 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/AHG/R/15 
17 September 2004 
 (04-3915) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE 
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES, 
20 APRIL 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  
1. The Working Group on Implementation ("the Group") met in formal session and held 
substantive discussions concerning the topics re ferred to it by the Committee on Anti-Dumping 
Practices ("the Committee") on May 2003.
1  The Group adopted the agenda for the meeting, which 
had been circulated in WTO/AIR/2287, dated 8 April 2004, as amended. 
2. The Chairman, (Mr. David Evans, New Zealand)  noted that the Group would take up the four 
topics for discussion in the order set forth in the ag enda, as adopted.  These were:  (a) export prices to 
third countries or constructed normal value, (b) conduct of verification (c) judicial, arbitral or 
administrative review, and (d) draft recommendati on concerning conditions of competition that may 
be relevant to a decision whether a cumulative asse ssment of the effects of imports is appropriate. 
3. Turning to the first item on the agenda, export pr ices to third countries or constructed normal 
value – Article 2.2, the Chairman reminded Members that the Group had started its discussion of this 
topic during the October 2003 meeting.  New Zealand introduced its paper, circulated as document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/161.  During the ensuing discussions, th e view was expressed that it seemed that the 
methodology of using export prices to third countries was not widely used.  The view was also expressed that the export price to third country methodology might be the preferred methodology in 
some situations, but that it was a policy decision for each investigating authority whether to use a 
market price as basis or a constructed value, ta king into account that the provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement might be interpreted as favouri ng a price-to-price methodology, although also 
recognizing that a market price basis might also pos e certain problems.  Members agreed to continue 
discussions on the topic at the Group's next meeting, and the Chairman urged Members to contribute papers on it, including papers describi ng their own practice in this regard. 
4. The next item which was discussed was the co nduct of verification – Article 6.7.  The 
European Communities, Argentina and New Zealand in troduced their papers, circulated as documents 
G/ADP/AHG/W/156, G/ADP/AHG/W/157, and G/ADP/AHG/W/159, respectively.  It appeared from 
the papers and discussions that it was not common practice to submit a "verification report" to the 
exporter verified, either before the investigators l eave the country, or thereafter.  In those instances 
where a report was prepared, it appeared that su ch a report did not set out a decision of dumping per 
se, but was simply a report on the facts observed dur ing the verification.  Some Members did not do 
foreign verifications as a rule and decided on a case-by-case basis whether to do a verification.  
During the discussions a number of questions were raised, inter alia , whether questionnaires were 
                                                     
 
1 The list of topics referred to the Working Group was circulated to Members in document 
G/ADP/W/433. G/ADP/AHG/R/15 
Page 2  
 
 sent to all exporters, the nature of deficiency le tters sent to respondents if responses were deemed 
incomplete, substantially incomplete, or misleading, a nd the basis to reject such information, the basis 
for rejecting information not verified, the partic ipation in the verification process of government 
officials of the exporting Member, the criteria us ed in the selection pro cess in deciding which 
exporters to verify, and whether cost data were also  verified as routine in addition to price data, and 
the nature of the verification process of non-market economies.  From the responses given, it appeared 
that the practice of Members differed on these issues and that, by nature, the decisions were highly 
case specific.  It appeared from the discussions that the verification process was generally not regarded as an opportunity to submit new informa tion, or to replace information already submitted, 
but rather to verify information and to provide an opportunity for clarification.  Members agreed to 
continue discussions on the topic at the Group's next  meeting, and the Chairman urged Members to 
contribute papers on it, including papers describing th eir own practice in this regard.  The Chairman 
also urged those Members who had explained their practices orally, to also submit them in written format. 
5. The Group then discussed judicial, arbitral or  administrative review – Article 13.  The 
European Communities and Australia introduced  their papers, circulated as documents 
G/ADP/AHG/W/158 and G/ADP/AHG/W/160, respectiv ely.  From the papers and discussions, it 
appeared that some Members used existing domestic  courts of law, up to the highest level, for 
purposes of review, rather than special bodies dedicated only to anti-dumping reviews, although in one case a special mechanism had be en introduced for purposes of administrative review of decisions, 
in addition to the judicial review proce ss.  In the discussions, the following issues, inter alia , were 
raised:  Who can challenge the decision to impo se an anti-dumping duty?  In the case where a double 
process was possible, were they mutu ally exclusive, and what were the reasons for pursuing either the 
one, or the other?  Can exporters, wh ich did not participate in the orig inal investigation, challenge the 
residual anti-dumping duty imposed on them through the judicial review process?  Can provisional measures be challenged through the judicial review process, and if a decision has been found to be 
lacking, whether anti-dumping duties would be refunde d?  Due to the number of issues raised and as 
many of the significant users of the instrument ha d not explained their practices in this regard, the 
Chairman particularly urged Members to submit papers on this topic for discussion at the Group's 
next meeting. 
6. The Group then turned to the final item on the agenda, namely, the draft recommendation 
concerning conditions of competition that may be  relevant to a decision whether a cumulative 
assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate.  The Chairman recalled that the draft 
recommendation had been before the Group since the Autumn 2001 meeting, and although the discussion during the last meeting, based on a revi sed version of the draft recommendation prepared 
by the Secretariat and circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/121/Revison 3, was useful, it did not 
result in a consensus.  He reported that, as envisag ed during the last meeting of the Group, and in 
response to the views expressed by some Members dur ing previous meetings that perhaps the Group 
had taken the draft recommendation about as far as it usefully could for now, he conducted informal 
consultations with most of the Members whic h participated in the discussions on the draft 
recommendation during the last meeting.  He reporte d that his sense of these consultations was that 
the majority of Members who participated was of th e view that the Group had taken the draft as far as 
it usefully could, and that the Group should consid er setting the topic aside for the time being.  
However, there was also a minority view that the Group should continue discussing the draft 
recommendation on the basis of the revised version, circulated as document G/ADP/AHG/W/121/Revision 4.  After discussing the matter, the Group decided to put the draft recommendation aside for the time being, with th e understanding that the topic was not thereby 
formally removed from the work programme of the Group as any Member can at any time request that 
the topic be put on the agenda for discussion.  G/ADP/AHG/R/15 
 Page 3 
 
 
 7. In conclusion, the Chairman noted that the Group had a very useful second round of 
discussions of three of the four new topics and enc ouraged Members to submit papers on these topics 
for discussion at the next meeting.  The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the next regular meeting of th e Committee, commencing Tuesday, 26 October 2004 
and that papers and other submissions for the Gr oup's next meeting should be transmitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 14 September 2004. 
__________ 