 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/W/442 
26 October 2004 
 (04-4548) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Original:   English 
  
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 18 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION 
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions from the Separate Customs Territo ry of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 25 October 2004, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the Separate Customs Terr itory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Regulation of the People’s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping 
 
1. After the restructuring of China’s govern ment agencies, the Ministry of Commerce 
announced on 31 March 2004, the revised “Anti-dum ping Regulation of the People’s Republic of 
China” (hereinafter referred to as “the Revised Re gulation”).  China very recently notified the WTO 
Committee on Anti-dumping Practices of its Revised Regulation1. 
In addition, Article 7 of the previously notified regulation2 stated that, “The State Economic 
and Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “SETC”) shall be responsible for the 
investigation and determination of injury”.  In th e Revised Regulation, however, the investigation and 
determination of injury to a domestic industry sha ll be conducted by the Ministry of Commerce.   
It would be appreciated if China could please e xplain whether the provisional rules originally 
issued by the SETC (such as the “Rules on Investiga tions and Determinations of Industry Injury for 
Anti-dumping” and the “Rules on Public Hearings w ith Regard to Investigations of Injury to 
Industry”3) have been annulled.  Furthermore, which authorities are responsible for these rules under 
the Revised Regulation? 
2. According to Article 10 of the previously no tified regulation, “The effect of the dumped 
imports shall be assessed in relation to the separ ate identification of the domestic production of the 
like product.  If such separate identification of th at production is not possible, the effect of the 
dumped imports shall be assessed by the examinati on of the production of the narrowest group or 
range of products, including the like domestic product”.  However, according to China’s replies in 
document G/ADP/Q1/CHN/17, Article 10 means that  when the investigating authority assesses the 
effect of the dumped imports, “the domestic produc tion of the like product” should be considered as 
the first important factor. 
                                                      
1 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/ Suppl.3.  The Amended Regulation was not notified until a few days before this 
submission.  Therefore, many of our references in th is paper were made according to the previously notified 
regulation. 
2 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 
3 G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2 G/ADP/W/442 
Page 2  
 
  We would therefore ask China to please explain further what the specific criteria are for “like 
products” and “the narrowest range of products”.  Mo reover, what is the relationship between the two 
and how do they relate to ADA Article 3.6?  C ould China please also give examples for reference? 
 3. Article 11 of the previously notified regula tion defined “domestic industry” as “domestic 
producers as a whole of the like products within th e People’s Republic of China or those of them 
whose collective output of the product constitutes a major proportion of the total production of those 
products…”. 
 Please clarify what criterion is used to determine what is the “major proportion”. 
 
4. Article 28 of the previously notified regula tion allowed for cash deposits, bonds or other 
forms of security to be posted for provisional anti-dump ing duties.  In its response to the United States 
in Question 10 of G/ADP/Q1/CHN/24, China stated th at importers may use bonds or other surety in 
lieu of cash surety, but in practice they should ob serve the specific rules of  the Chinese Customs.  
 In light of this, is the term “ bond” referred to in China’s reply identical to the term referred to 
in the previously notified regulation?  How do these tw o terms relate to ADA Article 7.2?  What is the 
type and scope of the phrase “other forms of secu rity” in Article 28 of the previously notified 
regulation?  What are the specific rules followed by Chinese Customs? 
 5. According to Article 49 of the previously notif ied regulation, “After an anti-dumping duty has 
taken effect, MOFTEC (the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation) may….decide on 
justifiable grounds to review the need for the c ontinued imposition of the anti-dumping duty;  such a 
review may also be conducted, provided that a r easonable period of time has elapsed, upon request by 
any interested party and on the basis of examin ation of the relevant evidence submitted by the 
interested party”. 
 Furthermore, Article 50 of the previously notifie d regulation stated that:  “On the basis of the 
findings of a review, MOFTEC shall, in accordance w ith the provisions of that regulation, make a 
proposal on the retention, revision, or terminati on of an anti-dumping duty…”.  Article 51 indicates 
that:  “The review proceedings shall be conducted w ith reference to the relevant provisions of these 
Regulations on anti-dumping investigation”.   In the case of the anti-dumping duty imposed  on cold-rolled steel products imported from the 
Russian Federation, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and the Separate  Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the Ministry of Commerce issued Bulletin No. 22 on 17 May 2004, publicizing its decision to initiate th e review on the need for the continued imposition 
of the anti-dumping duty.   
 We would therefore appreciate an swers to the following questions: 
 a) Which situations or reasons does the term “j ustifiable grounds” describe?  How long is “a 
reasonable period of time”?  Are there any restrictive clauses?  Was the review on imported cold-rolled steel products initiated by interested parties or by the Ministry of Commerce on its 
own initiative? 
b) The Ministry of Commerce issued Bulletin No. 53 on 10 September 2004, to publicize its 
decision to suspend the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imported cold-rolled steel products, on the basis of the review’s finding s.  What is the definition of the term 
“suspension” used in Bulletin No. 53?  How does it relate to the terms “retention, revision, or 
termination” used in Article 50 of the previously  notified regulation?  Is there any time limit 
on “suspension of the anti-dumping duty”?  If so, what is the duration?  G/ADP/W/442 
 Page 3 
 
 
 c) According to the above-mentioned Bulletin No. 53, if the market for cold-rolled steel were to 
change again during the suspension of the anti- dumping duty, the interested parties may file 
an application in written form for a review of the need for continued imposition of the  
anti-dumping duty in line with Article 49 of the previously notified regulation.   
 
 Please would China explain the procedure to be followed in such a review.  Would the review 
proceedings be conducted in accordance with the re levant provisions of the notified regulation on 
anti-dumping investigations?  If not, please explai n how the provision is consistent with ADA 
Articles 11.1 and 11.4?  Provisional Rules of Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation on Questionnaire in 
Anti-dumping Investigations  
6. According to Article 25 of the “Provi sional Rules of MOFTEC on Questionnaire in 
Antidumping Investigations”, “It would be considered as to impede the investigation if [the submitted 
electronic data carrier] contains certain virus, a nd in such case MOFTEC may make determination on 
the basis of facts available and th e best information available”.   
 Will the authorities inform the respondents if they find that the submitted electronic data 
carrier contains certain virus?  Under such situa tion, will they allow the respondents to provide the 
same data after clearing the file?  Provisional Rules of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation on Sampling in Anti-dumping Investigations  
7. According to Article 10 of the Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Sampling in Anti-dumping 
Investigations, “The exporters and producers not sel ected in the sample and in the reserve list may 
provide information to MOFTEC on a voluntary basis”.  Article 15 of the same Provisional Rules 
states, “MOFTEC shall examine individually the ex porters and producers who are not selected in the 
sample but have submitted necessary information in time and expressly requested separate determination of dumping margin, provided that su ch separate examination would not prevent timely 
completion of the dumping investigation”. 
 The United States raised a question on how China uses the information submitted by a  
non-selected exporter in determination of the dumping margin.
4  China replied that the investigation 
authority would examine the info rmation provided by them in accordance with Article 15 of the 
Provisional Rules on Sampling.  In order to properly clarify whether China’s implementation of  anti-dumping measures complies with ADA requirements, we would like to raise the following questions: 
 
a) If non-selected exporters and producers have su bmitted necessary information in time but not 
expressly requested separate determination of the dumping margin, will the investigating 
authority examine and determine the separate dumping margin for each of them? 
b) If more than one exporter or producer expressl y request separate determinations, how would 
the investigating authority make the decision not  to make an individual, separate examination 
because it would prevent the timely completion of  the dumping investigation?  Has there been 
any example to date of this happening? 
c) How would China’s procedures as described a bove comply with the ADA Article 6.10.2? 
 
__________ 
                                                     
 
4 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/14 