RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/M/4
21February 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0643)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING
HELD ON30OCTOBER 1995
Chairman: Mr.J.McNab (Canada)
1. TheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") heldaregular meeting on
30October 1995.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Rules ofprocedure 1
B. Semi-annual reports ofanti-dumping actions (G/ADP/N/4 andAddenda) 3
C. Preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions: (G/ADP/N/5 andCorr.1 4
andG/ADP/N/6)
D. Format forsemi-annual reports andminimum information guidelines 5
E. Anti-circumvention: follow-up tothediscussion atthemeeting of 7
12June1995
F. Other business 10
G. Annual report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods 14
A. Rules ofProcedure
TheChairman noted thatdraftRules ofProcedure fortheCommittee hadbeencirculated in
document G/ADP/W/135. TheDraft Rules wereessentially therulesadopted bytheGeneral Council
incorporating changes made bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods initsownrules, withrelevant changes
tomake therulesapplicable totheAnti-Dumping Committee. Thesubstance oftheruleshadinalmost
allrespects beenpreviously adopted ineither theGeneral Council orintheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
Those fewchanges totherulesoftheCouncil forTrade inGoods proposed fortheCommittee were
identicalinalmostallrespectstothoserecentlyadoptedinotherCommitteesoperatingundertheauspices
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Heproposed thattheCommittee adopt therules ofprocedure,
anddirect theSecretariat toforward themtotheCouncil forTrade inGoods forapproval inaccordance
withparagraph 6ofArticle 4oftheWTO Agreement.
3. Thedelegate ofAustralia observed thatthedraftrulesleftuncertain thedeadlines thatwould
beapplicable tocirculation ofdocumentation prior tomeetings. Hesupported theview that
documentation should circulate atleastthree weeks inadvance. Healsoexpressed thehopethattheG/ADP/M/4
Page2
current procedure, whereby, several weeks before ascheduled meeting, theSecretariat circulated an
annotated draftofissues proposed fortheagenda, withacut-off dateforcomments andadding issues
totheagenda, would becontinued. Heobserved thatunder theproposed Rule3theSecretariat would
needtogiveinformal advance notice toMembers ofthecutoffdatetoinclude anitemonthedraft
agenda. Heasked forclarification whether rules oftheGeneral Council thathadbeendeleted for
purposes oftheCommittee would bedeleted from thetext,andtheremaining rules renumbered, or
whether thenumbering would bemaintained, withsome rules leftblank.
4. TheChairmanstatedhisunderstandingthattheSecretariatintendedtoretainitspracticeregarding
annotated draftagendas, andintended toprovide them toMembers asearly aspossible, andasclose
tothreeweeks inadvance aspossible. However, therequirement asestablished intherulesofprocedure
would becirculation oftheagenda tendaysinadvance ofthemeeting. Henoted thathewould expect
thepractice ofincluding intheannotated draftadatebywhich Members must indicate theirdesire
toputanissueontheagenda tocontinue. Finally, theSecretariat intended nottorenumber therules,
butwould either leave ablank orput'notapplicable 'orsome suchtextinplace ofrules thatwere
deleted.
5. ThedelegateofJapansharedconcernssimilartothoseoftheAustraliandelegation.Inparticular,
heagreed thatcirculating annotated draftagenda about sixweeks before aCommittee meeting was
quiteuseful. Hesuggested changing thesuggestion forthreeweeks 'advance notification infootnote 1
tosixweeks '.
6. ThedelegateoftheUnitedStatesalsoexpressedproceduralconcernswiththerulesofprocedure.
Hequestioned whether three weeks 'notice wassufficient, especially fortheregular meetings. He
alsoobserved thatMembers should havethemaximum opportunity toaddagenda items totheregular
agenda. Inaddition, theUnited States hadaseries ofother, fairly minor, clarifications suchashow
theChairman would obtain amajority oftheMembers toagree onaspecial meeting, anddistinguishing
between regular meetings andspecial meetings throughout thedraftrules.
7. Thedelegate ofNewZealand endorsed theremarks ofAustralia andJapan about thedesirability
ofearlynotice andearlycirculation ofdocumentation. Healsoraised aquestion about proposed Rule15
which provides thattheChairman participates normally asChairman andnotasarepresentative of
aMember, butmayatanytimerequest permission toactineither capacity. Heobserved thatthe
Chairman would probably notwishtohavetorequest permission toactasChairman, andhoped the
language could beclarified, perhaps along thelinessuggested intheSubsidies Committee draftRules
ofProcedure.
8. Arepresentative oftheSecretariat indicated thatthewording ofRule15wasthesame asin
theRules oftheGeneral Council andwasnotchanged inorder tokeeptheproposed rules forthe
Committee asmuch inconformity aspossible withthelanguage adopted intheGeneral Council and
theCouncil forTrade inGoods. Itwasnotintended torequire theChairman toaskforpermission
toactasChairman.
9. Thedelegate ofNorway observed thatevenifthelanguage ofproposed Rule15wasadirect
quote fromtheGeneral Council 'srulesitwould bebesttochange itbecause asdrafted itdidnotmake
sense.
10. ThedelegateoftheEuropeanCommunitiesalsoexpressedinterestingettingdocumentscirculated
assoonaspossible, andconcern forhaving uniformity inwording fortherulesofprocedure ofboth
theAnti-Dumping andSubsidies Committees.G/ADP/M/4
Page3
11. TheChairman agreed thattherulesofprocedure forvarious committees should beassimilar
aspossible.
12. Thedelegate oftheUnited States supported Norway 'ssuggestion regarding thelanguage of
Rule15,andrecognized thedesirability ofhaving uniform rulesfortheCommittee andtheSubsidies
Committee. Hesuggested thatthewording should bethatoftheproposed rules fortheSubsidies
Committee, providing thattheChairman would askpermission toactinhiscapacity asanational
representative.
13. TheChairman observed thathehadhoped theCommittee would beinaposition atthismeeting
toadopt rules ofprocedure fortheCommittee, butthatdidnotseem likely inviewofthenumber of
issues raised. Heproposed that,rather thandiscussing them inthefullCommittee, hebeauthorized
tocontinue informal discussions onrules ofprocedure.
14. Thedelegate ofMexico supported theChairman 'sproposal. Healsosupported theproposal
thattherules ofprocedure fortheCommittee beconsistent withthose fortheSubsidies Committee,
andtheproposal tochange thewording ofRule15.
15. TheCommittee agreed toauthorize theChairman toholdinformal consultations onthesubject
oftherules ofprocedure, andrevert tothisitematafuture meeting.
B. Semi-annual reports ofanti-dumping actions
16. TheChairman recalled thatarequest forsemi-annual reports forthefirsthalfof1995 was
circulated toMembers on18July1995. Noreports hadbeenreceived fromthefollowing Members:
Antigua andBarbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina
Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chile, Côted'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica,
DominicanRepublic,Egypt,ElSalvador,Gabon,Ghana,Guatemala,GuineaBissau,Guyana,Indonesia,
Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Macau, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Mauritania,Mauritius,Morocco,Mozambique,Myanmar,Namibia,NewZealand,Nicaragua,Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, St.Lucia, St.Vincent &Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Singapore,SouthAfrica,SriLanka,Suriname,Swaziland,Togo,TrinidadandTobago,Tunisia,Uganda
andZimbabwe.
17. TheChairman reminded Members thatthedeadline forfiling semi-annual reports was
31August 1995. Withfewexceptions, reports werenotreceived bythatdeadline. Heregretted that
suchalarge number ofMembers hadasyetnotfiledtheirreports, particularly those Members who
hadinthepastfiledsuchreports, indicating thattheyhadundertaken actions whose status should be
reported totheCommittee. IfaMember hadtaken noactions, asimple onesentence notification to
thateffect would suffice. TheChairman observed thatthefailure ofMembers tosubmit semi-annual
reports inatimely fashion limited theCommittee 'sability toconsider thesubstance ofthenotifications,
oneofitsmost important tasks ofsurveillance andmonitoring. Moreover thesemi-annual reports
submitted wereoften incomplete, lacking important required information suchasthelistofmeasures
inforce attheendofthereporting period. Heurged Members totaketheirobligations withregard
tonotifications seriously andmake efforts toimprove theircompliance.
18. TheChairman enquired whether anydelegation would liketoaddress anyofthenotifications.
19. Thedelegate oftheUnited States referred toananti-dumping action believed tohavebeen
taken byIsrael during thelasthalfof1994. TheUnited States hadnorecord ofanynotification of
thisaction totheCommittee. TheUnited States 'understanding oftheCommittee 'sdecision regarding
notification ofactions taken during thelasthalfof1994 wasthattheywere tobereported totheG/ADP/M/4
Page4
Committee irrespective ofwhether thecountry wasaMember oftheTokyo Round Committee ornot.
TheUnited States asked thedelegation ofIsrael toexplain thesituation.
20. TheUnited States alsoreferred tothesemi-annual report ofSouth Africa, noting theinitiation
inMay1994 ofacaseagainst titanium dioxide pigment from theUnited States, andasked whether
thedelegation ofSouth Africa hadanyindication ofwhen thisinvestigation would becompleted.
21. TheChairman observed thathisrecollection oftheCommittee 'sdecision wasthesame, that
allactions taken inthelatter partof1994 should havebeennotified totheCommittee.
22. Thedelegate ofSouth Africa tooknoteoftheUnited States 'question andundertook toreport
backtotheUnited States oncehehadreceived information onthematter.
23. Thedelegate ofIsrael stated that,tothebestofhisknowledge, aninvestigation wasopened
inMay1994, prior totheperiod forwhich notifications were tobesenttotheCommittee.
24. Thedelegate oftheUnited States agreed thattheinvestigation wasinitiated inMayof1994.
However, itappeared thatapreliminary determination hadbeenreached subsequently, which would
probably haveoccurred during thelasthalfof1994. Itwasthatpreliminary determination theUnited
States believed should havebeennotified butwasnot.
25. ThedelegateofIsraelundertooktocheckthisagainwithhisauthoritiestodeterminethesituation.
26. Thedelegate ofNewZealand advised itsnotification would besubmitted thenextdayand
apologized totheCommittee foritslatesubmission.
27. Thedelegate ofPoland raised aquestion regarding twoactions bytheEuropean Communities
against Polish exporters, thesecond ofwhich concerned anaction initiated inJune1995. Heenquired
astothelegalbasis ofthisaction, andwhether itwasinitiated under theTokyo Round Code orthe
WTO Agreement.
28. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities agreed tosupply thespecific information tothe
Polish delegation onabilateral basis.
29. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
C. Preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions notifications
30. TheChairman noted thatlistsofthese notifications were circulated totheCommittee in
documents G/ADP/N/5 andCorr.1, andG/ADP/N/6. Copies oftheofficial notices ofsuchactions
takenbyAustralia,Canada,theEC,Korea,Mexico,NewZealand,Peru,SingaporeandtheUnitedStates
hadbeenmade available intheSecretariat forreview. TheChairman considered thatcompliance with
thisnotification requirement hadnotbeenadequate, assome Members whosubmitted semi-annual
reports indicating actions inprogress hadnotsubmitted anyreports ofpreliminary orfinalactions taken.
Hereiterated thatthese notifications wereanessential element inpermitting theCommittee toperform
itstaskofmonitoring anddiscussing actions taken byMembers. Thefailure ofsome Members to
notify impeded theCommittee fromaccomplishing itsgoalofconsidering Members 'compliance with
therequirements oftheAgreement.
31. TheChairman asked whether anydelegation would liketoaddress anyofthenotifications.G/ADP/M/4
Page5
32. Thedelegate oftheUnited States corrected aninaccuracy indocument G/ADP/N/6 concerning
anaction taken bytheUnited States. Theaction onsolidureafromGermany should haveafootnote
specifying thatitinvolved anoldorder against theformer GDR. Heasked thedelegation ofMexico
ifitcould statewhether thelastthree cases thatwerereported against theUnited States wereTokyo
Round orUruguay Round cases, specifically cases involving diammonium phosphate, bovine meat,
andgasoline additives.
33. Thedelegate ofAustralia commented hewould havethought itfairly obvious fromexamining
thereports whether investigations wereunder theTokyo Round ortheWTO Agreement, bychecking
thedates.
34. TheChairman observed thatwhile incertain cases theforminwhich thenotification wasmade
would indicate theAgreement under which theaction wastaken, itwasuptotheMember toclarify
andnottotheSecretariattointerpretnotifications.ItwasapparentfromthequestionsraisedbyMembers
thatitwasnotalwaysclearfromthenotificationunderwhichAgreementactionwastaken,andspecificity
byMembers inthisregard would assist intransparency.
35. Thedelegate ofMexico stated thathewould provide theUnited States withtherequested
information afterchecking withhisauthorities.
36. Thedelegate ofKorea asked Mexico about itsnotification ofpreliminary determinations in
theanti-dumping investigation onsteelproducts imported from Korea, inthelightofArticle 5(10)
oftheAgreement. Herecalled thatthecasewasinitiated inOctober 1993 andthepreliminary
determination, finding noinjury, wasmade inApril 1995. Heurged thattheinvestigation becompleted
inanexpedited manner.
37. Thedelegate ofMexico tooknoteofKorea 'sstatement andundertook toprovide Korea with
further information later.
38. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
D. Format forsemi-annual reports andminimum information guidelines
39. TheChairman recalled thatatitslastmeeting theCommittee haddiscussed thepossibility of
adoptingupdatedformatsforsemi-annualreports.TheSecretariathadcirculatedtoMembersaproposed
format forsemi-annual reports, incorporating relevant changes adopted bytheSubsidies Committee,
indocument G/ADP/W/136. Heproposed thattheCommittee adopt theformat forsemi-annual reports
contained inthatdocument, noting thatitwould beunderstood thatparagraph 19ofthedocument applied
onlytocasescovered bytheWTO Agreement ofImplementation ofArticle VIoftheGeneral Agreement
onTariffs andTrade 1994.
40. Thedelegate ofColombia suggested thattheformat should include, onpage6,information
concerning preliminary aswellasfinalmeasures.
41. Thedelegates ofHong Kong, theUnited States, Poland, Japan, Korea, Egypt, andtheEC
supported adoption oftheformat.
42. TheChairman reverted tothesuggestion made byColombia, andasked whether Members
wished toaddanAnnex totheformat witharequirement listing provisional measures inplace, keeping
inmind thatthese would inalllikelihood change withevery report.G/ADP/M/4
Page6
43. Thedelegate oftheUnited States indicated thathedidnotbelieve anymore information could
beprovided thanwasalready reported incolumn 4regarding whatprovisional measures hadbeentaken
during thereporting period.
44. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities observed thatbecause provisional duties cannot
exceed sixmonths, orninemonths ifthelesser dutyruleisapplied, hedidnotthink thatincluding
provisional measures inanAnnex would provide anysignificant additional information. Provisional
measures were already reported incolumn 4oftheformat.
45. Thedelegate ofColombia stated thatwhatshehadbeenreferring towasprovisional measures
inforce. Some countries which werenotParties totheTokyo Round Code hadimposed provisional
measures which were inforce before December 1994, andwhich apparently remained inforce. It
waswithrespect tosuchmeasures thatfurther information andreporting wassought.
46. Thedelegate oftheUnited States agreed thatitwould beveryuseful fortheCommittee to
haveinformationonactionstakenpriortoimplementationoftheUruguayRoundAgreementbycountries
whowerenotParties totheTokyo Round Code. Hesupported anotification requirement thatwould
involve alisting ofoutstanding preliminary measures orfinaldetermination byMembers whowere
notTokyo Round Code Parties.
47. TheChairman observed thatthisseemed togobeyond thequestion ofthereporting format,
which would apply toinformation thatwould havetobereported every sixmonths. Inhisview, the
examples mentioned bytheUnited States would involve aone-time reporting requirement, indicating
measures thatwereinforce atthecoming intoforce oftheWTO Agreement foraparticular Member,
butthattheinformation would notnecessarily havetobereported every sixmonths aspartoftheformat
forsemi-annual updates. Hesuggested thattheCommittee come backtothequestion ofwhether a
format orarequirement forthatkindofnotification should bedeveloped, butfirstdecide theissue
ofthesemi-annual report format thatwasbefore theCommittee.
48. Thedelegate ofHong Kong agreed thattheinformation referred tobyColombia wasvery
importanttotheimplementationoftheAgreement,andhisdelegationsupportedherproposalinprinciple.
However, heagreed withtheChairman thatitwasaone-off exercise, asortofsnapshottaken of
measures outstanding atthetimeaMember joins theWTO Agreement. Hesuggested thatfurther
discussions ofhowtobestdealwiththisquestion would beappropriate.
49. TheChairmanproposedthatthisissuebediscussedinformally,andifMemberswished,aone-off
notification totheCommittee could berequired. Based oninformal discussions, theSecretariat could
beasked todevise aformat thattheCommittee could consider atafuture meeting.
50. TheCommittee sodecided .
51. TheChairman proposed that,withtheinclusion ofa"basis fordetermination" code"FA",
theproposed format beadopted.
52. TheCommittee sodecided .
53. TheUnited States raised arelated issue, encouraging theSecretariat toconsider means by
which thesemi-annual reports could besubmitted electronically. TheUnited States waswilling to
consider anymeans thatwould simplify thework oftheSecretariat andthepreparation oftheAnnual
Report.G/ADP/M/4
Page7
54. TheChairman observed thatthiswasagoodideaforthefuture. Inthemeantime, hereminded
Members thatthesubmission ofnotifications inhardcopyanddiskette formwasofgreat helptothe
Secretariat.
55. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee issuetheminimum information guidelines which
hasbeenadopted bytheCommittee atitsFebruary special meeting, andwhich hadbeencirculated
indocument G/ADP/W/134, asaCommittee document. TheCommittee could ofcourse revert to
theguidelines atalaterdatetodiscuss anyproposed modifications.
56. Thedelegate ofAustralia expressed support fortheproposal, butrecalled thatwhen thattext
wasoriginally adopted bytheTokyo Round Committee, theChairman hadmade astatement indicating
thattheguidelineswerenotintendedtoprejudicetheconfidentialityofinformation.Australiaconsidered
thatastatement from theChair atthetimeoftheadoption oftheguidelines, thatconfidentiality of
information wasnotprejudiced, would beuseful.
57. TheChairman stated thatitwasnottheintention tochange practice inthisregard, anditwas
nottheintention oftheformat proposed thatconfidential information would havetobedivulged, and
proposed thatwiththatunderstanding theminimum information guidelines beadopted andissued.
58. TheCommittee sodecided.
59. Thedelegate ofMalaysia observed thathehadnoobjection totheformat adopted, butbelieved
thatwhatever information wasprovided should alsotakeintoaccount theguidelines provided under
Article 12oftheAgreement.
60. TheChairman agreed thatMembers should keepinmind thattheobject oftheexercise was
toprovide theinformation thatallMembers need, andifMembers wished toprovide more information
theywere certainly freetodoso.
E. Anti-circumvention
61. TheChairman reminded Members thattheyhadbeenasked attheCommittee 'slastmeeting
toturntheirattention tothematter ofanti-circumvention. TheChairman hadindicated hiswillingness
toholdinformal consultations onthematter toconsider howtheCommittee would move forward on
thisissue. TheMinisterial Decision onAnti-Circumvention of15April 1994noted thatthenegotiators
hadbeenunable toagree onaspecific textdealing withtheproblem ofanti-circumvention, recognized
thedesirability ofapplying uniform rules intheareaassoonaspossible, andreferred thematter to
theCommittee forresolution. TheChairman considered thatthiswasoneofthefewareasofsubstance
onwhich noconsensus wasreached intheUruguay Round andoneofthefewspecific forward-looking
tasks assigned totheCommittee. Inhisview, theCommittee should begin substantive consideration
oftheissue. Hewasaware thatcertain Members hadbeendiscussing amongst themselves howthe
Committee might proceed onthematter, andopened thefloor forsuggestions.
62. Thedelegate ofCanada welcomed theinclusion ofthisitemontheagenda, considering it
important toaddress theissue ofanti-circumvention, given thatsome countries hadnothesitated to
usesuchmeasures andthedesirability ofdeveloping generally accepted rulestoprevent unacceptable
precedents. Canada didnotsuggest thatthiswork proceed immediately, butbelieved itimportant that
theCommittee discuss andagree ontheforum forgiving effect totheMinisterial Decision, witha
viewtothework beginning inearly1996. TheCanadian delegation proposed thecreation ofaseparate
informal working group orsub-committee asthemostpractical means toproceed, withtheterms of
reference bethose setoutintheMinisterial mandate. Hedrew attention tothework oftheWTO
Committee onRules ofOrigin, which hadthetaskofharmonizing therules oforigin forallnon-G/ADP/M/4
Page8
preferential commercial policy instruments, including theAnti-Dumping Agreement. Canada was
concerned thatimportant aspects oftheanti-circumvention issue might bedecided aspartofthat
Committee 'staskofharmonizing rulesoforigin; Canada 'sviewwasthatanti-circumvention should
properly beaddressed intheAnti-Dumping Committee through aseparate informal working group
orsub-committee inaccordance withtheMinisterial mandate.
63. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities supported theproposal tocreate aworking group
todiscuss these issues.
64. Thedelegate ofSingapore recognized theneedfortheCommittee toconsider howbestitshould
respond totheMinisterial decision. However, atthisjuncture, Singapore wasnotyetready toagree
toCanada 'sproposal toestablish aninformal working group. InSingapore 'sview, itwaspremature
toaddress issues ofsubstance. Inorder tobeabletoaddress substantive issues inaconstructive manner,
decisions about theappropriate process would beneeded. Singapore proposed thatamore appropriate
approach atthistimewould betoauthorize theChairman toconduct informal consultations onthe
process bywhich theCommittee should respond totheMinisterial decision andtoreport theoutcome
ofsuchinformal consultations totheCommittee withaviewtoreaching adecision ontheprocess at
itsnextregular meeting.
65. Thedelegates ofNorway andtheUnited States expressed support fortheproposal made by
Canada.
66. Thedelegate ofHong Kong recognized thatthere wasaneedfortheCommittee torespond
totheMinisterial decision. However, Hong Kong agreed withSingapore thatgiven thecomplexity
andsensitivity oftheissueitmight bepremature tosetupaninformal working group toconsider issues
ofasubstantive nature suchaspriorities orwork programme. Hong Kong agreed withSingapore that
atthepresent stage, theCommittee should focus ontheprocedural aspects oftheissue. Thus, Hong
Kong supported Singapore 'sproposal.
67. ThedelegateofJapanobservedthatthiswasaveryimportantissue,andexpresseddisappointment
thatsome countries hadalready incorporated illegal anti-circumvention provisions intheirlegislation.
InJapan'sview, theseshould beabolished before turning theCommittee 'sattention tothegeneral issue
ofanti-circumvention. While theMinisterial decision referred thismatter totheCommittee, careful
discussions wereneeded before starting thesubstantial discussion. TheCommittee needed todiscuss
theprocess tofacilitate thesubstantial discussion later. Therefore, Japan supported theposition of
Singapore andHong Kong.
68. Thedelegate ofNewZealand observed thatthere wasawide range ofviews onthisissue.
Inviewofthewiderange ofviews hewasnotcertain thattheCommittee really could orshould decide
atthisstage exactly what theterms ofreference ofthissub-committee should be.Hebelieved the
Committee needed tobeverycareful andunderstand precisely whatwasgoing tobediscussed before
beginning. Therefore, NewZealand supported thenotion ofdiscussing howtheCommittee would
proceed firstandreaching some decision onthat.Adecision onprocess didnotnecessarily ruleout
discussion onwhatmight bediscussed interms ofthesubstance. Overall, NewZealand would prefer
todecide howtheCommittee would proceed, interms ofthekindofmechanism andwithin what
framework orterms ofreference thediscussion would becarried on,andwould prefer those matters
tobediscussed informally, rather thanreach adecision today ontheCanadian proposal.
69. Thedelegate ofAustralia observed thattheMinisters collectively tookadecision thattheissue
should bereferred totheAnti-Dumping Committee, andAustralia believed thattheCommittee had
some obligation toseewhether agreement could bereached before thefirstregular Ministerial meeting
under theWTO attheendof1996. Hewasconcerned about aproposal under which theCommitteeG/ADP/M/4
Page9
leftthedecision onwhether toactually startdiscussing substance untilitsregular meeting nextMay.
Given thecomplexity andthedifficulty oftheissues, thiswould essentially preclude theCommittee
having anything toreport toMinisters attheendof1996. Because anydecision onanti-circumvention
would presumably beconsidered tobesome amendment totheAgreement, itwasthesortofdecision
thatmight wellbeputonthemenu fortheMinisterial conference. TheMinisterial decision wasa
political decision toestablish discussions intheCommittee andinAustralia 'sview, itgaveMembers
oftheCommittee whowished todiscuss ittheright tohaveaformal discussion. Atpresent, an
increasing number ofcountries wereinserting anti-circumvention provisions intheirlegislation, which
mostwould consider toberather dubious interms ofconsistency withtheAgreement. Inaddition,
work onsome aspects ofanti-circumvention wasgoing ontangentially intheWTO Rules ofOrigin
Committee, orwould bedealtwiththrough theWorld Customs Organization inBrussels. Hedidnot
believe itwasinanyone 'sinterest toletothers runaway withtheissue without doing something in
thisCommittee.
70. Thedelegate ofMexico observed thatwhile Mexico didnothaveagreatinterest inthisparticular
subject, itwasinterested thattheterms ofreference ofanygroup thatwastobesetupshould be
examined byalltheparticipants ofthisCommittee. Therefore, itwasveryimportant thattheCommittee
lookcarefully attheterms ofreference, thetimeframe formeetings, andwhatthegroup could actually
achieve. Therefore, Mexico believed thatthereshould bediscussions withcertain delegations sothat
allcould havetheopportunity togivespecific attention tothemandate andterms ofreference ofthe
informal group aswellasalltheother aspects relating toitsfunctioning.
71. Thedelegate ofKorea supported Singapore 'sproposal.
72. Thedelegate oftheUnited States reiterated theposition oftheUnited States thatthere was
nothing intheAgreement which prohibited theUnited States fromenacting legislation andtaking actions
todealwithproblems ofcircumvention. TheUnited States believed thatitwasincumbent upon the
Committee towork ontheissue ofunified rules. Hestated theviewthatthere didnotappear tobe
anumber ofprocedural issues which needed tobediscussed, andrequested clarification fromSingapore
onexactly which procedural measures these might be.Heexpressed theview thattheMinisterial
declaration provided theCommittee withterms ofreference foraworking group.
73. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities expressed surprise thatsome delegations appeared
tobelieve itpremature todiscuss substantive issues. IntheEC'sview, theMinisterial decision was
clear-thematter wasreferred totheCommittee. Consequently, theCommittee should either discuss
thematter itself, orinaseparate forum. Hesupported theUnited States 'request forclarification
concerningwhatproceduralquestionssomedelegationsthoughtshouldbeaddressedbeforetheCommittee
could startdiscussing substantive issues.
74. Thedelegate ofSingapore noted thatthisissue wascomplex, andthatpositions andconcerns
varied tremendously among WTO Members. Singapore recognized theneedtoaddress theMinisterial
Decision, butobserved thatthatdecision didnotpre-judge anyparticular outcome onewayoranother.
Singapore interpreted theproposal toestablish aworking group andlookintosubstance, asaproposal
tolookintosubstantive rules foranti-circumvention. Singapore feltitnecessary todiscuss terms of
reference andtheframework before substantive discussions tookplace. Singapore 'sproposal didnot
preclude Members from bringing upanyaspects oftheirconcerns intheCommittee, butSingapore
wasnotinaposition toagree toaworking group tolookatbothprocedures andsubstance.
75. TheChairman noted thatthere appeared tobetwodistinct schools ofthought. Theproposal
made bySingapore wasthatinformal consultations beheldontheformtheresponse totheMinisterial
decision should take, withtheChairman toreport backatthenextregular meeting, inlateApril or
early May, afterwhich adecision could betaken. Theproposal made byCanada wastoform anG/ADP/M/4
Page10
informal working group nowtocommence discussions ontheCommittee 'sresponse totheMinisterial
decision.
76. Thedelegate ofJapan observed thattheissuebefore theCommittee washowitcould bestdiscuss
theissuethatwasreferred toitbytheMinisters inMarrakesh. Japan believed theCommittee needed
todecide howtheissuecould bestbedealtwith, inthesense ofterms ofreference, framework ofthe
discussion, schedules, andsoforth. These matters needed tobediscussed, andinJapan'sview, it
waspremature totrytosetupaworking party. Consequently, Japan strongly supported Singapore 's
proposal ofinformal consultations.
77. Thedelegate ofNorway expressed concern thattimewaspassing, andthattheinformal
consultationssuggestedbySingaporewouldresultinmoretimepassing,withoutdiscussionofsubstance,
during which theremaybedecisions made indispute settlement thatwould effectively takethedecision
ofhowtodealwiththematter ofanti-circumvention outoftheCommittee 'shands. IftheCommittee
wasnotprepared toadopt Canada 'sproposal, Norway suggested theCommittee should atleastsee
thisasanurgent matter, thatinformal discussions beheldassoonaspossible, andthattheCommittee
notwaituntillateSpring totakeadecision.
78. Thedelegate ofMalaysia expressed support forSingapore 'sproposal.
79. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated thathewasnotready tosupport Canada 'sposition. Hong
Kong supported Singapore 'sproposal.
80. Thedelegate ofIndia alsosupported Singapore 'sproposal.
81. Thedelegate ofCanada suggested thatthereseemed tobesome common ground. Therefore,
Canada proposed, asacompromise, thattheChairman continue informal consultations, withaview
toreporting backinDecember, rather thannextMay, onprogress thathasbeenmade.
82. The delegates oftheUnited States, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, the
European Communities, Hong Kong, Korea, andMexico allexpressed support forCanada 'sproposal.
83. TheChairman proposed, therefore, thattheCommittee authorize himtoengage ininformal
consultations withaviewtoreporting backtotheCommittee atitsmeeting inDecember onhowthe
Committee wasgoing torespond totheMinisterial Decision.
84. TheCommittee sodecided.
85. TheChairman observed that,inthecontext ofinformal consultations, heurged Members who
would participate tobeprepared topresent theirviews ontheissues thathavetobeaddressed, and
especially theprocedural issues mentioned byseveral delegations.
F. Other business
86. Thedelegate ofHong Kong raised oneitemofother business, involving theEuropean
Communities 'anti-circumvention enquiry regarding imports of3.5inchmicro-disks. Henoted that
theEChadinformed Hong Kong oftheinitiation ofthisinvestigation ofcircumvention ofanti-dumping
duties imposed onimports ofmicro-disks from Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, andChina by
imports originating inHong Kong, Canada, Malaysia, Macau, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Singapore
andthePhilippines. Hong Kong expressed strong objections totheinitiation oftheinvestigation.
Hong Kong considered theanti-circumvention action initiated orcontemplated bytheECtobe
incompatible withGATT/WTO principles.G/ADP/M/4
Page11
87. InHong Kong'sview, GATT Article VI.2allowed aWTO Member tolevyananti-dumping
dutyonlyinorder tooffset orprevent dumping. Article VI.6(a) provides thatnoWTO Member shall
levyananti-dumping dutyunless itdetermines thattheeffects ofdumping aresuchastocause orthreaten
material injury toanestablished domestic industry.
88. Article 1oftheWTO Anti-Dumping Agreement provides thatananti-dumping measure shall
beapplied onlyunder thecircumstances provided forinGATT Article VIandpursuant toinvestigations
initiatedandconductedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheWTOAgreement.Article18.1prohibits
countries from taking action against dumping ofexports byaMember except inaccordance withthe
provision oftheAgreement.
89. TheWTO Agreement didnotcontain anyanti-circumvention provisions which derogate from
these obligations. Anti-dumping measures could therefore onlybeimposed ontheproduct afterproof
ofdumping oftheproduct, injury andcausation inaccordance withGATT Article VI,andfollowing
theprocedures prescribed intheWTO Agreement.
90. Contrary tothisobligation, Article 13oftheEC'santi-dumping regulations provided forthe
imposition ofanti-dumping duties onaproduct without proof ofdumping, injury andcausation in
accordance withGATT Article VIandtheprocedures prescribed intheAgreement. TheEC'sunilateral
action ofincluding anti-circumvention provisions initsanti-dumping regulation violated Article 18.4
oftheWTO Agreement, which requires eachWTO Member toensure theconformity ofitslaws,
regulations andadministrative procedures withtheprovisions oftheWTO Agreement.
91. Furthermore, anyanti-dumping action taken bytheEUpursuant totheanti-circumvention
provisions wasaviolation ofitsobligations under theWTO. Specifically, Article 5.2oftheWTO
Agreement requires anapplication foraninvestigation toinclude evidence of(a)dumping, (b)injury
within themeaning ofArticle VIofGATT 1994asinterpreted bytheAgreement and(c)acausal link
between thedumped imports andalleged injury. Article 13oftheEC'sregulation appeared toallow
initiation ofaninvestigation without evidence oftheseelements. Dumping wasalleged tobeestablished
onthebasis ofacomparison withanormal value established previously andoutside theexporting
country. Therequirements ofinjury andcausal linkwere absent intheEC'santi-circumvention
provisions. Theinitiation ofthepresent investigation bytheECwastherefore aviolation ofArticle 5.2
oftheAgreement.
92. Hong Kong regarded thespecific allegation ofcircumvention against Hong Kong astotally
unjustified. Onthebasis ofbothimport andexport statistics, nochange could beseeninthepattern
oftrade, asrequired tosuggest thattheanti-circumvention complaint might besubstantiated. Hong
Kong'sexports ofmicro-disks wereonadeclining trend, andthose exports hadalready beensubject
toananti-dumping dutyatahighresidual rateof27.4percentsince 1994. Hong Kong'sexports
ofunrecorded magnetic diskstotheEChaddecreased by70percentin1994over1993. Hong Kong's
share oftheEC'smarket hadalsodropped from 19percentto8percentduring thesame period.
Hong Kong'sexports andmarket share would nothave dropped sodrastically hadthere been
circumvention ofanti-dumping measures asalleged.
93. Hong Kong alsosuspected thatthere wasapossibility thatthecomplaint wasrelated torules
oforigin matters. Ifthatwasthecase,itshould bedealtwithunder thenormal customs rules. Suspected
origin fraud cases should notbetackled byanti-circumvention actions which would unfairly prejudice
innocent exporters whohadfulfilled proper origin declaration requirements. Ablanket extension of
anti-dumpingmeasuresunderthedisguiseofanti-circumventionwithaviewtosolvingwhatwasbasically
anorigin fraud problem wasunacceptable. Hong Kong strongly urged theECauthorities tocomply
withGATT Article VIandtheWTO Agreement andtoimmediately terminate theanti-circumvention
case. Hong Kong reserved itsrights under theWTO Agreement topursue thematter further.G/ADP/M/4
Page12
94. Thedelegate ofSingapore, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, addressed thesame
matter. Singapore noted thattheinvestigations wereinitiated following acomplaint bytheCommittee
oftheEuropean Diskette Manufacturers, pursuant toArticle 13.3oftheECRegulation No.3283/94.
Article 13allowed theECtoextend existing anti-dumping duties toimports from thirdcountries of
likeproductsorpartsthereofwhichweredestinedforassemblyintheCommunitywhenitwasconsidered
thatcircumvention ofmeasures inforcewastaking place. Article 13oftheECregulation further loosely
defined theconcept ofcircumvention as"achange inpattern oftrade between thirdcountries andthe
Community which stems from apractice, process orwork forwhich there isinsufficient duecause
oreconomicjustificationotherthantheimpositionoftheA-Ddutyandthereisevidencethattheremedial
effects ofthedutyarebeing undermined".
95. Singapore andtheASEAN countries wereseriously concerned thattheEChadinitiated this
investigation onmicro-disks fromIndonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, Singapore andThailand. They
strongly objected totheanti-circumvention investigations initiated bytheEC,astheyconsidered this
anti-circumvention action tobeinconsistent withtheWTO Anti-Dumping Agreement andtheGATT
1994, andashaving nolegalbasis whatsoever under theWTO Agreement andtheGATT.
96. Firstly,Article1oftheWTOAgreementprovidesthatananti-dumpingmeasureshallbeapplied
onlyunder thecircumstances provided forinArticle VIofGATT 1994andpursuant toinvestigations
conducted inaccordance withtheprovisions oftheWTO Agreement. Second, Article 18.1ofthe
WTOAgreementprohibitscountriesfromtakingactionagainstdumpingofexportsfromanotherMember
except inaccordance withtheprovisions ofGATT 1994asinterpreted bytheprovisions bytheWTO
Agreement. Third, Article VI.2oftheGATT allows aMember tolevyonanydumped product an
anti-dumping dutyinorder tooffset dumping. Article VI.6(a) oftheGATT further provides thatno
WTO Member shalllevyananti-dumping dutyontheimportation ofanyproduct unless itdetermines
thattheeffect ofthedumping issuchastocause orthreaten material injury toanestablished domestic
industry. Singapore reiterated thatneither theGATT 1994 northeWTO Agreement contained any
anti-circumvention provisions.
97. Anti-dumpingmeasurescouldthereforeonlybeimposedonaproductafterithadbeenestablished
thattheproduct wasdumped andcausing material injury inaccordance withGATT Article VIand
theprocedures prescribed intheWTO Agreement. Hence theEC'santi-circumvention action, whereby
ananti-dumpingdutywouldbeextendedtoimportsofmicro-disksfromthirdcountriessuchasIndonesia,
Malaysia, thePhilippines, Singapore andThailand without evidence ofdumping injury andcausal link,
wasinconsistent withGATT Article VI,Articles 1and18oftheWTO Agreement andtheprocedures
prescribed therein.
98. TheASEAN countries strongly objected totheinitiation bytheECoftheanti-circumvention
investigations onmicro-disks fromIndonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, Singapore andThailand and
urged theECtoimmediately terminate theanti-circumvention investigations. Intheevent thatthe
matter could notberesolved totheirsatisfaction, theASEAN countries reserved therighttoreferthe
matter totheDispute Settlement Body oftheWTO.
99. Thedelegate ofIndiaexpressed support forthestatements made byHong Kong andSingapore.
InIndia'sview, theaction taken bytheECwasagainst thespirit oftheWTO Agreement. There was
noprovision foranti-circumvention action under theexisting WTO Agreement.
100. Thedelegate ofJapan expressed theview thattheEC'santi-circumvention investigation on
micro-disks wasunjustifiable under theAnti-Dumping Agreement andGATT 1994. Japan supported
theposition taken byHong Kong andSingapore andtheirlegalassessment oftheinconsistency ofthe
ECaction withtheAgreement. Japan requested theECtoterminate theinvestigation immediately.G/ADP/M/4
Page13
101. Thedelegate ofMexico supported thestatements ofHong Kong, Singapore, Japan, andIndia.
Mexico alsojoined therequest totheECtostoptheinvestigation.
102. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities observed thatthestatements ofthedelegations
onthisissue demonstrated theneed forasubstantive discussion ontheoverall subject ofanti-
circumvention measures. IntheEC'sview, theAnti-dumping Agreement provided formeasures against
injurious dumping, andthose measures should beefficient. Inthissituation, theECwascoping with
cases inwhich, through certain activities, existing measures were being eluded byproducts being
circumvented through thirdcountries. Therules oftheEConsuchinvestigations wereprecise and
clear, andincluded bothdumping andinjury investigation andtests. Thus, theECdidnotaccept the
argument thatduties would beimposed without investigation andwithout findings ofdumping and
injury.
103. TheECprovisions oncircumvention required thatthepattern oftrade beexamined, aswell
aswhether therewasachanging pattern oftrade, asseenfromvolumes ofimports intotheCommunity.
With respect toonecountry involved, there hadbeenachange from 207,000 kilos ofmicro-disks
exported in1990, to513,000 kilos in1994, adoubling infouryears. Regarding another country,
thefigures wentupfromnilexports toalmost threemillion kilos, fromathirdcountry from4,000 kilos
to1.5million kilos. Asseenfromthese figures, theincrease inimports wasconsiderable, andthere
didnotappear aprima facie economic justification forthose increases, which wasoneelement the
EClegislation required beconsidered.
104. Asecond aspect thatmustbeconsidered wastheundermining oftheduties orofthemeasures
which hadbeenimposed. Inthepresent case, import unitvalues haddecreased from 18ECU per
kilofrom April 1993 to13ECU in1994. Foranother country thedecrease hadbeenfrom 24to
10ECU, andinother cases from 15to11ECU, andfrom 20to14ECU. Allthose figures showed
clearly, intheEC'sview, thattherehadbeenaveryconsiderable undermining ofthemeasures imposed.
105. Finally, thelastaspect thatwasrequired tobeestablished wastheexistence ofdumping. The
unitexport prices, which had,onthebasisofthecomplaint, beenexamined, byreference tothenormal
values established intheoriginal investigation, clearly showed thatthere wasdumping. Sothethree
testswere clearly metinthisparticular case.
106. TheECemphasized thatthismatter dealtwithduties which should havebeenpaid, notanew
investigation onnewdumping fromdifferent countries. Thecaseinvolved thepossibility that,through
circumvention through athirdcountry, theoriginal duties were being eluded.
107. Finally, henoted thatEClegislation provided foracustoms certificate, which allowed exporters
andproducers fromthecountries investigated tobeprotected. TheECbelieved itsposition wasclearly
andfullyconsistent withtheAgreement, andforthatreason intended tocontinue withitsinvestigation.
108. Thedelegate oftheUnited States observed thattheUnited States 'position onanti-circumvention
waswell-known. Itwastheopinion oftheUnited States thattheoriginal anti-dumping investigation
determined whether ornorthere wasdumping andwhether thedumping wasinjurious. Theanti-
circumvention investigation determined whether toinclude under theorder goods which should have
beenincluded orcovered bytheoriginal order. Inother words, these were notgoods withrespect
towhich aseparate determination ofdumping orinjury mustbemade. Itwassimply thedetermination
whether goods coming fromacountry which wascovered byanorder weregoing through athirdcountry
forthepurpose ofcircumventing adumping order.
109. Thedelegate ofKorea expressed support forHong Kong andSingapore 'sinterventions.G/ADP/M/4
Page14
110. Thedelegate ofCanada tooknoteoftheEC'sreply tothecomments ofother delegations on
theissue. However, Canada believed theexplanation wasnotquiteadequate. Canada expressed concern
withtheinvestigation. Canada would notaccept anyactions thatunjustifiably impeded access tothe
European market forCanadian products.
111. Thedelegate ofHong Kong observed thatthefigures forexports andimports citedbytheEC
tojustify theanti-circumvention proceedings wentasfarbackas1990, butthemeasures allegedly being
circumvented wereonlyimposed in1993. Hong Kong alsomaintained thatwhatever thefactsonimport
increases from other countries, thiswasnotthecaseforHong Kong. Hong Kong'simports had
decreased by70percentin1994 over1993, andthemarket share dropped from 19percentto
8percent.
112. Thedelegate ofMalaysia, onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, stated thattheydidnotaccept
theexplanation afforded bytheEC,andstood bytheearlier remarks made onbehalf ofASEAN
countries.
113. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities stressed thataninvestigation hadbeenopened,
butnomeasures hadbeenimposed. TheECbelieved there werereasons toinitiate theinvestigation.
Obviously should theinvestigation confirm thatsome oftherequirements intheEC'slegislation were
notmet,thecasewould befinalized without measures.
114. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
G. Annual report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
115. TheCommittee adopted itsfirstAnnual Report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
Dateofthenextregular meeting
116. TheCommittee agreed toholditsnextregular meeting intheweek of29April 1996.
117. Themeeting wasadjourned.