./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/CHN/22
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/22
20 May 2003
(03-2683)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Follow-up Questions and Comments Posed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 1
Concerning Replies to the Questions on the Notification of
the PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA2
The following communication, dated 16 May 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Delegation of the European Commission.
_______________
Follow-up questions and comments to the People's Republic of China on its replies to
our questions on its noti fication G/SCM/N/1/Suppl.1:
Follow up to question 3 posed in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/12-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/12
(answered in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/20-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/20)3
The EC was not concerned about the capabilities of the legal profession in China.  However,
the EC would like to invite China to consider th e possibility that foreign exporters can decide for
themselves whether or not they want to avail themselves of the services of a lawyer in a CVD
proceeding (or indeed an AD proceeding) and, if so, to also consider finding legal advice outside
China.  Exporters should be free to make their choice according to their needs.  Otherwise there might
be a serious obstacle to cooperation.  In this context could the PRC please confirm that itsinvestigating authorities will make the conditions  for the participation of a Chinese lawyer in an
investigation visit clear from the beginning and will not exercise any pressure on cooperating
exporters for agreeing to the participation of certain lawyers?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/20-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/20
2 G/SCM/N/1/CHN/1/Suppl.1
3 The EC posed a similar question in respect of China’s anti-dumping legislation notification
G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 + Suppl.1 (question 4 in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/11-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/11, answered in
document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/18-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/18) and this follow-up question is also of relevance in that
context.G/ADP/Q1/CHN/22
G/SCM/Q1/CHN/22
Page 2
Follow up to question 1 posed in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/12- G/SCM/Q1/CHN/12
(answered in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/20- G/SCM/Q1/CHN/20)4
With regard to the use of the native official language in investigations the EC would like to
refer to the practice of long standing WTO members such as Japan, Egypt or Brazil, which
traditionally admit the use of official WTO languages (different from their official native language) in
investigations.  Considering this tradition and ac cording to the spirit of Art 12.11 ASCM (and the
parallel Article 6.13 ADA) can the PRC please indicate whether documents submitted in English as a
WTO language might be acceptable under certain circumstances?
In this context the European Communities would like to recall that Art 12.7 ASCM providing
for provisional or final determination on the basis of "the facts available" is, like Article 6.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, only conceived for cases of non-cooperation in an investigation, such as
refusal of access to information within a reason able period or significant impedement of the
investigation.
__________
                                                     
4 The EC posed a similar question in respect of China’s anti-dumping legislation notification
G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 + Suppl.1 (question 2 in document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/11-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/11, answered indocument G/ADP/Q1/CHN/18-G/SCM/Q1/CHN/18) and this follow-up question is also of relevance in that
context.