 
circumstances, be concluded within one year , could Argentina please explain what special 
circumstances necessitated this extended time peri od?  Second, it appeared that the provisional 
measures implemented on 2 August 2002 were in force longer th an the period permitted under G/ADP/M/25 
Page 6  
 
 Article 7.4 before being replaced by an undertakin g.  Could Argentina please explain why this time 
limit was exceeded?  New Zealand would greatly a ppreciate it if Argentina could provide a response 
to these questions in due course.    31. The delegate of Argentina
 responded by clarifying that the provisional measures were not 
enforced for more than 4 months.  Secondly, th e additional period of time was notified to the 
New Zealand embassy in Argentina in Note DC D 010016662/2002, dated 30 Ju ly 2002, and to the 
representative of the Tasman insulation exporter  on the same date, in Note 10000666/2002.  The 
exceptional circumstances which led Argentina to u se this additional time was to analyse the price 
commitment which had been put up at the end of th e investigation by the exporter from New Zealand.  
Argentina believed that it was impor tant to consider this price commitment and therefore used the 
additional time available to it.     32. The delegate of New Zealand
 thanked Argentina for the response.  New Zealand would take 
some time to consider it further and mi ght come back with further questions. 
 
33. With respect to the semi-annual report of Brazil , the delegate of the United States  posed a 
number of questions.  First the US delegate asked what notice was provided to interested parties of the 
extension in the benzothiazole case and were reaso ns for the extension included?  Second, had the 
benzothiazole case now reached a final determination?   Were any measures taken?   Third, had the 
acrylonitrile case either reached a final determinati on or been extended?  Fourth, the US delegate 
asked Brazil to please confirm that no provisional me asures had been taken in either of the cases 
involving the United States.  Fifth, the US delegate  noted that Brazil had reported no negative injury 
determinations during the reporting period.  Re viewing recent semi-annual reports for Brazil he 
observed a similar pattern.  Would Brazil please confir m that it had found material injury or threat 
thereof in every investigation it has conducted since 2001? 
 
34. The delegate of Brazil  indicated that he would check with his authorities in capital and would 
provide responses.  Later in the meeting, the Committ ee reverted to this matter at Brazil's request, and 
the Brazilian delegate responde d to questions on two investigations:  compounds containing 
benzothiazole ring-system;  and acrylonitrile treatme nts.  The investigation on compounds containing 
benzothiazole ring-system was terminated on 18  July 2003 and no anti-dumping measures were 
imposed.  Since it was terminated there was no in jury caused by the dumped imports.   The other 
investigation on acrylonitrile treatments was extende d in July and all the interested parties were 
notified on 18 July, including the US Government.  The reasons for the extension were that after the 
presentation of the essential facts under considera tion by the authorities a lot of arguments in 
documents were presented by the interested parti es, and the Brazilian investigating authorities needed 
more time to analyse all of them. 
 35. The delegate of the United States
 expressed appreciation to Brazil for their prompt responses 
and looked forward to responses from other Members to questions.  36. With respect to the semi-annual report of Costa Rica , the delegate of the United States
 raised 
one question.  He noted that Co sta Rica had reported that it initiate d an investigation in 1998 which 
still appears to be ongoing.  He would ask Costa Rica to please explain this situation.  37. The delegate of Costa Rica
 stated that the matter would be referred to capital to obtain more 
detailed information on the particular  case.  In principle, according to the provisions of the Agreement 
this case should in fact have been concluded sin ce the time has elapsed, but this would have to be 
confirmed.    38. With respect to the semi-annual report of India , the delegate of Singapore
 thanked India for 
its report and noted that quite a few of the actions  reported concerned Singapore.  Singapore wished to  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 7 
 
 
 raise in particular the case of methylene chloride.  In August 2002, the Indian authorities initiated an 
anti-dumping investigation on the exports of methyl ene chloride (also known as dimethylene chloride, 
HS 29031200) from the EC, South Africa and Singapore.  The Indian authorities named two Singapore companies in the investigation – Ethylene Glycols (S) Private Ltd., and Singa-Chem Treatment Techno Private Ltd.   Singapore's st atistics showed that there were no exports from 
Singapore to India during the period of investigation, that is, 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.  
Accordingly, Singapore's High Commissioner in New Delhi wrote to the Indian authorities on 16 September 2002 informing the authorities that Si ngapore did not export, and also informed the 
authorities that Singapore had verified that the two named companies were not involved in either the 
manufacture or export of the product. 
 
39. In the preliminary determinati on dated 6 January 2003, the Indian authorities responded that 
"from the import data available from the (Designated)  authority, it is seen that a quantity of 520 
metric tons of the subject goods were exported fro m Singapore during the period of investigation".  
Preliminary duties were imposed on Singapore's impor ts.  Singapore had recently been informed of 
final findings in this case from the Indian authoriti es, issued on 27 August 2003.  The final findings 
impose an anti-dumping duty of US$ 36.30 on all imports of methylene chloride from Singapore.    40. Upon receipt of the final findings, once again Singapore's High Commissioner in New Delhi 
wrote to the Indian authorities on 18 September 2003, registering Singapore's disappointment at the outcome and strongly urging the Indian authorities to reverse the finding.   
 
41. This particular case raised several concerns for Singapore over the notification and findings of 
the Indian authorities.  First, the seemingly arb itrary manner in which the Singapore exporters were 
named in this investigation.  Both the named e xporters were mystified as to why they had been 
accused of dumping when they did not even export the product at all.  One of the exporters had even 
written to the Indian authorities to confirm that th ey do not manufacture, sell or export this product at 
all.  If the named exporters in an anti-dumping inv estigation are not correctly identified they clearly 
would not be in a position to furnish the appropriate data to the investigating authorities.  Under such 
circumstances there would be an increased oppor tunity for the investigating authority to use 
constructed values.   
42.  Second, Singapore also found it difficult to  understand how Singapore exports could have 
caused injury to the Indian domestic industry when, based on the response from the Singapore 
companies and Singapore's trade statistics, there we re no exports of the product in question during the 
period of investigation.    
43. Lastly, the mere initiation of an anti-dumpi ng action has a trade-chilling effect.  Even 
assuming that there are exports, or the potential for exports of this product from Singapore to India, the initiation would still have had an adverse impact on trade.  Singapore would thus urge India to re-
examine carefully the effects of the methylene chloride case and reconsider its findings against 
Singapore.    
44. Singapore also wished to make a note on a br oader point, relating to India's semi-annual 
report as a whole.  Singapore noted that the methylene chloride action is one of 17 anti-dumping actions initiated by India against Singapore since 199 9.  No single country had initiated so many anti-
dumping actions against Singapore, and there were at least 5 other cases where duties had been imposed.  In one case, the case on phenol, India had already imposed a safeguard duty on imports of 
the product.   
 45. Singapore also wished to raise a practice whic h had caused some concern, which occurred in 
the methylene chloride case.  That was the appa rent disregard for exporters' information in 
preliminary determinations by the Indian authorities and the resort to using constructed values.  The G/ADP/M/25 
Page 8  
 
 imposition of preliminary and final duties on a ll these cases had adversely affected Singapore's 
exports to India.  Even without the imposition of  duties, Singapore's producers and exporters will 
already have experienced the trade-chilling effects th at a mere initiation of an investigation can have. 
 46. The delegate of the United States
 posed two questions to India about its semi-annual report.  
Under its listing of measures in force, India listed a measure against graphite electrodes against the 
US as having been in place since 5 May 1998.  Howeve r, in its semi-annual repor t, for that same case 
India indicated that in April 2003 continuation of the duty beyond five years was not recommended.  The United States would ask India to confirm that th e measure against graphite electrodes have been 
terminated and adjust its measures in force listing appropriately.  Secondly, under its notification of 
measures in force with regards to the United States,  India listed products SBR and, separately styrene 
butadiene rubber, as having measures in force fro m 24 August 1999.  The United States would ask 
India to clarify whether these measure s are against the same product.  
 47. The delegate of Korea
 raised a matter of a purely procedural nature.  He noted that his 
country was described in India's report as "South Korea", but that its proper title was "Republic of 
Korea".  48. The delegate of India
 thanked the delegate of Singapore for raising this point.  As regards the 
point of zero exports from Singapore of methylen e chloride during the period of investigation 
concerning this case, India wished to state that th is issue had been dealt with by the Designated 
authority of India in the preliminary findings as well as the final findings.  If Singapore so desired, 
then this issue could be looked into bilaterally.  49. As regards another general issue raised by Si ngapore, on the number of anti-dumping actions 
taken by India in respect of Singapore, he wished to emphasize that India had always carried out anti-
dumping investigations strictly in accordance with the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping.  
Investigations were launched on the basis of fu lly documented petitions from the domestic industry 
against the dumped imports originatin g from various trading partners.   
 50. Regarding the issue of a safeguard duty on pheno l, he unfortunately did not have the full 
details available.  However, as Members were aware, safeguard inves tigations and anti-dumping 
investigations were applied to remedy different so rts of situations.  If Singapore had any concerns on 
the findings in the anti-dumping investigation on phenol, India would request Singapore to provide the details.  India was also willing to discuss it bilaterally.   51. Regarding the issue raised by the delegate fro m the US, he confirmed that the final duty on 
graphite electrodes had been withdrawn on the basi s of the recommendation.  He did not exact dates 
but confirmed the duty was no longer in effect on this product.  On the issue of SBR and styrene 
butadiene rubber he wished to clarify that a corri gendum had already been issued by the Secretariat 
and this was, of course, the same product.  52. Regarding the request of the Republic of Kore a, India took note of the request and would 
accordingly take care of it.   
 53. With respect to the semi-annual report of Japan , the delegate of the United States
 raised two 
questions.  He observed that every case conducted by Japan  seems to have resulted in the use of facts 
available.  He would ask Japan whether any of  this use of facts available involved adverse 
assumptions.  Secondly, he would ask Japan what rate of duty would apply to a new exporter of 
certain polyester staple fibre from Korea or Chin ese Taipei who chooses not to request a new shipper 
review under ADA Article 9.5.   G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 9 
 
 
 54. Later in the meeting, the Committee reverted to  this matter at the request of Japan.  The 
delegate of Japan thanked the United States for its interest in Japan's semi-annual report and 
apologised for not being able to give an answer earlier.  Having consulted with his colleagues, the 
answers to the two points that the US raised were th e following.  In terms of the facts available, in 
these investigations Japan was using facts available but  not in the context of adverse facts available.  
The answer to the second question from the US, was that Japan had not yet received a request for a 
new shipper review but if there were a request for a new shipper review, Japan would request a 
guarantee in the amount of the "all others rate" from the new shippers during the time of the new 
shipper reviews.  
55. The delegate of the United States
 inquired how Japan calculated the all others rate in these 
two cases, given that both cases involved the use of facts available?  56. The delegate of Japan
 stated that, as this was a rather t echnical question, Japan would like to 
answer the question at the next meeting or as soon as possible. 
 
57. With respect to the semi-annual report of Korea , the delegate of the United States  observed 
that Korea had become a fairly frequent user of the anti-dumping remedy.  In light of this, the United States had several questions about Korea's an ti-dumping practice.  First he would ask Korea to 
please inform the United States of the initiation date of  the ethylhexyl alcohol cases.  Second, in the 
case of disposable lighters from China, did the use of  facts available involve an adverse assumption?  
And third, in the case of EBA from Chinese Taipei, he would ask Korea how a price undertaking can 
be based on facts available as appeared to be indicated in the semi-annual report?  58. The delegate of Korea
 thanked the US for raising three issues.  Regarding the date of 
initiation of the ethylhexyl alcohol case, he unders tood it to have been August 2002.  For the two 
remaining questions, unfortunately the answers were  not readily available so Korea would provide 
detailed information to the United States later.  59. With respect to the semi-annual report of Mexico , the delegate of the United States
 noted that 
Mexico had reported no negative injury determinat ions during the reporting period.  Reviewing past 
reports it appeared that of the 65 investigations Me xico had initiated since the formation of the WTO, 
only one had resulted in a negative finding with respect  to material injury or threat thereof.  Would 
Mexico please confirm whether this was an accu rate reading of Mexico's semi-annual reports? 
 60. The delegate of Mexico
 thanked the United States for raisi ng this question.  He undertook to 
consult with his authorities in capital so as to provide the US delegation with a precise answer. 
 
61. With respect to the semi-annual report of Poland , the delegate of Poland  noted that there 
appeared to be some data missing from the report.  He believed this was because of some computer error, and of course Poland would provide a formal  corrigendum.  But for the information of the 
Committee, in column 5 where the form asked for dates and dumping margins, in the case of the definitive duty imposed against the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation, there was only the 
information about the dates, but no information about the dumping margin.  He informed the 
Committee that the dumping margin found for the Czech Republic was 21%, while for Russia it 
was 30.1%.    62. With respect to the semi-annual report of South Africa , the delegate of the United States
 
noted South Africa had identified a sunset review on the order on acetaminophenol against the US.  
However, the United States was not aware that any regulations or rules had been issued by South 
Africa with respect to the conduct of such pro ceedings and would ask South Africa to comment on 
when such rules will be notified to the Committee.  G/ADP/M/25 
Page 10  
 
 63. The delegate of South Africa
 stated that his authorities would be notifying their regulations 
for the next meeting, next spring.    64. With respect to the semi-annual report of Thailand , the delegate of the United States
 noted 
that Thailand had reported no negativ e injury determinations during the reporting period.  Reviewing 
past reports, it appeared that Thailand had never made a negative injury determination.  Would 
Thailand please confirm whether this was an accu rate reading of Thailand's semi-annual reports? 
 65. The delegate of Thailand
 stated that he would bring this matter to the attention of his capital 
and would get back to the US. 
 
66. With respect to the semi-annual report of Turkey , the delegate of the United States  noted that 
the investigation of polyvinyl chloride from the US appeared to have taken 25 months to complete.  
He wished to ask Turkey how this duration was c onsistent with the timelines set forth in the ADA 
Article 5.10? 
 
67. The delegate of Turkey  requested the United States to put its question in writing, and  stated 
that once the written question had been received Turkey would submit a written and comprehensive 
answer.  68. With respect to the semi-annual report of the United States , the delegate of Korea
 raised a 
systemic issue concerning the format for notificatio ns.  For most Members, column 13 of the semi-
annual reports concerned reporting the percentage of the trade volume of the exporting countries 
investigated.  However, that column in the US semi-annual report was headed "Number of Firms" and 
did not report the trade volume investigated of exporting countries.    
69. The delegate of the United States
 noted that his authorities reported the trade volume in 
column 11.  70. The delegate of Korea
 noted that other Members also reported trade volume in column 11.  
His question concerned column 13, the percentage of the trade volume investigated of the exporting 
countries.  That was of a different nature than  the information reported by the United States 
concerning the number of firms.  He wondered wh ich information was actually correctly to be 
reported according to the notification format?  71. The delegate of the United States
 thanked the delegate for the cl arification, and indicated his 
authorities would look into the issue and reply to Korea. 
 
72. The Chairman  observed that answers provided to the questions posed, if they were provided 
in writing, should be made available to the Committ ee as a whole, as well as to the Member who 
posed the question.    73. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
J. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI -DUMPING ACTIONS  
 
74. The Chairman  noted that lists of the notifications  of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions received by the Committee were circulat ed to the Committee in documents G/ADP/N/104 and 
G/ADP/N/106-109.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions had been notified by Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, the European Communities, 
India, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Paki stan, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, the 
United States, and Uruguay.   G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 11 
 
 
 75. The Chairman stated that there continued to be  a lack of full compliance in this area.  As 
reflected in Annex D of the annual report, a draf t of which had been made available to Members 
earlier in the week, some Members who had subm itted semi-annual reports indicating actions in 
progress had not submitted reports of preliminary or  final actions taken.  He noted that if the 
Committee was to carry out its role in monitori ng and discussion actions taken by Members, it was 
extremely important that Members notify their measures as required by the Agreement.   
 76. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement.  
 
K. EFFECT OF MEMBERSHIP ENLARGEMENT ON TRADE REMEDIES CURRENTLY IN FORCE IN 
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES :  TEN QUESTIONS – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE 
UNITED  STATES  
 
77. The Chairman  noted that this item had been request ed by the United States to be on the 
agenda for this meeting and the meeting of th e Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
the following week.  The United States had submitted written questions to the European 
Communities, circulated in document G/ADP/W/435-G/SCM/W/526.  Both he and the Chair of the SCM Committee had received letters from the Eur opean Communities dated 13 October indicating 
that the European Communities would provide answer s to the US questions and proposing that the 
questions be dealt with only in this Committee.  
78. The delegate of the United States
 observed that most delegates present in the room would 
recall that the United States had raised this issue at  the Committee’s meeting last spring.  To refresh 
memories, a useful summary of the discussion wa s contained in the minutes of the Committee’s 
Spring meeting, document G/ADP/M/24, beginning on page 9.    
79. Because these sources were available to Members, he would be brief in his description of the 
issue, and the potential problems which caused the Un ited States to raise these questions for the EC.  
As discussed in the Spring, last March the EC announ ced a rather surprising policy with respect to the 
effect of expansion of EU membership from 15 member States to 25 member States, which is scheduled to occur on 1 May 2004.  With the expansion of the EU, the Commission had announced that any trade remedies in place by the 10 acceding countries would be automatically terminated.  
This was, of course, a welcome announcement.  However, the Commission had also announced that 
they would be replaced by the far more numerous trade remedies currently in effect in the EC-15.  To put it simply, the geographic coverage of the EC’s  current trade remedies would be stretched to 
encompass the new territory.  As the United States understood this policy, fo r many products covered 
by current measures in the EU-15, if an exporter ships its merchandise to the 10 acceding countries on 
30 April 2004 it will not have to pay dumping duties; but  if it enters that same merchandise into the 
same port on 1 May 2004, it will have  to pay dumping duties.  By the same token, domestic producers 
of that merchandise located in those 10 countries will not be protected by trade remedies on 30 April; they will have such protection on 1 May.  80. The obvious problems this proposed policy raised were that dumping duties were being 
imposed in those countries, and protection was offere d to domestic industries in those countries, with 
no determination ever having been made that those do mestic industries were suffering material injury.  
This policy not only raised questions about the EC’s  definitive measures, but also about the numerous 
special deals it had cut with exporters threatened with such measures.   
 
81. The EC had said it may conduct reviews of the injury determinations underlying its trade 
remedies, but only if the exporters would produc e facts about the financial condition of their 
competitors in the EU-25.  In addition to this high threshold, the EC had warned that any time an 
exporter requested a review of the injury to the domestic industry in the EU-25, the Commission would also self-initiate a review of that exporter’s level of duties, which might increase as a result.  G/ADP/M/25 
Page 12  
 
 Clearly, even if an exporter believed that the fa cts likely showed that the EU-25 industry was not 
suffering material injury, in the face of this policy it would have to think very carefully about the 
possible repercussions of asking the EC to review such facts.  82. This proposed policy raised a number of issu es which were the focus of the United States' 
questions to the EC.  The United States began, of cour se, by asking about the status of this policy.  If 
it had been abandoned, or if reviews of all of th e EC’s trade remedy measures had been completed, 
then this issue could be dropped, and the Committee could move on to other ma tters before it.  The 
United States also asked about the status of current  investigations.  The Un ited States was aware that 
some investigations were being c onducted on the basis of injury to the domestic industry in the EC-
15, even though the EC had already announced the policy of applying the results to the EC-25.  This 
practice was even more troubling given the EC’s pr actice of limiting its examination of the domestic 
industry solely to those companies which supported the petition.  This practice not only raised the 
question of whether the EC was conducting valid injury  investigations, but also the issue of whether 
their industry support finding had been distorted.  The United States also asked about the proposed 
review procedures, to find out if the EC ha d modified its policies which seemed designed to 
discourage requests for review of the injury determ inations. Finally, the United States asked several 
questions about the EC’s views of the possible implica tions of their policy.  For example, if a Member 
currently had a measure against the EC, did the EC agree that the measure may be expanded to cover 
the acceding countries?  If a Member had measures ag ainst some subset of the EC-25, may it apply 
those measures against all upon expansion?  The answ ers to these questions might shed some light on 
the reasons underpinning the EC’s announced policy. 
 83. The delegate of the European Communities
 started by thanking the United States for sending 
a list of specific questions on the impact of enlargem ent on the EC trade defence policy. Since the end 
of last year, the Commission had conducted a series of information activities aimed at explaining to 
interested parties the approach th at the EC will take on this issue. The EC was confident that this 
exercise in the Committee would further contribute to the dissemination of the relevant information.  
 84. The EC also wished to announce that a couple of  days ago the Trade Defence Services of the 
Commission had launched a website explaining various  aspects of the EC trade defence policy after 
enlargement. The EC trusted that the website would serve as a valuable and easily accessible 
reference tool for everyone seeking answers to  most common questions on this topic.  
 85. The EC also wished to underline that it had co mpiled considerable experience in handling this 
issue in successive rounds of enlargements. This ex perience clearly showed that economic operators 
requested reviews only to a very limited extent, although the EC showed great willingness to open 
such reviews. All this demonstrated that the issue was not as critical as the US questions might at first 
sight suggest.   86. Having said that, he proceeded with the answer s to the US questions. He noted that the 
answers only referred to anti-dum ping and anti-subsidy measures. 
 
1.  Please update the Committee on the EC’s plans regarding the effect of enlargement 
on outstanding trade remedy measures by th e EC.  Do the documents entitled “Trade 
And Enlargement - Why is enlargement good news for third countries?” (MEMO/03/72, dated 27 March 2003) and “Trade and Enlargement - A Sectoral Overview” (MEMO/03/73, dated 27 March 2003), continue  to represent a complete and accurate 
picture of the EC’s policy with respect to the effect of enlargement on outstanding trade 
remedy measures by the EC?   G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 13 
 
 
 87. The EC could confirm that it had not changed its approach since the publication of the above-
mentioned documents earlier this year. For those who did  not have the documents referred to by the 
US at hand, it was recalled that this general a pproach consisted of the following key elements :  
  - as of the day of enlargement, there would be  an automatic and immediate application of all 
the existing EU-15 anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures in the new Member States; 
  - as of the day of enlargement, all the exis ting anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures of the 
individual new Member States would lapse; 
 
 - there would be additional possibilities for inte rested parties to request reviews of AD/AS 
measures in force in the EU-25, provided that they have evidence that enlargement generates 
changed circumstances to an extent that these measures are no longer appropriate for the 
market situation in the EU-25.  
  Have any other documents been issued which pertain to this issue?  
88. No.  The delegate of the European Communiti es recalled what had just been said about the 
launch of a website dedicated to this topic. In addition, the Commission had undertaken other information activities, such as seminars, ad hoc  bilateral meetings and exchanges of letters with the 
aim of explaining its policy i.a. to its trading partners. 
 
 Does the EC intend to hold a hearing to discuss with interested parties the 
appropriateness of the extension of measures to additional customs territories? 
 
89. There are no such plans.  However, in line with its practice in the previous rounds of the EU 
enlargement, at the latest immediately after th e enlargement, the Commission would publish a Notice 
in the Official Journal reminding all interested partie s of their rights to request reviews of the AD/AS 
measures in force in the EU-25. Such request woul d have to be accompanied by sufficient evidence 
that enlargement had substantially changed th e circumstances underlying the imposition of the 
measures.   How and when does the EC intend to advise interested parties that these measures will 
be extended to the ten countries acceding to the European Union? 
 
90. As previously explained, interested parties have had numerous opportunities to be informed 
of the consequences of enlargement in terms of trade defence measures. This information 
dissemination exercise will of course be continued in the further run-up to enlargement. 
 
 2.  Does the EC intend to conduct reviews of the injury determinations of all outstanding 
trade remedy measures to confirm that tho se determinations remain a valid basis on 
which to impose trade remedy measures?  If so, have such reviews begun?  
 91. There are no and will be no automatic ex officio reviews of the AD/AS measures in force in 
the EU-15 at the time of the accession of the ne w Member States. However, provided that the 
enlargement substantially changes the circumstances with regard to a measure (e.g., the injury 
parameters that the US address in their question or  other parameters that determine the scope and 
legality of measures), a review of such a measure will be possible.  
 
92. It should be underlined that not only exporting countries and their exporters had expressed, 
albeit in a very general way, an interest in such re views, but also producers in the current and enlarged 
Community.   G/ADP/M/25 
Page 14  
 
 93. The EU approach also took into considerati on that reviews are resource and time-consuming 
for all parties involved, and that without due justification for the need for such an investigation, parties share a practical interest not to be subject to such reviews. Reviews should only be carried out 
where necessary, as highlighted by  adequate and accurate facts. 
  3.  In its currently ongoing investigations, is  the EC basing its injury determinations on 
information relating to the domestic industry in the EU-15 or the domestic industry in 
the EU-25? Does the answer vary depending on whether the proceeding is scheduled for completion months before enlargement, weeks before enlargement, days before 
enlargement, or after enlargement? 
 94. In all investigations initiated before the enlarg ement, all investigati on parameters (not only 
the injury parameters) are based on the data relating to the EU-15.   
 In which cases, if ever, does the EC intend to begin examining issues of injury to the 
domestic industry based upon the industry in the EU-25? 
 
95. The reply to this question followed from the EC’s reply to the previous question. As a general 
rule, all investigations initiated after the date of enlargement will be carried out on the EU-25 basis.  
 96. In addition it should be pointed out that, in c onformity with past practice adopted after the 
former rounds of enlargement, in the conduct of in vestigations initiated after enlargement, the new 
Member States will be considered as part of the Union. Thus the facts will be collected and the 
calculations performed in the framework of the EU- 25 even if the investigation period covers a period 
in which the EU had only 15 Members States.   4.  Article 5.4 of the Antidumping Agreement provides that an investigation shall not be 
initiated unless the authorities have determined that the application has been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry.  In or der to be considered “by or on behalf of the 
domestic industry,” it must be supported by  domestic producers wh ose collective output 
constitutes more than 50 percent of the total production of the like product produced by 
that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for or opposition to the 
application.  However, no investigation sh all be initiated when domestic producers 
expressly supporting application account for less  than 25 percent of total production of 
the like product produced by the domestic i ndustry.  Please identify all cases in which 
the EC has considered producers in th e ten acceding countries for purposes of 
determining whether the application has been supported “by or on behalf of the 
domestic industry.”  If the EC has not ye t begun considering such producers for this 
determination, when does it intend to begin doing so? 
 
97. The answer to this question flow s again from the basic concept th at all investigations initiated 
after the date of enlargement would be carried out on the EU-25 basis. Obviously, all complaints 
submitted to the Commission after the enlargement w ill have to be based on data representative for 
the EU-25 and this requirement refers not just to sta nding issues, but also to all the other criteria that a 
complaint must meet in order to lead to the initiation of an investigation.  
 Does the EC intend to review all ongoing in vestigations to ensure that they were 
supported by domestic producers in the expanded EU-25? 
 98. Again, this question had been addressed alread y in the replies to the previous questions, 
notably, that there will not be any automatic ex officio reviews of the current EU AD/AS measures. 
  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 15 
 
 
  5.  If, based on an examination of the facts with respect to a domestic industry in the 
EU-15, an affirmative preliminary anti- dumping or countervailing duty determination 
is issued prior to enlargement resulting in provisional measures, will those provisional measures be lifted upon enlargement pending  a final determination based on an 
examination of the facts with respect to that domestic industry in the EU-25? 
 99. In all investigations initiated before the enlarg ement, all investigati on parameters (not only 
the injury parameters for the domestic industry) are and will be based on data representative for the 
EU-15. Accordingly, there will be no change of th e sets of data used for the adoption of provisional 
and definitive measures. As for all the measures adopt ed on the basis of the data representative for the 
EU-15, also in this particular situation after the enlargement interested parties will have a possibility 
to request reviews of these measures unde r the circumstances described before. 
 
 6.  One particular concern is the statem ent in the above-cited memoranda that the 
burden of establishing the need for a revie w will be on the exporter to establish that 
circumstances with regard to a case have change d substantially due to enlargement.  An 
exporter is unlikely to have access to detailed information about the precise condition of 
a domestic industry in another country, given how sensitive such information about its competitors is likely to be.  Has the EC reconsidered its proposal to impose such an insurmountable burden upon exporters in requesting a review? 
 100. With regard to this question, the EC expressed at the outset a certain degree of astonishment. 
The US question seemed to suggest that Article 11.2 ADA requirements as to the initiation of an 
injury interim review are inherently  impossible to fulfil. The EC is not of the opinion that this can be 
seriously argued. In the EC’s view, and the EC ho ped that the US shared this view, the ADA gives 
already today exporters the possibility to request an Article 11.2 review if circumstances with regard 
to injury have changed. The same is true with re gard to producers in the importing country who are of 
the opinion that the dumping has increased. On that  basis, the EC failed to see why enlargement 
would constitute a particular probl em in the context of processing of review requests and the opening 
of 11.2 ADA reviews.  101. These reasonable standards would, as always, be applied by the EU, also in the context of 
enlargement.  And if there are any exceptional circum stances arising from this event or any particular 
difficulties, they would certainly be taken into account in this context. 
 102. This is nothing more than the application of  a well-known principle of Roman law which is 
still highly relevant in any modern law. And that principle is ultra posse nemo obligatur.  In other 
words nothing impossible is requested. If the data  submitted suggest that there is a change in 
circumstances which in turn has an effect on the le vel of the measures, such review will be opened. 
Relevant indications in this respect can be th e number of producers in the accession countries and 
their production volume when compared to the produc tion volume of the EU 15 or the level of import 
volume and prices of the product concerned in th e accession countries when compared to the exports 
in the EU 15. Under no circumstances would the EC require that exporters submit injury information 
which is, because of its confidential nature, onl y available to domestic producers in the EC.  
 103. Finally, this issue does not arise to the extent that a review is limited to issues of dumping or 
subsidy.   7.  Will the EC consider a request to revie w the injury determination upon enlargement 
without a parallel request to review the appropri ate level of duties?  If the EC receives a 
request for a review solely of the injury  determination, will it self-initiate an 
accompanying review of the appropriate level of duties?  If so, what evidence, if any, will G/ADP/M/25 
Page 16  
 
 the authority be required to have before undertaking such a self-initiated review?  
Please explain the basis for the EC’s policy in this regard. 
 
104. At the outset, the EC wished to underline that under its practice, the duty level can be based 
on dumping/subsidy or, if this is below the dumping marg in or subsidy level, on injury.  The EC also 
noted that in about 50% of all EC cases the duty level was governed by such lower injury margin. A 
request for changing the level of the duty can c onsequently be based on either of these two although 
there are unfortunately no WTO rules which govern  the determination of the injury margin.  
Consequently, any discussion in this forum as to what  is the appropriate standard of review of an 
injury margin is entirely academic.  
 
105. Whether the EC will accept a requ est for an injury interim review would very much depend 
on the circumstances of the case at hand.  As a starti ng point, the EC considered that an injury review 
does not necessarily have to be accompanied by, for example, a dumping review.  However, if the 
information at hand suggested that the enlargement had not only affected the injury findings to a 
significant degree, but also the dumping findings, there would be no reason nor indeed any possibility 
to close one’s eyes to this information.  It goes w ithout saying that the same approach will apply in 
the inverse situation, i.e. when the Community industry requests a review limited to issues of 
dumping or subsidy.   
 8.  If another Member has an outstanding measure against the EU, would that Member 
be justified in applying that measure agains t imports from all of the acceding countries 
upon EU enlargement?  Why or why not? 
 
106. As a parallelism to the EC’s approach the EC considered that the measure can be extended to 
the EU 25.  However, again in parallelism to th e EC’ approach, the EC would insist that the 
possibility for a review is offered if an  interested party can provide sufficient prima facie  evidence 
demonstrating that circumstances have changed.  Such review should allow for a quick update of the 
findings wherever necessary.  107. It also follows from this that in these circum stances a measure against an individual accession 
country cannot give rise to applying this measure to the EU 25.  
 
 9.  If another Member has an outstanding measure against an individual Member of the 
EU-15, would that Member be justified in applying that measure against imports from all EU-25 Members upon EU enlargement?  Why or why not? 
 
 10.  If another Member has a trade remedy measure against one of the acceding 
countries, would that Member be justified in applying the measure against imports from anywhere in the EC upon enlargement?  Why or why not? 
 
108. Questions 9 and 10 were best answered together.  There is certainly no basis for an extension 
if the Member follows the policy to impose TDI measures on individual EC Member States or on 
individual accession countries.  The EC did not see any reason whatsoever as to how the simple fact 
of enlargement could entitle a WTO Member to exte nd the measure against an individual member to 
the EU 25.   109. The delegate of Korea
 thanked the EC for providing the answers to the questions raised by the 
US.  At the last regular meeting, Korea had expr essed its concerns with regard to the effect of 
membership enlargement of the EU on the ou tstanding trade remedy measures by the EC.  
Accordingly, Korea wished to limit itself to the le gality under the AD Agreement of the EC's policy 
of uniform EC-wide application of trade policy in struments in the context of impending enlargement 
of the EU.    G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 17 
 
 
  
110. As the EC had just confirmed, the anti-dumpi ng measures currently applicable in the 15 
member States of the EU will be automatically ap plicable in the newly acceding member States.  
Korea continued to seriously doubt how the EC ca n extend the measures to the new member States 
without running afoul of its obligations under the AD Agreement, including those under Article 1, 
which stipulates that anti-dumping measures should be applied only under circumstances provided for 
in Article 6 of GATT 1994, pursuant to investiga tions initiated and conducted in accordance with the 
provisions of the AD Agreement.    111. First of all, the previous injury determinati ons which served as the basis for the outstanding 
anti-dumping measures cannot constitute a valid basi s on which to extend those measures to the new 
member States.  Secondly, the geographically extended outstanding anti-dumping measures to be applied after the enlargement cannot possibly be cons idered to have met the standing requirement or 
the initiation requirement provided for in Article 5 of the AD Agreement.  The ongoing investigations 
conducted by the EC on the basis of current me mber States cannot support application of anti-
dumping measures covering enlarged EU membership.   
 112. Korea was of the view that the only way to overcome this problem of lack of parallelism 
between the scope of investigation and the geographical application of the measures is first to conduct 
individual reviews on the basis of a broadene d geographical scope of all the outstanding AD 
measures, including provisional ones as well as ongoi ng investigations and, second, to postpone 
extended EU-wide application of the outstanding anti-dumping measures pending completion of such 
reviews.  The authority suggested by the EC , that is changed circumstances reviews under 
Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement at the request of  affected exporters, cannot be the solution.   
 113. In its intervention, the EC made mention of  increased activities in terms of information 
dissemination and also pointed out that review is time consuming and should be triggered only when 
there is due justification.  But Korea did not believe that these two arguments could overcome the 
legality problem of the EC's current policy.  114. The delegate of Japan
 also thanked the EC for its responses to the questions by the US.  Japan 
shared the view of the United States in that Jap an was also concerned about the effect of the 
membership expansion on the anti-dumping measur es currently in force in the European 
Communities.  As the Korean delegation had expl ained, in accordance with Article 1 of the AD 
Agreement, anti-dumping measures shall be applied only pursuant to investigations initiated and 
conducted in accordance with the provisions of th e AD Agreement.  Article 1 therefore prohibits 
imposing anti-dumping duties on imports without investigation of the imports.  The EC has not 
conducted any investigation on the imports to acceding countries and therefore has not found any 
injury due to these imports to the acceding countries.   The EC however intends to expand the current 
anti-dumping measures to the acceding countries.  Japan  believed that the EC should take into account 
its concerns and should not simply expand the current anti-dumping measures to the acceding 
countries without investigation and in the absence of injury determinations. 
 
115. The delegate of India  also thanked the EC for their comprehensive responses to the questions 
raised by the US.  India requested the EC to provide a copy of the statement in writing so that it could 
be examined in detail.  India wished to emphasi ze that it believed that the scope of existing anti-
dumping measures cannot be automatically expanded to  include application of these measures in the 
newly acceding countries.  This was based on the consid eration that in the original investigation, the 
dumping injury analysis based on the domestic industry did not include the newly acceding countries.  
It cannot be the case that while the standing require ment on injury is established on the basis of the 
domestic industry existing in respect of the [previous ] EC members, this could be an adequate basis 
for application of the anti-dumping measures by the newly acceding member countries.  G/ADP/M/25 
Page 18  
 
 116. The delegate of Australia
 supported clarification of the effect of EU enlargement on third-
country exports currently subject to trade remedy  actions.  Australia had systemic and commercial 
interests in the EC's responses to the US questions po sed and this issue in general.  Australia recalled 
discussion n the Committee on Regional Trade Agreemen ts on these issues following the previous EU 
enlargement, during which a number of concerns we re raised, which remained unresolved.  Australia 
saw merit in having further discussions in the tr ade remedy committees on the current provisions in 
the relevant WTO Agreements and the preserva tion of Members' WTO rights in relation to 
transparent and fair processes and treatment.  Aust ralia considered that there is a need for the 
principles underlying GATT Article 6 and the WTO AD  Agreement to be respected.  In addition to 
the US questions, Australia was interested in whet her the EC could provide the modalities that were 
implemented during the last enlargement and whic h were referred to in the two EC documents 
referenced in the US document G/ADP/W/435.  Th e EC documents note that exporters may request 
suspension of measures on the basis th at injury would not be likely to recur.  Could the EC elaborate 
on what procedures are envisaged?  What are the ev identiary requirements relating to this request?  
What would the burden of proof be on the exporter?   And Australia's final question was could the EC 
explain how the extension of the trade defence me asures will not automatically vary the dumping and 
subsidization and inju ry determinations? 
 117. The delegate of the United States
 expressed deep appreciation to the EC for its complete and 
comprehensive responses to the US questions.  That being said, the United States did have a few additional questions which have been raised by these r esponses.  First, he noted that the EC had stated 
that reviews should not be automatically initiated b ecause reviews are burdensome.  He noted that the 
reviews being talked about were reviews of the in jury determination.  Given that trade remedy 
measures will be expanded to provi de protection to the domestic industry, was not some burden upon 
that domestic industry appropriate?  Secondly, he  noted the EC's statement that only cases initiated 
after enlargement would receive treatment of their in jury determination in the context of the EU-25.  
He asked the EC to confirm th at cases initiated the day before enlargement would not receive 
examination of the EU-25 in the injury determin ation.  Third, the EC referred to a reasonable 
requirement that facts for review be appropriate befo re reviews will be initiated.  The EC referenced 
in this regard facts about the size of the industri es in the newly acceding countries.  He would ask the 
EC to provide the threshold for how large such indus tries must be in the newly acceding countries.  In 
this regard, he noted that one highly profitabl e company could substantially sway an injury 
determination.   
 118. Next, he noted the EC's statement that an injury review does not necessarily mean that a 
dumping review will be conducted.  In other words, th e fact that a Member requests an injury review 
does not automatically mean that the EC will also revi ew the level of duties.  He would ask the EC to 
confirm whether, if only facts relating to injury are presented by an exporter, would the EC solicit or 
otherwise seek facts which may require a review of the level of duties?   
 119. Finally, in response to the United States' l ast three questions, he appreciated the EC's 
expression of its view that a member may cover the entire EU with a single trade remedy measure.  This was previously somewhat unclear.  In light of this statement, he would ask why a measure 
covering a single Member could not be expanded to c over the entire EU-25 upon expansion?  If part 
of the EU-25 is covered prior to expansion, and that order may be  expanded to cover the entire EU-
25, why should it matter which part?  In other words, if a Member who has a current order against the EU-15 may reasonably expand that to cover the EU-25, as the EC has stated today, why should not a Member which has an order against one member of the EU-25 be authorized to expand that measure 
to cover the entire EU-25 upon expansion? 
 120. The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked the delegations who had spoken for their 
comments and their questions, and would try to r espond to these questions as comprehensively as 
possible.  At the outset, he underlined that what th e EC was going to do would be carried out in a very  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 19 
 
 
 transparent and fair manner.  In fact, the EC strong ly rejected the notion that  this was a surprising 
policy.  The policy which the EC intended to appl y to the enlargement which would take place in May 
2004, was the same policy as had been applied in pr evious rounds of enlargement.  There was no 
surprise here.  For a considerable number of months , the EC had also tried to draw the attention of 
economic operators to how it intende d to handle this issue this time.  So he failed to see how this 
could come as a surprise to anybody who more or less follows trade events.   
 121. He noted that he had heard today the view that the EC policy was designed to discourage 
requests for reviews.  Again, he would strongly disp ute such a notion.  On the contrary, if Members 
had carefully listened to the EC response to ques tion 6 from the United States, they will have heard 
that the EC would certainly not request from anyb ody the impossible.  The EC had never done this 
and would not do this in future.  There was no reason for applying such standards.  On the contrary, 
the EC requested and invited anybody who thou ght that circumstances have changed due to 
enlargement to prepare already now for a request fo r review and to come along and request such a 
review so that on the day of enlargement or soon  thereafter these problems and these issues could be 
dealt with expeditiously.   
 122. Looking at the statements that had been made , he saw a common theme, which seemed to be 
the suggestion that there should be sort of an abso lute parallelism between the geographical scope of 
the investigation and the geographical scope of the me asure.  In other words, if the investigation had 
covered the EU-15 the measure cold not cover the EU- 25.  The EC thought that this was not correct.  
In the lifetime of an anti-dumping measure, and the sa me is true also for a anti-subsidy measure, there 
could be many circumstances which could change.  This had already been discussed in the spring 
meeting of the Committee.  New operators can come into existence, new operators in the Community 
and also new operators in the exporting country.  Existing operators can go out of business, or can 
move on to other horizons, and again this can happe n in the country which has adopted the measure 
and also in the country whose exports are subject to  the measure.  So this is one example where very 
important circumstances can change, and this does not  automatically trigger a review.  There can be 
other circumstances which can change.  For instan ce if prices of raw materials increase, that can 
certainly have an effect on an injury determination,  but he considered that nobody would suggest that 
there was a sort of automaticity to open ing a review in these circumstances.   
 
123. Having outlined a number of circumstances whic h change, another circumstance which could 
change, and did change here in the case of the EC, was the geographical scope of the Community.  
The EC had pointed out in the past that the economic weight, if he could use that phrase, of the ten new member States was not big as compared to the economic weight of the existing 15 members.  
This figure had been quoted as 10% -- the economic activity of the 10 new member States represents 
roughly 10% of the economic activity of the EU-15.  So in the light of these facts,  the EC failed to see 
how this particular change of circumstance, en largement, should automatically trigger a review. 
 124. Turning to the more specific points.  The US  wanted confirmation that the investigation 
would only cover the EU-25 if the investigation has been initiated after enlargement and that 
investigations initiated the day before enlargement would only cover the EU-15.  It was clear that 
there had to be a cut-off date, because the cut-off da te gives legal certainty, it gives indication to all 
economic operators what had to be done and what w as not necessary to do.  The fact that the EC had 
such a cut-off date, and that the cut-off was the date  of enlargement, does of course not mean that the 
change in circumstance resulting from the enlargem ent will subsequently not be taken into account.  
On the contrary, there is the possibility of a review.  But a cut-off date is necessary in order to have 
legal certainty.   
 125. The US also raised the question whether or not there will be a threshold which could facilitate 
or even trigger the initiation of such a review, a th reshold in terms of econom ic operators in the new 
member States, in the acceding countries.  The US  had also noted the example of a highly profitable G/ADP/M/25 
Page 20  
 
 company that can completely change th e injury picture.  It is indeed true that a very highly profitable 
company can change the injury picture.  But again th is particular example shows in fact that it would 
be extremely difficult to have a hard and fast threshold which should trigger reviews.  Due to 
enlargement there might an additional number of new companies being part of the Community, but if the data suggests that the change is not very big then there is no point in opening a review.  At the 
same time if there is one new company which is high ly profitable, that could suggest such a change.  
So the EC had great difficulties in seeing how a hard  and fast threshold could be applied in this 
context.   126. Another issue raised by the US was would the Community solicit or seek information on 
dumping if only an injury review were requested?  The point here was that injury covers a number of 
factors which have to be examined according to Article  3.  One of the factors which plays a role is of 
course the volume of imports.  Another factor which pl ay a role is the prices of imports in relation to 
the market in the importing country.  So, to the ex tent that injury data addresses these two points, 
requests for review also address these two points.   If the information relating to these two points 
would suggest strongly that a dumping review would have to be opened, as previously noted in the 
EC's responses, it would be extremely difficult to ignore such facts.  127. The US had taken issue with the reply to the last questions, questions 9 and 10, raising the 
question why a country which has imposed measures against one single member of the Community  
should not be allowed to impose its measure, following enlargement, against the Community as a 
whole, the Community of 25?  This the EC thought a very remarkable statement which defied logic.  
The EC saw no reason whatsoever why a duty which was imposed against one member and which followed an investigation against this particular member should be extended to all 25.  This was 
something that the EC had a problem in understandi ng and he considered that it could not be meant 
seriously. 
 
128. Before concluding, he wanted to point out anot her aspect of this enlargement exercise.  He 
noted that the EC had a number of anti-dumping me asures in force, as reported in its semi-annual 
report.  As had been said, and was also said l ast time, following enlargement the measures which are 
in place in the newly acceding member States will be repealed.  They will no longer apply from the day of enlargement onwards.  He wished to point out that this was not a negligible figure – the EC had 
counted 64 measures in force in the 10 new member States.  Out of these 64 measures, 24 measures 
applied erga omnes , that is, against everybody in the room a nd also against a number of States not in 
this room.  And 27 of these 64 measures apply agai nst individual third countries, and these individual 
third countries are not other acceding member St ates or are not member States of the Community, 
these 27 countries are countries other than the acced ing countries and other than members of the 
Community.  So, 24 + 27 = 51, that is a considerab le number of trade defence measures which will 
disappear.   He noted that reviews could always be requested, and the EC would certainly not impose 
any requirements in order to open such re views which were impossible to fulfil.  
 129. The delegate of the United States
 asked whether the EC would allow newly acceding member 
States to opt out of coverage of these expanded anti-dumping and countervailing measures?  Why or 
why not? 
 130. The delegate of the European Communities
 responded that there is no opt out.  The possibility 
of opt outs in other areas had been discussed, but not in  the area of trade.  This possibility did not arise 
given the fact that the EC was a customs union, having only one border, and so there was no 
possibility to opt out. 
 131. The Committee took note
 of all the statements made 
  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 21 
 
 
 L. TRANSITION REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
 
132. The Chairman  recalled that paragraph 18 of the Pr otocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the WTO provides that all su bsidiary bodies, including the Committee, "which 
have a mandate covering China's commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol shall, 
within one year after accession, review, as appropria te to their mandate, the implementation by China 
of the WTO Agreement and of the related provisions of  [the] Protocol".  He noted that China was to 
provide relevant information in advance of the re view, including information specified in Annex 1A 
of the Protocol, and that China can also raise issu es relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to 
any other specific commitments made by other Memb ers on the Protocol in subsidiary bodies which 
have  a relevant mandate.  The Committee must re port the results of the review promptly to the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  Review is to take pl ace after  accession in each year for eight years with 
a final review in year 10 or at an earlier da te decided by the General Council.  There are no 
procedures set out for the conduct of the transition re view in the Protocol, except that China is to 
provide relevant information in advance of the review.   
 133. The Chairman noted in this regard that there is no information specified for submission to the 
Committee under Annex 1A. Members had submitted questions in the context of the trans itional 
review relating to China's implementation of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement).  These can be found 
in documents G/ADP/W434 (submitted by Japan) an d G/ADP/W/436 (submitted by the United States). 
 134. Before turning to the questions posed by Memb ers, the Chair asked whether any Member had 
any general comments.  
135. The delegate of the United States
 stated that the United States would like to recognize China’s 
efforts over the past year as it worked to fashion an  anti-dumping regime that is transparent, subject to 
the rule of law and in compliance with WTO rules.   This process was not complete, however, and in 
the spirit of the TRM the United States was taking this opportunity to highlight areas where further 
improvements could be made.  To assist in ma king this review as productive as possible, the 
United States had submitted written questions, in  document G/ADP/W/436.  He noted that written 
questions and answers were the most practical and appropriate form to accurately transmit technical 
information.  It was in the interests of all Member s – including China – to promote a free exchange of 
information through the mechanisms provided by the WTO, including the transitional review 
mechanism.    
136. The United States applauded China’s on-going effo rts to round out the legal framework of its 
anti-dumping regime.  The delegate noted that China had issued ministerial rules on industry injury 
investigations as well as judicial interpretations on hearing anti-dumping appeals.  Nonetheless, gaps 
remained in this legal structure.  One notable gap was in the area of expiration reviews, which left 
China in the position of currently conducting an expi ration review without having ministerial rules on 
the books. 
 
137. The delegate also noted that China had notified many of these anti-dumping laws and 
regulations to the WTO.  Other such laws and regulations – including those concerning judicial 
review of anti-dumping measures – had not been notified.   Notification of such laws and regulations is 
required by the WTO, specifically Article 18.5 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to increase the 
transparency of Members’ anti-dumping regimes.  Furthermore, as China’s initial anti-dumping 
actions since joining the WTO were now coming to fi nal decisions, it was essential that clear rules be 
in place and known to all parties regarding proce dures for seeking judicial review.  It was also 
important for such parties to be provided with a clear understanding of the legal authority the courts 
have over the decisions made by the administering au thorities.  The United States, therefore, expected G/ADP/M/25 
Page 22  
 
 China to notify all laws and regulations that ha ve a bearing on anti-dumping investigations and 
reviews to this Committee.  The Un ited States also invited China, as it had all other active users of the 
anti-dumping remedy, to submit papers describing its  practice regarding the various topics now under 
discussion in the Working Group on Implementation.  
138. The United States appreciated China’s providing answers to the questions posed to it by the 
United States in the spring of 2003 on laws and regul ations notified as of that  date under Article 18.5.
1  
Unfortunately, the late date of China’s respon se precluded the United States from commenting on the 
content of those answers.  Members of the AD Co mmittee had agreed to these procedures in order to 
establish a technical forum for gaining a deeper understanding of each other’s anti-dumping regimes.  
This procedure was not unique to China, and ma ny Members, developed a nd developing, large and 
small, had participated in this process.  The Unite d States expected China to meet its responsibility to 
answer such questions promptly and in full, as all Members had agreed.    139. The transparency concerns of the United States did not end with China’s participation in 
transparency exercises in this Co mmittee.  Of potentially greater c oncern was the extent to which the 
conduct of investigations and reviews was transparent to the interested parties involved in them.  In 
particular, many respondent companies had comp lained that there was insufficient information 
released to parties to reasonably m ount an effective defence.  The delegate noted that the Ministry of 
Commerce had created a reading room for interest ed parties to access public versions of certain 
documents relating to anti-dumping investigations.  However, a particular shortfall was that the 
Ministry, and its predecessor, the SETC, had never ad equately made availabl e documents relating to 
their injury investigations.  Increasing the timelines s and breadth of the documents made available on 
the public record in anti-dumping investigations a nd reviews would improve the utility of this reading 
room.    
140. China could also enhance the transparency of its anti-dumping investigations and reviews by 
providing details of the administering authorities’  decision-making processes and reasoning.  Again, 
limited disclosure of the basis for decisions taken in  a proceeding greatly hindered interested parties’ 
ability to defend themselves.  Preliminary and final determinations were particularly suitable for these 
kinds of disclosures and should include substantive information considered by the administering authorities, and a description of  the analysis conducte d in the course of dumping and injury decisions.    
 
141. China had informed this Committee that the roles played by MOFTEC and SETC were now 
subsumed under the Ministry of Commerce.  The role of the State Council Tariff Commission was 
still not completely clear, however.  Nor did it app ear that China had issued regulations governing the 
activities of the Tariff Commission in anti-dumping i nvestigations or reviews.  The United States 
urged China to clarify the oversight role of th e State Council Tariff Commission, including when it 
may exercise discretion in the course of an in vestigation and any decisions it had made in 
investigations and reviews to date.  The United St ates further urged China to establish procedures for 
publicizing the Tariff Commission’s decisions in anti-dumping actions.  142. The United States applauded the continued efforts of China to increase the transparency of its 
anti-dumping regime and bring it into conformity with WTO rules.  The United States wished to 
foster mutual cooperation and unde rstanding on this front through multilateral mechanisms such as 
the TRM process and through bilateral technical exchanges.  143. The Chairman
 then invited the delegate of China to take the floor to respond to the questions 
and comments put to it. 
 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/14 & G/ADP/Q1/CHN/19  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 23 
 
 
 144. The delegate of China  took the opportunity to brief the Members and the Committee on 
China's implementation of its accession commitments in relation to anti-dumping measures over the past year, and also to respond to questions and comments from certain Members under the framework 
of the TRM.    
145. Part 1:  China's Implementation of its Anti-Dumping Legislation.  Competent authorities 
in China carried out anti-dumping investigations  on a number of cases pursuant to Chinese anti-
dumping legislations in accordance with statutory pr ocedures in the past year.  During the past year, 
China had initiated 3 anti-dumping investigations;  made 12 preliminary determinations and 10 final 
determinations; currently, there were four anti- dumping cases pending preliminary determination.  
Furthermore, China was supervising the implementa tion of two price undertakings with respect to 
change of the name and price readjustment.  146. In addition, the Ministry of Commerce (M OFCOM) published a notice of initiation on 
1 July 2003 to conduct a sunset review of an ti-dumping measures applied to newsprint imported from 
Canada, Korea and the United States, which revi ew was now underway.   China implemented anti-
dumping investigations in strict accordance with the Foreign Trade Law, the Regulations of the PRC 
on Anti-Dumping , and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Most Members recognized the 
consistency of Chinese anti-dumping legislati ons and practices with the WTO Anti-Dumping 
Agreement in the first TRM conducted in 2002.  
147. Part 2:  Responses to Questions .  Prior to the meeting, some Members raised some 
questions with regard to the following anti-dumping investigations:  Coated Paper, PA, SBR, PVC, 
TDI and Phenol.  The delegate of Chin a undertook to respond to those questions. 
  1. On the application of "facts available"  to determine AD measures against "all 
other" companies of that country . In the above investig ations, Chinese authorities 
published all anti-dumping investigations to be  initiated and notified them to relevant 
agencies of the countries (regions) concerned be fore making the public notices.  The notice of 
initiation of investigations leaves all parties sufficient time to register and respond.  In 
addition, Chinese competent authorities issued questionnaires to all registered respondent 
companies, thereby allowing them to furnish in formation and evidence.  At the request of 
interested parties, hearings were organized in some cases to allow interested parties to further 
express their opinions.  The Chinese investigati on authority has in all the investigations 
provided companies with adequate opportunity to access the relevant information via either 
public channels or their diplomatic missions in  China.  Therefore, the above anti-dumping 
determinations made by China are consistent w ith the requirements of Article 6.8 of the ADA 
and its Annex II.  It is proper that the Chin ese Authority applied facts available to determine 
AD measures against "all other" companies of a country that failed to respond and were 
unknown to the Chinese authority or if the info rmation is not provided within a reasonable 
period.  All of these measures adopted by the Ch inese Authorities are fully consistent with the 
AD Agreement. 
 
 2. On establishing injury and the causal link in Notices of Determinations in the 
above anti-dumping investigations .  While establishing industry injuries and the causal 
links between other factors, Chinese author ities strictly abide by the WTO ADA and the 
Chinese legislations in the following aspects:  conducting a full and comprehensive analysis 
and assessment of all indicators determining inju ry as recognized by WTO;  demonstrating by 
positive evidence that the volume of imports from each country is not negligible and 
conducting an analysis of competition conditi ons between imported products and between 
imported products and domestic like products while cumulatively assessing the effects of imports from more that one country, conducting an analysis of other causes of industry 
injuries and clarify in the Notice of Determination;  and so on. G/ADP/M/25 
Page 24  
 
  
 3. On the disclosure of relevant data and the disclosure of calculation 
methodologies for determining dumping ma rgins and the relevant data used in 
preliminary injury determinations in the above-mentioned six investigations .  In all the 
anti-dumping investigations in which prelimin ary determinations have been made, the 
Chinese authorities expounded in Notices of Determination on the data and facts based on 
which the injury determinations were made, to  facilitate the comments by interested parties 
on the determinations to protect their own interests. 
  4. On the examination of physical charact eristics and uses of the products for 
determinations of "like products" in the anti -dumping investigations of Coated Paper, 
SBR and TDI .  The Chinese Authority took full acc ount of the physical characteristics, 
chemical characteristics, uses and means of distribution of the products and other factors according to Article 2.6 of the ADA in the determin ation of "like product" in its investigations 
of coated paper, SBR and TDI.  All the determ inations are available in the public notice of 
preliminary or final determinations.  This practice is in full conformity with the ADA. 
 148. The delegate of China noted that China had re ceived another document with questions just 
before the meeting.  Due to the short notice, she could only make some preliminary replies: 
  1. On the question of access to public information .  China had enacted the 
Provisional Rules on Access to Public Information in AD investigations.  Its Article 5 
provides for the types of public information that can be accessed by the interested parties.  Its 
legal authority can be found in Article 23 of the AD Regulations. 
  2. On the question of Judicial, Arbitral and Administrative Review .  Judicial review 
and administrative review are stipulated in the Administrative Proceedings Law and 
Administrative Review Law.  Article 53 of the AD Regulations provides for administrative review and judicial review for AD investigati ons.  Judicial review of AD determination was 
further clarified by the Supreme People's Court in  its judicial interpretation.  Such reviews 
also apply to Customs enforcement. 
 
 3. On the question of the function of the State Council Tariff Commission .  
According to Article 38 of AD Regulations, it ma kes decisions on the level of tariff duties on 
the proposal of MOFCOM.  So far, it has not  modified any such proposal by MOFCOM.   
 
 4. On the question of rules on expiration reviews .  Chapter 5 of China's AD 
Regulations focuses on the time-limits and review of AD duties and price undertakings.  The 
provisions were formulated in compliance with  the WTO ADA.  The expiration reviews will 
be conducted in strict conformity  with the AD Regulations and the WTO ADA. 
 149. The delegate of China stated that, since WT O accession, China had been attaching great 
importance to the anti-dumping legislation and the enfo rcement thereof.  China initiated investigations 
solely for the purpose of protecting normal internati onal trading order, a fair competition environment 
as well as the rights and interests of China's domestic  industries.  The investigations target only the 
injury-causing imports priced under normal value.  150. Another delegate of China then provided some  additional comments concerning questions or 
statements as to some of the questions that had already been addressed by the head of the Chinese 
delegation.  China had made unremitting efforts to br ing its legislation and practice in line with the 
letter and the spirit of the WTO rules and it had worked with utmost sincerity in fulfilling its accession commitments.  Immense progress in this r espect had made, and recognized by many.  This 
was particularly true in the field of anti-dumpi ng.  Although China had been subjected to over 540  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 25 
 
 
 anti-dumping investigations initiations since 1979,  it had only initiated the first of its own 
investigations in the year 1997.  In every inv estigation that it had initiated and undertaken, the 
Chinese investigating authority had endeavoured to provide adequate opportunities to all the 
interested parties to defend their legitimate rights and interests, and had kept open all the remedial 
channels, including the ever-improving AD procedur es, and administrative and judicial reviews.  
Being one of the most frequently targeted victim s of AD measures, and despite the many challenges 
those in China had encountered, both as a new Me mber of WTO and due to the fast changing 
situation, and with practical difficulties caused by  government restructuring and downsizing, China 
had nonetheless endeavoured to build and improve a trade remedy regime that was consistent with 
WTO rules, its international obligations and such principles as transparency, procedural fairness and 
the rule of law, and had enforced and implemented such a regime in the same manner.  China was not 
claiming that its system and the enforcement were perfect but China believed that it had been moving 
in the right direction and would continue along th is path. In this process, China counted on other 
Members' cooperation, trust a nd goodwill as well as objectivity. 
 
151. The delegate of Japan  thanked China for the responses to its questions, and stated Japan's 
appreciation for the efforts made by China in developing and improving necessary legislation and 
measures after its accession.  Hoping that this TRM procedure would enhance Japan's understanding 
with respect to the compliance of Chinese anti-dum ping measures to the WTO Agreement, Japan had 
submitted some questions.    
152. One of the concerns that led Japan to submit these questions and those it still had, was the 
compliance of procedure of anti-dumping investigatio ns taken by China.  Anti-dumping investigations 
should be initiated by notifying the interested parti es of the initiation of the investigation.  However, 
some investigations were initiated without any notif ication to the responding parties.  The Chinese 
authorities then applied facts available because the responding parties did not submit any information, 
even though the responding parties did not receive  any notification about the initiation of the 
investigation.  According to the response from China that had just been given, the Chinese 
Government notified the relevant agencies instead of directly notifying the interested parties.  Japan's 
follow up question was:  who is the relevant agen cy that China notified about the initiation of the 
investigation instead of directly notifying the exporters or producers in the following countries?  
153. The other concern Japan had was with the transp arency of investigations.  Many companies 
complain about the insufficient disclosure of the process of determination, especially the process of 
injury determination and causality analysis.  As noted  by the delegate of the United States, insufficient 
disclosure hinders the opportunity for the responding parties to effectively defend themselves.  As 
some responding companies and the Japanese Gove rnment were continuously submitting their 
comments, the responding party should be notifie d sufficiently detailed explanations about the 
determinations on dumping and injury.  Again, Japan hoped that its questions and clarifications in this 
TRM process would enhance the transparency of anti-dumping measures taken by China and 
therefore help Members to better understa nd the commitment of China to the WTO. 
 154. The delegate of the United States
 thanked the Chinese delegation for their comments and for 
so quickly responding to the US questions.  He had two follow-up questions to ask.  First, he asked 
the Chinese delegation if they would mind repeating the answer to the US question number 4.  In 
addition, he asked, in connection with the response to  the US question number 1, part (b), whether the 
Chinese Government, MOFCOM, had indeed now placed injury documents in its public reading room 
so that the interested parties may view them. 
 
155. The delegate of China  stated, concerning the first question,  that is the notification of the 
investigation initiation to the relevant interested part ies, in practice, what the authorities did in China 
was to send the notification prior to the public noti ce of initiation to the diplomatic mission of the 
country of those companies whose products were subject  to the investigation.  So, in the particular G/ADP/M/25 
Page 26  
 
 cases referred to in the question posed by Japan, that diplomatic mission should be the Japanese 
Embassy in Beijing.  He stated the view that th is was compliance with Article 6.1.3 of the WTO 
ADA.    156. Concerning the second question, that is the transpar ency of China's investigations, particularly 
with regard to access to informati on on the injury and causal link, he noted that this question was 
addressed in the statement by the head of the Chinese delegation.  Actually, access to information on 
injury and causal link was made possible under Article 8 of the Anti-Dumping Regulations of China, as well as in Articles 6 and 9 under the Rules on the i nvestigation and the determination of injury to 
the industries.   Here, there was a particular circum stance already referred to, th at is the Government's 
restructuring process.  The functions of the former SETC or State Economic and Trade Commission 
with regard to the investigation of injury had al ready been incorporated into the newly established 
Ministry of Commerce or MOFCOM.  Therefore, the information relating to both the analysis of dumping and the determination of the injury w as now provided by MOFCOM, and the interested 
parties may access MOFCOM for that information.   
 
157. On the two questions from the US, the dele gate noted that the first concerned the 
methodology or the way to address complaints c oncerning the decision or enforcement of anti-
dumping duties by the General Customs Administra tion of China.  The Chinese delegation had 
already addressed this question in the statement.  With  regard to such complaints, judicial review and 
administrative review were possible and could be resort ed to by the relevant parties.  China also had 
special laws and regulations governing the enfo rcement and the levying of customs duties by the 
General Customs Administration.  Concerning the second question by the US, it was also a question 
related to the access to information regarding injury and the causal link.   The answer to this question 
was, he thought, somewhat similar to th e answer to the question posed by Japan. 
 
158. The delegate of Japan
 observed that according to the response just given about the initiation 
of an investigation, the Chinese authorities notified th e initiation of the investig ation to the diplomatic 
mission, the Japanese Embassy, but the Japanese Govern ment had never agreed to that.  The Japanese 
Government has no obligation to notify the initiation of  the investigation to th e Japanese company.  In 
accordance with the AD Agreement, it was the investig ating authority that was obliged to notify the 
companies that are subject to the investigation.  Japan hoped that China would further improve the 
procedure of anti-dumping measures, especially as to the notification of initiati on of an investigation 
and the disclosure of relevant information to the interested parties.  159. The delegate of the United States
 observed that, with regard to the availability of injury 
documents for review by interested parties, the US question was specifically whether such documents 
were now readily available in the public reading r oom that MOFCOM maintains in its headquarters in 
Beijing.  The United States knew that MOFCOM had ma de great efforts to put documents relating to 
its dumping margin calculation in this reading room , but to date the United States were not aware of 
injury documents ever having been placed in this room  and made available to interested parties.  So 
the question was asking specifically whether such docu ments were now available in the reading room.  
Secondly, with regard to the rules and regulations that dictate how the Customs Administration will 
apply anti-dumping duties, collect anti-dumping duties and provide for judicial review, the United 
States asked that the Government of China notify to  the Committee the relevant portions of that law 
and those regulations so that they could be reviewed in the Committee.  160. The delegate of China
 observed, regarding the question by Japan, that he had checked the 
WTO ADA.  Article 6.1.3 of the ADA, at foot note 16, read "it being understood that where the 
number of exporters involved is particularly high the full text of the written application is to be 
provided only to the authorities of the exporting member or the relevant trade association".  He noted that this might not apply in all dimensions to the fact that China was only notifying the Japanese 
diplomatic mission in China.  He had quoted it just to indicate the difficulty the investigating authority  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 27 
 
 
 may have in notifying all the interested parti es, because the parties have to be known to the 
investigating authority.  This was a practical diffi culty and he did not think there was any specific or 
very clear direct requirement set forth in the ADA.    161. Regarding the follow-up questions from the US , the first question concerned whether the 
injury information was currently available in th e public reading rooms set up by the former MOFTEC, 
now MOFCOM.  As he had stated, the process of government restructuring was still going on.  Of course, it was China's intention to make such doc uments or information available in this public 
reading room in the future.  He clarified that, even  before the Ministry of Commerce was established, 
SETC already had a statutory requirement to disclose su ch information to the interested parties, which 
can be found in Article 43 of the Rules on the inves tigation and determination of industry and injury.  
As for the second question, it was a request to notify the relevant laws and re gulations concerning or 
governing the enforcement of China's General Custom s and Administration.  China would of course 
consider it, and try to see if this was actua lly required by WTO in accordance with China's 
obligations.  One additional note -- even now, if someone was interested in gaining access to the 
information on injury they could directly approach the Ministry of Commerce for such information if 
they could not find such information in the public reading room.  162. The delegate of Japan stated that the Japan ese question was not regarding the application 
submitted by the domestic industry, but as to the no tification of initiation of the investigation.  
Anyway, Japan appreciated the response from China and expected further efforts from China through 
the commitments to the WTO. 
 163. Turning to the Committee's report on the transitional review, the Chairman
 noted that there 
were no guidelines for the report contained in the Protocol.  Following the review at last October's meeting, the Chairman, acting on his own responsibilit y, had prepared a brief, factual report, with 
references to the documents concerned, and attach ing the portion of the minutes of the meeting which 
relate to the transition review.  The Chairman asked Members whether this procedure should be 
followed again.   164. The Committee so decided
. 
 M. C
HAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION  
 
165. The Chairman noted that, as most Member s were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention met the previous day in the morning.  At that meeting, the Informal Group had 
considered a new paper submitted by a Member. Th e discussion had been lively and useful, and he 
believed that it had given Members good food for t hought for further discussions on this issue.  In 
addition, another delegation had recalled for Members the ideas set out in a paper that had been discussed at the last meeting.    166. The Chairman noted his belief that work in th e Informal Group could contribute to the work 
of Members in the Negotiating Group on Rules. Of course, the work of the Informal Group was 
independent of anything happening in the Negotia ting Group, and was useful in its own right, 
regardless of what progress was made, or not made, in  the Negotiating Group.  Therefore, he urged all 
of Members to make the best use of the inform al setting of discussions in the Informal Group by 
submitting papers and participating ac tively in the discussions.      
 
167. The next Meeting of the Informal Group was sch eduled for 22 April 2004.  The deadline for 
submissions for that meeting is 11 March 2004.  The Chairman urged Memb ers to make maximum 
efforts to respect this deadline, in  order to allow the Secretariat to translate and circulate submissions G/ADP/M/25 
Page 28  
 
 in time. This would allow delegations and capital- based experts to study the submissions in their 
preferred WTO language and prepare considered responses, which would  enhance our discussions. 
 168. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's report. 
 N. C
HAIRMAN 'S REPORT ON MEETING OF WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION  
 
169. The Chairman noted that, as most Member s were aware, the Working Group on 
Implementation met on Tuesday of this week.  Th e Group had had a useful discussion on the latest 
revision of the draft recommendation concerning conditi ons of competition that may be relevant to a 
decision whether a cumulative assessment of the ef fects of imports is appropriate, no consensus was 
reached.  The Secretariat had been asked to pr epare a new revision of the draft recommendation. 
 170. The Group had also begun the discussions on the fo ur new topics that were referred to it by 
the Committee at its last  meeting.  Although only four Memb ers had submitted papers on the new 
topics, and some of the papers were received onl y shortly before the meeting, the discussion was 
nonetheless interesting and useful in enabling Me mbers to better understand the issues involved and 
the practices of various Members.  171. The Chairman strongly encouraged those Me mbers who had not s ubmitted any papers on 
these topics, to do so.  He observed that the more information on the table about the approaches of 
different national authorities on these issues, the be tter for all Members.   Additional information 
concerning national practices and different Members' views would add to the value of the discussions. 
 172. The next meeting of the Group was scheduled to begin on 20 April 2004.  The deadline for 
submissions for that meeting is 9 March 2004. 
 
173. As usual, the Secretariat would circulate a re minder of the deadlines for all the Anti-Dumping 
meetings in the spring.  He urged Members to respect  these deadlines, in order to allow the Secretariat 
to translate and circulate submissions before the meeting. This would allow delegations and capital-
based experts to study the submissions in thei r preferred WTO language and prepare considered 
responses, which would enhance the Group's discussions at the next meeting.  
 
174. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's report.  
 
O. OTHER BUSINESS  
 
(i) European Communities – Anti-Dumping duty impo sed by the Andean Community on Sorbitol 
originating in France 
 
175. The delegate of the European Communities  noted that this matter concerned an anti-dumping 
duty imposed by the Andean Community on sorbitol originating in France.  In August 2002, the Andean Community initiated an anti-dumping inves tigation on imports of sorbitol originating in 
France following a complaint lodged by Indumaiz del Ecuador SA , the sole sorbitol producer in the 
Andean Community.  The case concerned French sales to customers located in Colombia and 
Venezuela.  On 15 May 2003, the Secretary Genera l of the Andean Community decided to impose a 
definitive anti-dumping duty of US$ 70 per tonne of imported sorbitol.  
176. The EC had at different stages pointed out its doubt about the compatibility of this proceeding 
with WTO rules.  The main shortcomings were the following:   G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 29 
 
 
 • The Andean Community cannot be considered  a Customs Union, since the requirements 
stated in GATT Article XXIV:8(a) do not appear to  be fulfilled:  Peru had not yet adhered to 
the Common External Tariff Agreement and as regards the other Members there was no Common External Tariff for a very large number of products as far as the EC knew. 
 
• For the product at issue, there was no Common External Tariff, since Ecuador and Colombia 
apply a 15 per cent external tariff, Venezuela and Bolivia a 10 per cent and Peru a 4 per cent 
tariff. 
 
• Only two of the five Members (Ecuador and Venezuela) had notified the Decision 
No. 283/1991 to the WTO Anti-Dumping Comm ittee as required under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
 
177. The EC had already raised its arguments ear lier in this Committee but had up to now not 
received an adequate reply from the Andean Comm unity members.  Similarly inadequate was the 
response to these criticisms provided by the And ean Community in its final determination. 
 178. This case raised an important systemic issue, i.e., the use of "supposed" custom unions to 
justify granting AD protection to producers located in one country from imports to third markets.  
Apparently the measures here are imposed to prot ect producers in Ecuador from the competition they 
face in third markets (Colombia and Venezuela).  In such circumstances measures can only be 
imposed under the conditions of Article 14 of the A DA, or if the Andean Community were a customs 
union.  The EC was convinced that this was not the case.  Therefore it was a clear breach of WTO 
rules to impose such measures. 
 179. Finally the EC wished to underline that, for the systemic reasons explained, this was an issue 
which should interest all Members, and the EC would be  interested to hear the views of others on this. 
 180. The delegate of Colombia
 thanked the European Communities for their interest in the 
investigation initiated by the Andean Community.  Sh e noted that, at the previous meeting of this 
Committee, questions had been put by the Comm unities under the item "Other business".  Colombia 
replied to them and also answered some questions  put in a communication addressed to the Mission of 
Colombia by the Communities.  After transmittin g its response to the European Communities, 
Colombia received no request for additional info rmation, and it was therefore Colombia's  
understanding that the information provided was suffic ient.  Nevertheless, she wished to make it clear 
that the resolution of the Andean Community is  not of a supra-national character, and that 
consequently it can become an anti-dumping duty only if it is issued by each of the Andean countries 
individually.  Colombia had not issued any such  resolution.  Consequently, the measure was not 
applicable in Colombia.    
181. She observed that it appeared the European  Communities wished th e Committee to discuss 
the scope of Article XXIV:8 of GATT, and was as king Members in the Committee to determine what 
scope Members were to give to the obligation to  apply substantially the same duties and other 
regulations to territories not included in a customs union.  Colombia considered that this Committee 
was not an appropriate forum in which to discu ss Members' interpretation of this matter.   
 
182. To conclude, Colombia was surprised at th e undue rigidity with which the Communities 
interpret Colombia's multilateral commitments.   This  contrasted  with the creativity, imagination and 
flexibility that they showed with regard to their anti-dumping decisions in connection with 
enlargement of the Communities from 15 to 25 Member States.  G/ADP/M/25 
Page 30  
 
 183. The delegate of Ecuador
 also thanked the delegation of the European Communities for the 
interest shown in the sorbitol issue.  Ecuador subs tantially agreed with the remarks of Colombia, and 
also considered that this Comm ittee was not an appropriate forum in which to discuss whether the 
Andean Community is or is not a customs union.  In deed, Ecuador considered that the definition of a 
customs union to be found in Article XXIV:8(a) of GATT 1994 contains no requirement that 
Members should maintain a common external tariff for all products, merely requiring that 
"substantially the same duties and other regulations of  commerce are applied by each of the members 
of the union to the trade of territories not included in  the union".  Furthermore, neither Article 4.3 of 
the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement nor Article XXIV:8(a) of GATT 1994 require Members that 
intend to act as a group in imposing anti-dumping measu res to apply the same customs tariff to 100 
per cent of the tariff universe;  nor do they require th em to apply the same customs tariff to imports of 
the product subject to the investigation.  184. With regard to Decision 283, which was being questioned by the European Communities, it 
must be understood, as the delegate of Colombia had explained, that this Decision contains no 
mandatory rules requiring the organs of the And ean Community or its member States' national 
authorities to act in a manner incompatible with the relevant WTO Agreements.  On the contrary, 
Decision 283 contains optional rules that may be in terpreted in a manner c onsistent with the WTO 
Agreements.  This has been the in terpretation consistently applied by  the General Secretariat of the 
Andean Community in its anti-dumping investigations  into goods originating in WTO Member States. 
 
185. Lastly, as the European Communities had directly implied that this measure was an attempt to 
protect Ecuadorian producers, it was necessary to expl ain, with regard to concerns about the General 
Secretariat of the Andean Community impos ing anti-dumping measures on crystallized and non-
crystallized sorbitol imports from an enterprise in the European Communities, that Ecuador was not 
currently applying any measure affecting imports  of this product into the Andean Market. 
 
186. The delegate of Peru
 expressed support for the comments made by the delegations of 
Colombia and Ecuador.  Peru also maintained that  this Committee was not an appropriate forum in 
which to discuss whether the Andean Community co nstitutes a customs union.  Peru also supported 
the comments made by Ecuador w ith regard to Article XXIV of GA TT 1994.  Peru had one additional 
comment, with regard to the European Commun ities' question about information on the common 
external tariff.  Peru already applied 64 per cen t of the common external tariff.  A commitment had 
been made to consider and assess the prospects of fu ll compliance by the end of the year.  Lastly, she 
confirmed, as the other two members of the And ean Community had already done, that no member 
country had given notification of the appli cation of the anti-dumping duties referred to. 
 
187. The delegate of Bolivia  also thanked the European Comm unities for their interest.  In 
endorsing what had been said by previous speakers, he informed Members that  Bolivia had not issued 
any resolution on this matter, and that accordingl y this measure was not applied in Bolivia.   
 
(ii) European Communities – US consideration of whether to deduct countervailing and 201 
safeguard duties from the export pr ice in anti-dumping proceedings 
 
188. The delegate of the European Communities  noted that, in a notice published in September in 
the Federal Register, the US indicated it had deci ded to analyse the relation between the different 
types of remedial duties, in particular in the context of anti-dumping proceedings.  The issue being 
considered was the possible deduction of Secti on 201 (safeguard) and CVD duties from the export 
price for the calculation of the dumping margin. 
 189. The EC would strongly oppose this type of deduction.  It would artificially inflate the 
dumping margin (and the resulting anti-dumping duty) by the rate of the existing safeguard, which 
meant that the level of trade protection could be  doubled, although the injury margin remained the  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 31 
 
 
 same.  From the point of view of the WTO Ag reement on Safeguards, existing safeguard measures 
would become redundant in that they would exceed "the extent necessary to remedy serious injury" 
contrary to Article 5.1.  190. This approach would have far-reaching conseque nces and some very perverse effects.  The 
illustrative example could be the US steel safegua rd case.  New dumping cases on any steel products 
covered by these measures would automatically result in a finding of a dumping margin corresponding to at least the existing level of the saf eguard duties.  This would be the case even if the 
sales prices had been identical both in the export a nd in the domestic market, provided of course, that 
normal value could be based on such sales prices. 
 
191. The EC followed this matter with great concern and would urge the US to ensure that double-
protection is avoided in a case of possible cumulati on of safeguard measures with other types of 
remedial duties.  
192. The delegate of Japan
 also expressed concern with respect to the possibility that the US would 
change its longstanding practice of  not deducting 201 safeguard and countervailing duties in dumping 
determinations.  He referred to the recomme ndation memorandum, in the case of Trinidad and 
Tobago, which was submitted from the Department of  Commerce to the Court of International Trade 
in August 2002, which stated: "deduction of section 201 duties from the US price in calculating EP or CEP would artificially increase anti-dumping dutie s and thereby double the impact of section 201 
tariff remedies.  For these reasons, such a deduction is  not consistent with department policy".  The 
Department of Commerce also says in the recommendation memorandum that the departmental rationale for not deducting anti-dumping duties fro m EP or CEP, as approved by the Court of 
International Trade in Bethlehem Steel supported the conclusion that section 201 duties also should 
not be deducted.  Japan wondered what was the ra tionale at this time for the US to change its 
longstanding practice?  The concern was that imposing section 201 tariff  on imports and then 
deducting them from the export price in calculating dumping margins might double the trade remedies for the domestic industry in the United States.  He noted that, as provided for in Article 9.1 of the AD 
Agreement, it is desirable that the duty be less than the margin if such a lesser duty would be adequate 
to remove the injury to the domestic injury.  Al so, as provided in Article 5.1 in the Agreement on 
Safeguards, a Member shall apply safeguard measures only to the extent necessary to prevent or 
remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjust ment.  Japan hoped that the US would not apply 
excessive trade remedies to remove the material inju ry or serious injury of the domestic industry. 
 193. The delegate of the United States
 expressed appreciation for the opportunity to explain the 
procedures being undertaken.  As a preliminary ma tter, he noted the question of Japan about the 
rationale for changing a longstanding practice.  He  emphasized to all Members that no decision had 
been taken – a procedure was underway to examine th e issue, but as of this date no decisions one way 
or another had been made.  194. On 9 September 2003, because of the cross-cutti ng nature of this issue which influences a 
number of cases, the US published a notice in its Federal Register soliciting comments on this issue 
from all parties who are potentially affected.  A large number of comments were received by the 
deadline of 9 October 2003.  All of the comment s submitted are available on the Department of 
Commerce Import Administration website  << http://ia .ita.doc.gov>>.   He noted in passing that 
reviewing the website that morning, he had seen th at the delegation of the European Communities as 
well as at least one prominent Japanese Steel Trad e Association had submitted comments, presumably 
reflecting the arguments made to the Committee today. 
 195. The US had also extended the deadline for r eceiving rebuttal comments from any interested 
party to any of the comments which have alread y been made.  Rebuttal comments were due to the G/ADP/M/25 
Page 32  
 
 Department of Commerce by 7 November 2003.  On the website, Members can find the address to 
which such comments should be submitted.  196. As a final note, in the most recent developm ent, on 7 October 2003, in the case of stainless 
steel wire rod from the Republic of Korea, a prelim inary investigation, the Department of Commerce  
had received arguments about this particular issue.   It did not in fact deduct section 201 duties from 
the export price in that case.  However, parti es were reminded about the ongoing procedures for 
facilitating comments and reaching a decision on this i ssue.  No adjustment was made in that case but 
the issue will be examined for purposes in  the final determination in that case. 
 (iii) United States – Proper understanding of Annex D of the Committee's Annual Report – 
Avoiding a Misunderstanding of the Number of Preliminary and Final Actions Notified 
 
197. The delegate of the United States
 stated that he wished to draw Members' attention to the 
table contained in Annex D of the Committee's Draft Report.  This table compares the number of 
provisional and final measures reported in semi-an nual reports with the number of preliminary and 
final actions which have been notified to the Secret ariat.  He stated that the number reported for the 
US under "action notified" should not be misinterpreted.  The US makes it a practice of providing the Secretariat with all published notices which rela te to anti-dumping proceedings.  Thus the high 
number of notices reported for the US includes not onl y notices of what are normally considered to be 
preliminary and final determinations, but also no tices of initiations, deadline extensions, amendments 
of determinations and many other actions which take place in the course of anti-dumping 
investigations and reviews.  The United States understood that in putting this table together, the Secretariat counted all of these notices rather than  attempting to make the potentially controversial 
decision of what notices constituted "preliminary and final actions".    
198. Under no circumstances should Members misinterpret  this table to mean that the US actually 
undertook the number of measures listed in the last colu mn of this table.  Looking over this table, it 
appeared several other Members were in the same position.    199. This was not to say that this table does not prov ide useful information.  The same column just 
referred to showed, for example, although that it took five preliminary and final measures over the last 
year, Brazil provided none of its notices to the S ecretariat so they could be reviewed by other 
Members.  The situation was even more serious for Thailand, which had forty-two provisional and 
final measures but provided no notices.  The lack of  transparency was even more troubling given that 
neither of these Members had elected to participat e in the transparency exercises being conducted by 
the Working Group by submitting papers describing their practices.   
 
200. He did not wish to end on a negative note.  He  believed India deserved special recognition in 
this regard.  India issued 118 provisional and fi nal measures in the reporting year, a number two and 
one half times greater than the next most frequent user, China, and three and one half times greater 
than the United States' own use of anti-dumping meas ures.  Yet, compared to those 118 measures, the 
Secretariat reported receiving 115 notices.  This is a truly admirable rate of reporting, which all 
Members and particularly other developing co unty Members should strive to emulate. 
 201. Finally, he could not end without drawing Member s' attention to the very useful information 
contained in the second column of data which lists "final measures".  This column was a Member-by-
Member summary of the definitive duties and pri ce undertakings which were  broken out in Annex C 
of the Annual Report.  From this column it was apparent that the Members which most frequently 
applied final measures to combat injurious dumping in th eir territory in the last year, in order, were:  
India;  Argentina;  Turkey;  Thailand;  the EC;  and the United States.  202. The delegate of India
 thanked the United States for its appreciation of the Indian information.  G/ADP/M/25 
 Page 33 
 
 
  
(iv) Procedures for Members' requests for national technical assistance activities – Statement by 
the Chairman 
 
203. The Chairman  stated that, as Members were aware, the WTO has a comprehensive technical 
assistance programme, which is coordinated by the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation 
Division.  As Members were also aware, the Ru les Division has an extensive range of technical 
assistance programmes available to Members.  These programmes vary from general overviews of the trade remedy agreements, to very detailed wo rkshops on specific aspects of trade remedy 
investigations, such as dumping margin calculati ons, injury determination, and procedures. 
 
204. In the past, Members were requested to subm it requests for technical assistance activities well 
in advance, indicating priority areas.  These request s formed the basis for development of a detailed 
programme for the next calendar year, which wa s discussed and agreed to by Members in the 
Committee on Trade and Development. 
 
205. For various reasons, including to allow Me mbers more flexibility, the process had been 
changed for 2004.  As a result, all Members were now free to request a national technical assistance 
activity at any time - there was no deadline for such  requests.  However, as Members were aware, the 
demand for technical assistance in the Rules area nor mally exceeded the capacity of the Secretariat to 
provide the requested assistance.  Therefore, he advised Members to  submit their requests as soon as 
possible to the Secretariat.  This would ensure that each request was considered early in the process of 
allocating resources and thus had a better chance of being included in the schedule for next year, and 
would assist the Rules Division in its planning.  206. Requests for national technical assistance activities ca n be sent to Mr Paul Rolian, Director of 
the Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation Division, with a copy to the Rules Division, or to 
the Rules Division directly, in which case a c opy would be forwarded to the Institute. 
207. The Committee took note
 of all the statements made. 
 
P. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
 208. The Committee agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995 that regular meetings normally 
would be held in the last week of April and the last week of October.  The SCM Committee has the 
same schedule, as does the Safeguard Committee.  In  order to accommodate all three bodies' meeting, 
the next regular meeting of the Committee was propo sed for the week of 19 April 2004.  In light of 
previously scheduled meetings of the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group on 
Anti-Circumvention, the Chairman
 therefore proposed that this Committee meet beginning in the 
afternoon on Thursday, 22 April 2004.  209. The Committee decided
 to meet on the date proposed by the Chair.  
 G/ADP/M/25 
Page 34  
 
 Q. A
NNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
 
210. The meeting was recessed to allow preparation of a final version of the draft annual report, 
reflecting the current meeting, which was made available to Members, and the meeting was resumed.  
211. The Committee adopted
 the annual report.2 
 
212. The meeting was adjourned. 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
2 Subsequently circulated as document G/L/653, dated 28 October 2003. 