RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/15
14 March 2000
(00-1020)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR METING
HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Milan Hovorka (Czech Republic)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on
28 October 1999.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. REVIEW OF NATI ONAL LEGISLA TIONS ...............................................................2
- Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations not previously
reviewed by th e Committee............................................................................................2
(i) Dominica -  G/ADP/N/1/D MA/1/-G/SCM/N/1/DMA/1......................................2
(ii) Ghana – G/ADP/N/1/ GHA/1-G/SCM/N/ 1/GHA/1..............................................3
(iii) Indonesia – G/ADP/N/1/IDN/2/Supp l.1/G/SCM/N/1/I DN/2/Suppl.1 .................3
(iv) Jamaica –G/ADP/N/1/J AM/2-G/SCM/N/1/JAM/2..............................................3
(v) Latvia - G/ADP/N/1/LVA /1-G/SCM/N/1 /LVA/1 ...............................................3
(vi) Trinidad & Tobago – G/ADP/N/1/TTO/1/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/TTO/1/Suppl.1 3
(vii) United States – G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/S uppl.4-G/SCM/N/1/U SA/1/Suppl.4 .........3
(viii) United States – G/ADP/N/1/USA/1 /Suppl.5-G/SCM/N/1 /USA/1/Suppl.5 .........3
- Notifications of that have previous ly been reviewed by the Committee........................3
Argentina -
G/ADP/Q/1/ARG/7
G/ADP/Q/1/ARG/8..............................................................................................3
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
(G/ADP/N/53 and Addenda)..........................................................................................4
C. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
 G/ADP/N/51-52 and G/ADP/N/54-56) ..........................................................................4
D. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................7
E. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP
ON ANTI-CIRCUMV ENTION...................................................................................10
F. US ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN JAPANESE STEEL
PRODUCTS (Item requested by Japan).......................................................................11G/ADP/M/15
Page 2
G. AUSTRALIA – ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION ON A4 COPY
PAPER (Item requested by Brazil)...............................................................................12
H. OTHER BU SINESS.....................................................................................................15
(i) South Africa - Anti-dumping duties applied on uncoated, woodfree,
46-80 gsm A4 white cut paper imported from Brazil .........................................15
(ii) Canada - Anti-dumping investigation on corrugated steel bars from Cuba...... 17
(iii) Chairman's letter to the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods .............18
I. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ..........................................................19
J. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNC IL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ........................19
A. REVIEW OF NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS
3. The Chairman noted that unfortunately, many  of the questions put by Members concerning
new notifications of legislation were submitted well after the applicable deadline of 7 October 1999.
Members were aware of the fact that the translation process is a significant bottleneck in the
processing of documents for circulation, and particular ly in recent weeks, with the preparations for the
Seattle Ministerial meeting in full swing.  Members were well aware of the deadlines for submission
of documents for the regular meetings of this Committee, which were established and announced atthe Committee's meeting in April 1999, and of which several reminders had been sent.  The Chairman
stressed that the late submission of documents, not only for this meeting, but also for the meeting of
the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation, was unacceptable.  Members could not be expected to prepare
adequately for the complex and often technical discussions in these meetings without the necessary
documentation, in their preferred working language.  Late submissions significantly reduced theability of the Committee and its subsidiary bodies to work effectively, a situation which should not be
allowed to continue.
4. As usual, deadlines for the submission of documents for regular meetings of the Committee,
the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation, and th e Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention were
announced during the course of the meetings this week, and the Secretariat would issue a reminder of
all applicable deadlines for submissions for the spring 2000 meetings of the Committees on Anti-
Dumping Practices, Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and Safeguards.  The Chairman urged allMembers to take note of these deadlines and respect them.  Given the nature of the work in question,
he observed that there was no reason Members could not begin preparing for next Spring's meetings
shortly after this meeting was over, while matters were still fresh in delegates' minds.
5. Turning to the substantive discussion, the Chairm an noted that, as provided for in the agreed
procedures adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (G/ADP/W/284), Membershaving received written questions by the applicable deadline of 7 October would be asked to respond
orally to those questions at the meeting.  The Chairman observed that Members who received
questions after the deadline were only asked to respond to questions to the extent they were able to do
so.  Members were, however, requested to answer in writing all questions submitted in writing.
Follow up questions could be asked at the meeting, but such follow up questions were to be submittedin writing no later than 22 November 1999 if the Member posing the question wished to receive a
written answer. Written answers to all questions submitted in writing were to be submitted to the
Secretariat no later than 10 January 2000.
6. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Dominica.  The Committee took note
of the notification.G/ADP/M/15
Page 3
7. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Ghana.  The Committee took note of
the notification.
8. The questions regarding the notification of Indonesia can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/11 Submitted by Argentina
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/12 Submitted by the United States
The answers provided by Indonesia to those que stions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/13 To all
9. The questions regarding the notification of Jamaica can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/JAM/1 Submitted by the United States
The answers provided by Jamaica to those que stions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/JAM/2 To the United States
10. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Latvia.  The Committee took note of
the notification.
11. No questions were asked concerning the notification of Trinidad & Tobago.  The Committee
took note of the notification.
12. The questions regarding the notifications of the United States can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/12 Submitted by Turkey 
G/ADP/Q1/USA/13 Submitted by Mexico
G/ADP/Q1/USA/14 Submitted by Argentina
G/ADP/Q1/USA/15 Submitted by Hong Kong, ChinaG/ADP/Q1/USA/16 Submitted by Japan
G/ADP/Q1/USA/17 Submitted by Hong Kong, China
G/ADP/Q1/USA/18 Submitted by BrazilG/ADP/Q1/USA/20 Submitted by the European Communities
The answers provided by the United States to those questions can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/19 To all
13. The follow up questions regarding the notification of Argentina can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q/1/ARG/7 Submitted by Mexico
The answers provided by Argentina can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q/1/ARG/8 To MexicoG/ADP/M/15
Page 4
14. The Chairman informed the Committee that the new notifications of Argentina ,
G/ADP/N/1ARG/1/Supp.3, Australia , G/ADP/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.1, Kyrgyzstan , G/ADP/N/1/KGZ/1,
and India , G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.2. would on the agenda of the meeting in May 2000.  The
Secretariat would inform Members of any additional new notifications to be considered at that
meeting in mid-March 2000.  The deadline for submission of questions regarding new notifications oflegislation for the May 2000 meeting was 13 April 2000.
15. The Chairman noted that, in order for a previously reviewed notification of legislation to
appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in May 2000, questions had to be submitted
to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose notification was in question, no later than
23 March 2000. The Chairman hoped that this advance warning would help Members in scheduling
their internal work programmes.
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
16. The Chairman recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the first half of 1999, to
be submitted by 31 August 1999, was circulated to the Members in G/ADP/N/53, dated 24 June 1999.
The Chairman expressed his disappointment at the number of semi-annual reports that were received
late.  Members were well aware of the applicable deadlines for submission of semi-annual reports –
semi-annual reports are always  due at the end of February for the period July through December of
the previous year, and at the end of August for the period January through June of the current year.
There was simply no reason that this routine task could not be routinely attended to by Members, and
their semi-annual reports submitted in a timely fashion.
17. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified in paragraph 1 of document
G/ADP/N/53 Addendum 1, dated 13 October 1999.  South Africa submitted its semi-annual report toolate to be included in that list.  To the extent possible, the semi-annual reports had been translated and
circulated to the Committee, and were included in the documents made available for the meeting.
18. In addition to the 23 Members who submitted semi-annual reports, 25 Members, listed in
paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/53 Addendum 1, notified the Committee that they did not take
any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  The Dominican Republic and Hungary
submitted notifications that they took no actions that were received too late to be included in that list.
With respect to notifications of no action, there was no good explanation for some Members' failure to
make this notification in a timely fashion.  All that was required if a Member took no action during a
given period was a one sentence letter stating that fact sent to the Chairman or the Secretary of the
Committee before the end of February, and another such letter before the end of August.  Particularly
for Members who did not conduct anti-dumping investigations, it seemed that this should be a
relatively simple task.
19. While there had been some improvement in co mpliance, there remained a significant number
of Members who had not responded to the request for semi-annual reports, and had therefore failed to
comply with this important requirement set forth in Article 16.4 of the Agreement. These Members
were identified document G/ADP/N/53 addendum 1 at paragraph 3.
20. No comments were made with respect to the semi-annual reports of Members.  The
Committee took note of the reports.
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
21. The Chairman noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received by the Committee were circulat ed to Members in documents G/ADP/N/51, 52, 54,
55, and 56.  Preliminary and final anti-dumping actions were notified by Argentina, Australia,G/ADP/M/15
Page 5
Canada, Ecuador, the European Communities, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, and the United States.
22. As with other notification requirements, the Chairman noted that there appeared to be a lack
of full compliance in this area, as some Members who had submitted semi-annual reports indicating
actions in progress had not submitted reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  The Chairmanreminded Members that an important aspect of the Committee's task was its role in monitoring and
discussing actions taken by Members.  If Members did not take their obligations to notify seriously
and comply, the Committee would be prevented from accomplishing its goal of considering Members'
compliance with the requirements of the Agreement.
23. The delegate of Argentina clarified that some of the notifications provided by Argentina and
reported in documents G/ADP/N/52, 55, and 56, were not under Article 16.4 of the Agreement, but
were made for reasons of transparency or inform ation to the Committee.  Most of these involved
notifications that an investigation was being opened, not that a preliminary or final action was taken.
24. A member of the Secretariat explained that, in preparing the lists of notifications circulated to
Members, the notifications provided by Members were not screened by the Secretariat to determine
the type of action being notified.  All notifications were included in the lists.  Therefore, some of the
actions listed did in fact refer to initiations, or other actions taken by Members. If Members did notwish information to be included in the lists of notifications, they should so indicate to the Secretariat.
In that case, the Secretariat would, of course, not include them in the lists circulated to Members.
However, such notifications would serve no informational or transparency purpose, as Members
would not be made aware of them.
25. The delegate of Mexico expressed its appreciation for the point raised by Argentina and the
explanation of the Secretariat.  Mexico had also reported information concerning initiations and other
actions that were not necessarily preliminary or final actions.  Mexico would review the matter,
bearing in mind that Article 16.4 required only that preliminary or final actions be notified.
26. The Chairman observed that semi-annual reports included initiations.  It appeared that a
number of Members notified, on an ad hoc  basis, various actions that might or might not be
considered preliminary or final actions within the terms of Article 16.4, for information or
transparency purposes.  It would be possible to create separate lists of notifications, for instance
notifications under Article 16.4, and notifications of "other actions".  He also pointed out that it was
neither appropriate nor possible for the Secretariat to determine whether a particular notification was
intended by a Member for inclusion in the lists of preliminary or final actions taken or simply for
information unless the Member making the notification specifically indicated which was the case in
the notification itself.
27. The delegate of the United States suggested that the Agreement required only that preliminary
or final determinations be notified, and that initiations were reported in the semi-annual reports.
28. The delegate of India noted that Article 16.4 required Members to report without delay all
preliminary or final actions taken, and that Members should also submit semi-annual reports.  The
requirement to report preliminary or final actions under Article 16.4 did not necessarily includeinitiations.
29. The delegate of Argentina indicated that it woul d consider this matter further, but wished to
stress that the information it had conveyed concerned initiations and was not a notification under
Article 16.4.
30. The Chairman observed that it might not be a bad thing to provide more information than was
strictly required by the Agreement, for purposes of transparency.  But the question was how to doG/ADP/M/15
Page 6
that.  It was not clear what was meant by "prelimina ry or final anti-dumping actions taken " in Article
16.4.  Perhaps this was a matter that should be considered further by Members, and the Committee
could revert to it at the next meeting.
31. The delegate of the United States noted that preliminary and final actions probably meant
provisional and final measures.  In her view, it was these that were required to be notified under
Article 16.4, besides the semi-annual reports, and it was these notifications that should be included in
the lists circulated to Members and kept in the Secretariat for inspection by Members.
32. The delegate of the European Communities suggested that while this was perhaps the
common practice, there was no bar to Members notifying other types of "actions" even if not
specifically required to do so, and no bar to the Secretariat including such actions in the lists of
notifications, and the retention of the information in the Secretariat.  But it might be better to have a
common understanding and consensus, rather than having different Members acting differently, asappeared to be the case.
33. The Chairman noted that the issue might not be resolved at the meeting, but that Members
should consider this matter further, and perhaps raise it in the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation.
34. The delegate of Thailand noted that the present practice was to submit semi-annual reports
which included initiations.  With regard to preliminary and final actions, notifications of these were
listed in the documents circulated by the Secretariat.  Thailand did not see the need to include other
information in these lists of notifications, or duplicate the semi-annual reports.
35. The Chairman stated that there was no desire to impose additional obligations on Members.
However, the obligation in Article 16.4 existed, and the Secretariat did receive notifications of
different sorts of actions, including initiations, and n eeded to know what to do with them.  If Members
did not want these other actions included in the lists of preliminary and final actions circulated to
Members, perhaps they should simply not send them to the Secretariat.  Of course, initiations would
eventually be reported in semi-annual reports in any event.  However, there was nothing to preclude
Members from providing more information than was required under Article 16.4 - the question was
how this information could be circulated to Members.
36. The delegate of Hong Kong, China noted while it seemed reasonably clear that "final action"
referred to the levying of duties, it was not clear that "preliminary actions" was the same as
provisional measures.  She suggested that Members should reflect further on this point before any
practices were changed.
37. The delegate of Mexico observed that Mexico had itself provided additional information for
transparency purposes.  However, Mexico did not want that additional obligations be imposed on
Members, or that information requirements be duplic ated.  Therefore, perhaps only that information
required by Article 16.4 should be notified.
38. The delegate of Argentina noted that he had not intended to initiate any discussion in the
Committee on this issue, but merely to correct the lists of notifications.  He wished for an opportunity
for his authorities to consider the issue further.  It was not an issue of duplication, since Article 16.4
already required initiations to be included in semi-annual reports.  If necessary, the Committee couldrevert to the question in the future.
39. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/ADP/M/15
Page 7
D. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION.
40. The Chairman reported that the Ad Hoc Group met on Monday, 24 October 1999.  The Group
discussed the two draft recommendations which are before the Group for consideration. As the Group
was not able to reach a final consensus on the texts in question, the Secretariat was asked to preparefurther revised versions for consideration at the Group's next meeting.  In this regard, several
Members appeared ready to submit additional drafting  suggestions in an effort to reach agreement.
Such specific suggestions would be most welcome, and can be incorporated in the revised versions to
be circulated by the Secretariat.  In order for the Secretariat to be able to include specific drafting
suggestions in revised draft recommendations, Members were asked to submit proposed text as soon
as possible, preferably by 22 November 1999.  The Group made a good start on discussion of the six
topics that were referred to it by the Committee in April of 1999.
41. The Chairman noted that while he was pleased by the attendance of delegates and especially
experts from capitals, and the participation in the discussions, he was a little disappointed that so few
papers were submitted on the new topics under discussion.  He urged Members who did not submit
papers for the meeting to begin preparation of submissions for the next meeting, in particular
responding to the questions raised in the papers that were submitted, and if possible suggestingrelevant guidelines or criteria for the various implementation issues that might serve as a basis for
further discussions.  As usual, the Secretariat would prepare and circulate a reminder of the topics for
discussion at the next meeting.
42. The Group agreed to schedule its next meeting for the Monday and Tuesday, 1 and
2 May 2000, during the same week that the Committee meets. Submissions for the next meeting of theGroup are due no later than 20 March 2000.  The Chairman urged Members to make a strong effort to
comply with this deadline, so that documents could be translated and circulated in a timely fashion
before the Group's meeting.
43. Finally, the Chairman recalled that, before the Group began its discussions, he had made
some comments on the work of the Group and its mandate.  He had raised the subject because ofcomments made in the process leading up to the Seattle Ministerial suggesting that the Ad Hoc Group
was ineffective because it was considering only "non-controversial" topics, and had had little success,
as it had produced only one recommendation since it started its work.  The implications of these
comments was that the Group should be undertaking a more ambitious work programme, and should
be producing more results in the form of recommendations on implementation.
44. The Chairman had observed that the Group was established in April 1996 "to prepare
recommendations on issues where agreement seemed possible and report to the Committee, andconsider other issues regarding implementation on which Members believed discussion would be
helpful."  Topics for the Group's consideration were decided by the Committee in October 1996, and
the Group began substantive discussions on those topics in April 1997. Discussions on a series of new
topics began at the meeting on Monday.  To date, one recommendation developed in the Group had
been adopted by the Committee, and two additional draft recommendations were under consideration.
45. It seemed clear from the comments that were made by Members on this topic that some
believed the Group could, and should, do more.  The Chairman recalled that it is the Committee
which sets the agenda for the Ad Hoc Group.  Therefore, it seemed appropriate to open the floor to
discussion of this matter at this time.  In particular, concrete suggestions for ways in which the scope
of the Group's work, its methods of work, or the pace of its work, could be improved so as to increasethe benefit Members derive from the Group, would be useful.
46. The delegate of Israel appreciated the opportunity to comment on the work of the Ad Hoc
Group, and wished to stress the benefits her government reaps from the meetings of the Ad HocG/ADP/M/15
Page 8
Group.  Israel understood that one of the main objectives of the Group was to endeavour to come to
commonly agreed rules of application of the Agr eement.  In light of one of the most important
underlying principles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, namely the importance of transparency
between the various Members' procedures concerning anti-dumping proceedings, Israel felt that the
Group is a most suitable vehicle for achieving this important goal.  The discussions that take place in
the Group, together with the papers submitted, in the presence of many capital experts, ensure that
transparency between the various systems is achieved not only in principle but in reality as well.
Papers submitted in the Group had, on several occasions, been referred to by Israeli investigating
authorities in solving certain problems and issues that have arisen.
47. In order to ensure the continuing success of the Group, Israel wished to suggest that the
Group move on to discuss topics of a more substantial character.  Israel understood that this meant
discussing what has been frequently described as "contentious" issues, but felt that the Group is thesuitable forum and vehicle to discuss such topics.  In fact, Israel had proposed two topics at the
April 1999 meeting dealing with such subjects, but they  were rejected on the basis that they were too
contentious.  In Israel's view, the Group had matu red since its inception to the point that useful
discussions could take place even on more substantial issues.
48. The delegate of Venezuela observed that in her country's view, the Group had been effective
and had enabled all participants to know how ot her Members administer the Agreement in their
countries.  Understanding how other Members apply the Agreement helps in recognizing grey areas
and areas that are difficult for interpretation, and how the Agreement is applied in such instances.  In
Venezuela's view, the Group's work was a very profitable exercise which should be continued.  Of
course, if the question was whether the Group could do more, then in Venezuela's view the answerwas clearly yes.  Since the Group could not establish legally binding rules, but only make
recommendations, why couldn't it deal with subjects that were considered more controversial?
Venezuela would urge the Group to go further and to take up other issues, including those which are
controversial.  Of course, real issues might not be resolved in the Group, but Members should not be
afraid to expand the scope of discussions in the Group, which had been most useful to all Members.
49. The delegate of Australia noted that Australia considered the Group to be extremely useful for
all the reasons that had been mentioned.  It provid ed a useful forum for people involved in anti-
dumping administration to have the considered views of others.  There are grey areas, and sometimes
it is not possible to reach consensus but nevertheless the discussions are quite enlightening.  However,
Australia shared the view that the Group should move on and discuss more controversial or delicate
areas.  This was an area which again would provide benefit to Australia and to other administrations.
To the extent that those topics had not been able to be discussed to date, Australia considered this tobe regrettable.
50. The delegate of Brazil recalled that, as he had mentioned at the meeting of the Ad Hoc Group,
Brazil agreed that the Group was useful.  It served a purpose of transparency, and also a purpose of
education, but it did not address the concerns and difficulties that Brazil had had with implementation
of the Agreement by some Members over the course of its existence.   Brazil was willing to discuss inthe Group any type of issue that Members bring to the table, be they controversial or non-
controversial.  Brazil was ready to engage in any kind of exercise that would address those issues, but
was convinced that given the history of discussions in the Group, those issues would not be resolved
in a satisfactory way in the near future.  Therefore, Brazil would pursue these issues in another
context, that of a Negotiating Round, but that did not preclude that the Group continue to addressthem as well.  However, given the slow progress in the Group to date, Brazil considered it best to
pursue such issues in another context.
51. The delegate of Canada welcomed the opportunity to comment on the work of the Ad Hoc
Group in advance of the Seattle Ministerial Meeting.  As a long-time user and target of such
measures, Canada was well aware of the pros a nd cons of anti-dumping measures.  The UruguayG/ADP/M/15
Page 9
Round addressed some of these concerns.  However, many aspects of the Agreement were still
unclear, as witnessed by the deliberations of the Ad Hoc Group which had highlighted the diversity in
practice and questions respecting interpretation of the rules.  The Ad Hoc Group had a mandate to
examine issues in an effort to provide guidance on the interpretation of the Agreement.  While the
work of the Group provided significant educationa l value there had been differences in views among
Members as to the type of issues that the Group could constructively address.  Some Members had
insisted that only procedural or issues that are not too complex could effectively be addressed by the
Group.  While Canada had been supportive of discussions on all issues raised in the context of the
Group, it recognized that it is very difficult to reach consensus on interpretation, particularly in cases
where the Agreement is unclear and countries have, as a result, developed different practices and
approaches.   In this regard, the Ad Hoc Group ca nnot clarify that which is not in the Agreement and
it was thus unable to reach a consensus on important issues that have been raised by Members.Therefore, unless the mandate of the Ad Hoc Group was significantly expanded to allow the Group to
address substantive issues, it was Canada's view that efforts to further improve the rules governing
anti-dumping must be addressed within the context of a negotiation.
52. The delegate of the European Community endorsed the statements made by speakers that the
Group is very useful and the work it does is helpful.  Success should not be measured by the number
of recommendations the Group has agreed on.  Success should be measured by the type of discussions
had and what Members learn from each other's practice.  The European Community reiterated its
statement made in the meeting of the Group on Monday that it would not be opposed to discussion of
more controversial topics if there were a consensus in favour of such a step.  However, should
Members decide to discuss also controversial topics, then in the view of the Community, anotherprocess of proposing and selecting topics would be needed.
53. The delegate of the United States shared in the satisfaction expressed by others with much of
what the Group has done.  Members had had very interesting exchanges in the Group, and the Group
had also spawned bilateral and other contacts between the United States and other Members, both
during and after the meetings.  For that reason, she considered it very important to continue tomaintain the momentum in the Group and to improve it.  All Members should work hard to participate
more fully in the Group.  She expressed some puzzlement over the notion that a topic is either
controversial or not controversial under the Agreement.  For some Members a particular issue may or
may not be controversial depending on their own practice and how they have developed that practice
over the years.  However, it was perhaps a bit of a misnomer to characterize issues as controversial or
not controversial as if that were a litmus test - in any event, the United States had not been using it as
such in deciding which issues are appropriate fo r discussion in the Ad Hoc Group and which are not.
The United States did think it important to discuss issues where there were a wide variety of practices
on which agreement might be possible, particularly since under the Group's current mandate it cannot
be used to build upon what is in the Agreement.  The United States considered it important that
Members use the Group as a friendly forum to establish relationships and to develop
recommendations.  It seemed, however, that some Me mbers wanted both to discuss "controversial"
issues, whatever those might be, and also to reach recommendations.  Members seemed to be backing
themselves into a bit of a corner by wanting both of these things at the same time.  Practicality
suggested that the Group work on issues where Members thought they could reach agreement.  When
the Group was established, it was agreed that these would be issues of implementation.  The
United States was not opposed to considering a ne w way of proposing and adopting topics.  The
United States would certainly woul d look at new topics and would welcome the suggestions of any
Members who wanted to suggest new ways to move forward.   However, it was important not to
create a situation that would lead to comments of the nature that the Group was not doing its work.  In
the United States view, that was inaccurate, because the best thing coming out of the Group was the
relationships being built with the experts from capitals.  If Members spent too much time talkingabout what the Group should do and how it should do it and all the rules for doing it, the experts from
capitals were going to have very little time to ta lk about the substantive issues that they came to
Geneva to discuss.G/ADP/M/15
Page 10
54. The Chairman stated that while the discussion had been useful, it did not seem ripe for any
conclusions at this stage.  There seemed to be agreement concerning the usefulness of the Group and
the effort the Group had made in trying to reach a better understanding of practices in individual
Members.  However, there also seemed to be some agreement that the Group could and should do
more.  At the same time, the Group had just embarked on the discussion of six new topics, and it didnot seem the time to enlarge the list of topics under discussion.  In addition, the Group had before it
two draft recommendations, which could perhaps be discussed and adopted at the next meeting.  He
suggested that Members reflect on what could be done to improve the Group's activities.  In this
regard, he stressed the importance of timely submissions, to allow for full consideration of issues and
participation by capital based experts.
55. The Chairman suggested that he might consu lt informally with Members on these matters
before the next meeting of the Ad Hoc Group?
56. The delegate of Hong Kong, China enquired whether the Chairman intended to consult
concerning new topics, or whether the question was a potential change in the Group's mandate, or
both.
57. The delegate of the United States suggested th at the Chairman might consult informally on
the two draft recommendations before the next meetin g in the hope that they can be adopted at that
meeting.
58. The delegate of Venezuela asked for clarification concerning the informal consultations
proposed by the Chairman.
59. The Chairman clarified that he did not intend to open any discussion on new topics for the
Group, or on any specific changes in the way topics are selected for discussion in the Group.  Rather,
he simply intended to consult informally with Members concerning what they wanted the Group to
do, and whether changes were necessary in order to effectively proceed further.
60. The Committee took note of the statements made.
E. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION.
61. The Chairman reported that the meeting of the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention on
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 was very productive.  Despite the fact that there were no new papers
submitted for this meeting, there was a good discussion of the matters addressed by the United States
in its most recent paper, with questions raised by a number of delegations, and answered on the spot.
62. Following the general discussion, the Chairman had presented his thoughts on the matters that
had been raised by Members in their papers and in  the discussions concerning the first topic, "what
constitutes circumvention."  He was pleased to report that Members subsequently agreed that it wasappropriate for the Informal Group to go on to consider the next topic under the agreed upon
framework for discussions, that is, "What is being done by Members confronted with what they
consider to be circumvention".  Indeed, several Members observed that, in practice, the Group had
effectively already started discussions of this topic in the context of considering the specific cases that
had been described as examples in Members' submissions.
63. The agreement of Members that the Informal Group could appropriately move on to
consideration of the next topic was reached with the recognition that the Group has not yet exhausted
discussion of the first topic, and has not yet reached a consensus on the question of what constitutes
circumvention.  Moving on to the second topic did not prejudge either the outcome of the discussions
in the Informal Group, or the position of any Member.  Indeed, as the Chairman had made clear, theG/ADP/M/15
Page 11
first topic remained open for disucssion, and it was hoped that discussions under the second topic
might help to clarify for Members the question of what constitutes circumvention.  Finally, of course,
as noted in the framework for the discussions, noth ing is agreed until everything is agreed.  Thus, by
moving on to discussion of the second topic, the Informal Group is broadening the scope of its
discussions, but is not foreclosing any possibilities for the future of those discussions.
64. The Chairman therefore invited Members to submit papers on the topic of "what is being
done by Members confronted with what they consider to be circumvention" for discussion by the
Group at its next meeting, scheduled for May 2000.  Of course, additional papers on the first topic,
"what constitutes circumvention" would also be  welcome.  The deadline for submissions is
Wednesday 22 March 2000, and the Chairman urged Members to make maximum efforts to respect
this deadline.  Particularly with a new topic open for consideration, it was most important that
Members be able to prepare substantively in capitals for the discussions in the Informal Group.
65. The Committee took note of the Chairman’s statement.
F. US ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN JAPANESE STEEL PRODUCTS (ITEM
REQUESTED BY JAPAN)
66. The delegate of Japan stated that, since 1997, United States steel producers and steelworkers
unions had filed a large number of anti-dumping petitions with the US authorities on steel products
from Japan.  As a result, the majority of Japan's steel exports to the United States had been or are
subject to anti-dumping investigations or have had anti-dumping duties imposed.  The United States
actions against imported steel were not limited to Japan.  Steel imports from over twenty countries
had been the subject of the recent US anti-dumping procedures, including Brazil, Korea, Germany,
France, the Netherlands, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Turkey, Canada, Argentina, Venezuela,South Africa, Italy, United Kingdom, Swede n, Mexico, Czech Republic, Macedonia, Romania,
Chinese Taipei, China, and Russia.
67. Although anti-dumping measures are authorized under international trade rules, they are
exceptions to the free trade principles that underlie th e rules.  As filing a petition itself has a chilling
effect on trade, even if no measures are imposed eventually, it was especially important that anti-dumping measures not be applied in an abusive manner.  In this regard, Japan had a serious concern
about the United States measures.  The most recent example was the US anti-dumping case against
hot rolled steel from Japan.  In this hot rolled steel case, the US anti-dumping authorities applied
statutory provisions and employed practices that are contrary to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
In Japan's view, the US authorities engaged in such abusive practices to satisfy intense domestic
political pressure, which may explain but cannot justify the US actions.  Japan decided to request a
formal consultation under the WTO dispute settlement procedures, and had also paid close attention tothe outstanding investigations in light of their consistency with the WTO Agreement.  A written
request for consultations would be submitted shortly.   Japan would welcome the participation of other
members as third parties.
68. The delegate of the United States noted with interest the statement made by the Japanese
delegation.  She observed that no specific statements were made regarding the areas of concern about
the US investigatory practices, not even to mention whether they concerned dumping or injury.
Consequently, she was a bit at a loss as to exactly which practices Japan wished to consult with the
United States about.  No consultation request had been received as yet, and therefore, the United
States was not in a position to react.  However, the United States did not believe that any of its
practices in these investigations of steel prod ucts could be questioned under the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.  The United States took great pains to  comply very meticulously with the provisions of
the Agreement and had done so in these steel cases, despite the wave of steel imports that had come
into the United States over the last couple of years.G/ADP/M/15
Page 12
69. However, on one specific point made by the Japanese delegation, the United States disagreed.
The United States does not view Article VI of the GATT or the Anti-Dumping Agreement as an
exception to international trade rules in any sense.  It  is clear that this is a central part of the WTO
system.  It had been negotiated into the international framework and it remained in place as a central
part of the international trading system.  In no way did the United States see the anti-dumping laws asan exception to the general trading rules of the syst em.  The United States employed them with great
care.  The United States looked forward to consulti ng with Japan if a formal request for consultations
under the DSU was received , and would participate fully in that process.  She thanked the delegation
of Japan for the early statement about its concern, and looked forward to a more specific conversation
when Japan had informed the United States precisely what its concerns were.
70. The Committee took note of the statements made.
G. AUSTRALIA - ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION ON A4 COPY PAPER (ITEM
REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)
71. The delegate of Brazil stated that the Australian Government, by means of the Australian
Customs Dumping Notice No. 99/023 of 29 June 1999, self-initiated an anti-dumping investigation on
Brazilian exports of A4 copy paper of three Brazilian enterprises.  This investigation was self-initiated
due to alleged special circumstances, taking into account a history of dumping and of threat ofdumping by Brazilian exporters of A4 copy paper, and material injury to the domestic Australian
industry, as established by "Trade Measures Reports Nos. 3 and 4" dated January 1999.
72. The Brazilian Government brought this case to the attention of the Committee in light of what
it considered to be violations of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  First, in the view of Brazil, thereasons provided to justify the initiation of the investigation were not supported by evidence that
dumping occurred nor that there was injury to the Australian domestic industry, as required by
Article 5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
73. Brazil stated its view that the reasons set out in the public notice by the Australian authorities
concerning the existence of an alleged "history of dumping" and "threat of dumping" by Brazilian
exporters did not justify the initiation of the investigation. In this regard, Brazil noted the following
points regarding the steps taken by Australian authorities.
- In 1994, anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports of A4 copy paper from
various countries, including Brazil.  Brazilian exporters included in the order were
Votorantin, Memo and Champion.
- In 1994/1995, these same exporters filed lawsuits at Australian Courts against the
imposition of the anti-dumping duties.  These courts eventually ordered the
revocation of the duties imposed on the exports of two of those enterprises – Nemo
and Champion.  Later, a price undertaking was signed with these exporters, whichallowed for the continuation of the trade flow.
- In 1996, the domestic enterprise "Australian paper" asked for a review of the
measures imposed, and to include Ripasa, another Brazilian exporter not previously
affected by the anti-dumping duties, in the scope of this new review investigation.  Asa result of this review, anti-dumping duties were again imposed to Brazilian exports
by Nemo, Votorantin, Champion and now also Ripasa.
- In 1997/1998, a new law suit was filed by Brazilian exporters and again the anti-
dumping duties imposed on exports of Nemo, Champion and Ripasa were revoked.Only anti-dumping  duties on exports by Votorantin were maintained.G/ADP/M/15
Page 13
- In 1998, a sunset review was initiated, aimed at verifying the necessity to maintain
the anti-dumping duties imposed on exports by Votorantin.
- In 1999, the Australian investigating authority determined that the revocation of the
duties imposed on Votorantin exports would not result in the recurrence of dumpingor material injury to the domestic industry.  Therefore, it was determined that anti-
dumping  duties imposed on Votorantin exports should not be maintained.
- In spite of this determination, and even nullifying it, in 1999 Australia imposed "anti-
dumping securities" on Brazilian exports by Nemo, Champion and Ripasa, which,
once again, were challenged in the Australian courts.  The Australian Government
then revoked these "securities".
74. In Brazil's view, it was clear from the above, that the history described indicates not a "history
of dumping practice" on the part of Brazilian expo rters, as alleged by Australian investigating
authorities, but in fact a history of trade barriers raised against Brazil.  Assuming, arguendo , that
Brazilian exporters had practiced dumping, according to the findings of the 93/94 investigation, thiscould not be used to justify the opening of the present investigation.  Those findings were based on
price data from almost five years before the date when this new ex-officio  investigation was opened.
As such, they could not constitute elements of proof of dumping practice on the part of Brazilian
exporters in recent years.  To prove dumping, more recent data on prices should have been used, as a
sine qua non  condition for the opening of an anti-dumping investigation, either on an ex-officio  basis
or not.
75. With regard to the Australian argument concerning a "threat of dumping", Brazil observed
that this notion is not found in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Therefore, no anti-dumping
investigation could be initiated on the presupposition that an enterprise might, in the future, practicedumping.
76. The delegate of Brazil observed that Australian Customs Dumping Notice No. 99 mentions
Trade Measures Reports Nos. 3 and 4, of January 1999 as the basis for the initiation of the
investigation.  However, in Brazil's view, these reports do not support the self-initiation by the
Australian authorities, since they do not contain any elements whatsoever on proof of dumping
practiced by Brazilian exporters, nor on injury caused by the alleged dumped imports, as required byArticle 5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Tr ade Measure Report No. 3 refers to the final
determination of the sunset review concerning the anti-dumping duties imposed on the exports of
three Brazilian enterprises, including Votorantin.  As mentioned above, the final determination related
to this enterprise concluded that the anti-dumpi ng duty should be revoked, since neither dumping nor
material injury would recur as a result.  Report No. 3 also indicates that the review undertaken in 1998
related to the normal value of one of the main Brazilian exporters determined that, in the second half
of 1997, this company was not dumping its exports to Australia.  In Brazil's view, it was clear that
neither the public reports, nor the determinations made public by the Australian authorities contain
any grounds for their allegations that there was a history of dumping by Brazilian exporters.
77. With respect to the alleged injury to the Australian domestic industry, the delegate of Brazil
noted that data from Report No. 3 indicated that Brazilian export sales to the Australian market had
decreased in absolute and also in relative terms (share of apparent consumption).  Data obtained from
the Australian Statistical Department indicated a fall in Brazilian exports from 1996/97 to 1998/99.  In
the same period exports from another origin, at lower export prices than the ones practiced byBrazilian exporters, increased in significant amounts, displacing Brazilian exports.  As a consequence,
Australian imports of A4 copy paper originating from Brazil, during the relevant period, 1998-1999
represented, according to data available to Brazil, only 2.2 per cent of total imports.  Since exports
from another origin are the ones which showed a significant increase, the volume of imports fromG/ADP/M/15
Page 14
Brazil, actual or potential, was "negligible" with in the meaning of Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.  Therefore, if material injury exists, it is caused by factors other than Brazilian exports.
78. With regard to the injury determination contai ned in Report No. 4, Brazil considered it worth
noting that the domestic industry under analysis in this report included producers of other types ofcopy paper besides A4.  It constitutes, then, a different domestic industry, not the one pertaining to the
present investigation against Brazilian exports (one refers to all the domestic production of copy paper
and the other concerns only the production of A4 copy paper).  Even if one would examine the data
referring to Brazilian exports to Australia of all kinds of copy paper, one would verify that these also
have, as a whole, decreased, in absolute and relative terms.  Report No. 4 does not contain any
evidence of dumping nor injury caused by Brazilian e xports of A4 copy paper.  Once again, the facts
show that if any material injury exists to the domestic Australian industry, is it caused by factors otherthan Brazilian exports, which have actually been displaced due to the continuous trade restrictions
unduly introduced by unsupported and recurring initiation of anti-dumping investigations.
79. Brazil stated its belief that the requirements of Article 5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
were not adequately fulfilled by the Australian Government and requested the Australian authoritiesto rectify the situation and proceed to promptly terminate this ex-officio  investigation if they have not
done so already.  Brazil noted that it had recently received information that since Brazilian exports
constitute less than 3 per cent of total Australian imports of A4 copy paper, the Australian Customs
had recommended the termination of this investigation to the Minister for Justice and Customs.
Brazil was glad to hear about this recommendation, and would appreciate it if the AustralianGovernment could confirm it.  Nevertheless, Brazil had raised this issue in the Committee in light of
the negative distortive effects and of the losses experienced by Brazilian exporters due to the
unfounded recurrence of investigations carried out by the Australian authorities.  This was a trend or
practice that concerned Brazil and that should be avoided by all Members.
80. The delegate of Australia observed that the present concern of the Brazilian delegation
appeared to concern a new inquiry that had reached the stage where termination had been
recommended.  He wished to clarify one or two points.  Firstly, the present inquiry was undertaken as
a result of a court decision which overturned a customs finding on price, based on a legal view of
what was included in price.  It did not overturn th e original application, so therefore technically, the
Australian authorities had an application before them.  However, there was a recommendation by the
court to redetermine that matter according to the law, a relatively unusual circumstance.  Legally, theAustralian authorities could have proceeded administratively to determine the matter without any
transparency whatsoever.  Instead, they chose to use the special circumstances provision, because
under that the Minister can declare what procedures would be adopted.  The Australian authorities
adopted all the procedures available in respect of a normal application other than the fact that a new
application did not need to be lodged because of the ruling of the Court.  The Australian authoritiessaw this as a way of enabling due process to be observed for all parties.  And it was.
81. The next point was that at the review stage, th e Australian authorities were not in a position
factually to determine whether imports were de minimis or not.  Based on the information before the
Australian authorities, which suggested that about 4.2 per cent of imports were from Brazil, of whichthe best estimate was that about 94 per cent was A4 paper, the Australian authorities thought they had
no choice but to proceed.  Having proceeded, and with all due process, the findings were that the
imports were de minimis .  The matter had now reached the position where the Australian authorities
had recommended to the Minister that she terminate th is matter.  At this stage, the Australian delegate
was not aware of any final conclusion by the Minister.  All that could be put on record was therecommendation of the Australian authorities.
82. In the view of Australia, in terms of the Article 5.8, what the Australian authorities did in fact
constituted a special circumstance.  Indeed, Australia had acted out of a sense of obligation to ensure
that the parties involved, including the exporters, were properly and adequately protected in terms ofG/ADP/M/15
Page 15
the process.  In respect of the findings made, these matters were considered by the Minister with
reports before her to refer to.  The fact that imports from Brazil had declined over the period could be
assumed to be a natural consequence of the dumping findings that were already in place or had been
in place.  Therefore there was nothing necessarily unusual at all about the fact that imports from
Brazil had declined significantly.  One could draw the conclusion that they could not compete in theAustralian market-place unless they were selling at dumped prices.  In addition, there was evidence of
imports about to recommence.  There was a hist ory of dumping from Brazil and there were orders
being placed, and those facts went to the question of threat.  Also there had been positive findings of
injury in the past concerning imports from Brazil.  The fact that dumped shipments had been replaced
by other shipments can be looked at in two ways, namely that the orders had achieved their purpose.
83. The Committee took note of the statements made.
H. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) South Africa - Anti-dumping duties applied on uncoated, woodfree,  46-80 gsm A4 white cut
paper imported from Brazil
84. The delegate of Brazil stated that on April 1998, South Africa initiated an investigation on the
alleged dumping of uncoated, woodfree, 46 to 80 gsm A4 cut paper, originating in or imported from
Brazil and Indonesia.  In October 1998 provisional measures on these imports were imposed.  Finally,
in May 1999, anti-dumping duties were imposed.  Brazil wished to comment on this investigation
since it believed that violations of the Anti-Dumping Agreement had taken place.
85. The delegate of Brazil observed that the determination of injury was based on the analysis of
the situation of one single producer, the petitioner, who represents only a minor proportion of the total
domestic production of the similar product.  In Brazil's view, this procedure violates Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, which establishes that:
"… the term "domestic industry" shall be interpreted as referring to the domestic
producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them whose collective output
of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of
those products."
86. In Brazil's view, to comply with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the South African domestic
industry producing A4 cut paper should have been de fined as including the total production of the two
South African producers or, if not possible, the South African producer responsible for the "major
proportion" of the total domestic production of the similar product.  The situation of a minor producer
does not necessarily reflect the situation of a domestic industry.  In effect, if the South African
authorities had based their determination on the actual situation of the domestic industry, as defined
by the Agreement, a negative determination of injury caused by the imports under investigation wouldhave been reached and anti-dumping duties would not have been applied.
87. Second, Brazil was convinced that the South African authorities did not observe the
provisions of Article 6.9 of the Agreement.  As far as was known, before the final determination was
made, the South African authorities did not make a final disclosure, that is, they did not informinterested parties of the essential facts that were taken into consideration, which formed the basis for
their decision to impose definitive measures.  Therefore, South Africa had restricted the participation
of and disregarded the right for defence to which Brazilian exporters and other interested parties were
entitled.
88. In light of the above, the Brazilian Government understood that South Africa had not acted in
conformity with the provisions the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and would appreciate it if the South
African authorities could clarify the matter.G/ADP/M/15
Page 16
89. The delegate of South Africa thanked the delegate of Brazil and noted that it was only that
morning that her delegation became aware that this issue would be on the agenda, and only a few
moments earlier that she received the written papers.  Consequently, South Africa was not in a
position to respond fully to the delegate of Brazil, but would submit a written response to the query.However, she would make some comments and hopefully clarify a few issues based on her
recollection of the facts of that case and a few issues in the interpretation of the Agreement.
90. Firstly, Brazil correctly quoted the latter portion of Article 4.1 referring to what constitutes "a
major proportion of the domestic production of those products".  In the paragraph after the quote,
however, there is a reference to the fact that in order to comply with the Agreement, the South African
domestic industry should have been defined as including the total production of the two South Africanproducers, or if not possible, the South African producer responsible for the major proportion of the
domestic production of the similar product.  In South Africa's view, that is not what the Agreement
says.  The reference is to "a major proportion" of the total domestic production, not "the major
proportion".  South Africa's interpretation of that language was that it is not necessary for the
petitioner or the analysis of injury to analyse that portion of the industry that represents over 50 percent – it should be a major proportion, but not necessarily over 50 per cent.
91. In any event, notwithstanding South Africa's interpretation of "a major proportion", in this
particular case, the industry, the petitioner, based on the recollection of the delegate, was one of the
only two producers of paper in South Africa, and in fact they are both major producers.  Dependingon the particular products of paper they would both be  close to 50 per cent.  It would be variable in
certain types of the product - it can be 55, 45, 40, 60, but both are major producers in that sense of the
word.  So the reference to "minor producer" woul d, in South Africa's view, be misleading.  Again,
notwithstanding that clarification, in this particular case, based on recollection, the petitioner in fact
constituted over 50 per cent of the collective output of this particular product.  In addition, while theother producer in South Africa was not a petitioner, it did support the petition and the South African
authorities were able to get some information on injury, in particular sales and production figures.  So
the South African authorities did analyse the entire industry in respect of certain of the injury factors
where they were able to do so.  While she would have to check to be certain of the facts of the
situation, this was the delegate's recollection of the facts.
92. The second point raised by Brazil relates to Article 6.9 of the Agreement.  Again it is possibly
a matter of interpretation of the issue of what would constitute essential facts for the purpose of
satisfying Article 6.9.  Again, based on recollection in this particular case, the Government of Brazil
before the final determination particularly requested the South African authorities to furnish them
with the essential facts.  South Africa's practice is , prior to the final determ ination, to refer to the
preliminary report and provide any additional issues or facts, the essential facts, which may havechanged since the preliminary determination.  Generally, parties would always be referred to the
detailed preliminary report, but to the extent any fa cts or issues raised by the parties may change the
final outcome, the authorities would in addition set those out for all the parties.
93. In this particular case, in response to the Government of Brazil's request particularly for the
essential facts, the South African authorities pointed them to the preliminary determination and
advised that to the extent that anything might ch ange in the final determination or new information
was being considered, that would be pointed out to all the parties prior to the final determination.  In
fact, this did not occur.  There were no new and additional essential facts subsequent to the
preliminary determination.
94. The South African delegate reiterated her willingness to submit a response in writing after an
opportunity to check on and confirm some of the facts referred to above.G/ADP/M/15
Page 17
95. The delegate of Brazil stated that, concerning the definition of the major proportion, it
appeared in fact that Brazil had a different interpretation.  Maybe this was an issue which could be
brought to the Ad Hoc Group, to discuss the nuance difference between "a" and "the" major
proportion.  Certainly, Brazil's interpretation did not correspond with what the South African delegate
stated.  Secondly as far as the essential facts, the requirements of Article 6.9, were concerned, Brazilalso had a completely different interpretation.  Brazil did not consider that the exporters or the
exporting government should have to request to be informed.  This was an obligation on the
investigating authority, to disclose.  Brazil also beli eved that the information to be presented at this
stage of the investigation should be almost the final information contained in the files and not only
preliminary, and includes any information which may be contained in the files.  Perhaps this too was
another issue to be discussed in the Ad Hoc Group.
96. The delegate of South Africa clarified that the South African authorities do not wait for
parties to request essential facts.  These are provided as a matter of practice - the South African
authorities send out an essential facts letter prior to the final determination, giving parties an
opportunity to comment.  However, in this case the South African authorities did have a particular
request from the Government of Brazil prior to the time when the data would normally be sent out.However, it was certainly not South African practice to wait for a request in that regard.
(ii) Canada - Anti-dumping investigation on corrugated steel bars from Cuba
97. The delegate of Cuba stated that, in its Semi-Annual Report Canada had notified the
Committee of the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation into corrugated steel bars from Cuba.
On 14 September 1999, Canada adopted a preliminary affirmative determination of dumping and
consequent injury to the Canadian industry.  Regard ing this investigation, Cuba wished to inform the
Committee of its concern at the way in which the proceedings were conducted, which Cuba
considered inconsistent with the disc iplines in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
98. Cuba referred to the way in which the Canadian investigating authority applied Article 15 of
the Agreement, which provides that developed country Members should recognize the special
situation of developing country Members when envi saging the application of anti-dumping measures,
and that the possibilities of utilising constructive remedies be explored before applying anti-dumping
duties, especially when the measures might affect the essential interests of developing country
Members.   Notwithstanding this requirement, ne ither the Cuban exporters nor the Cuban Government
perceived that the Canadian authorities took any practical action during the proceedings todemonstrate their willingness to recognize the special and differential treatment to be given to Cuba as
a developing country Member.
99. Canada initiated the anti-dumping investigation combining the case of Cuba with those of two
other important exporters.  When Cuba was informed of the initiation of the proceedings, however, itrequested that its exports to Canada be investigated separately, with a view to obtaining a fairer
evaluation of the small Cuban steel industry because its potential exports to the Canadian market
would never be in such volumes that they might constitute a threat of injury to Canada's mighty steel
industry.  Although it was true that the volume of  Cuban exports increased during the period fixed for
the investigation, there were certain trends in other imports of this product that should be taken intoaccount when determining injury and the causal relationship with the dumped imports.  Cuba's request
was not heeded because there was no political will to give practical effect to Article 15 on special and
differential treatment, which is applied by Canada in its relevant legislation.
100. From the beginning of the proceedings, the Cuban authorities also emphasized to the
Canadian Minister of National Revenue the need to reflect on the way in which the normal value was
to be estimated for Cuban exports.  Canada considers that the value of Cuban exports should be
determined on the basis of the normal value of exports in one of the countries covered by the
investigation.  The preliminary affirmative determ ination reiterated the original estimate for Cuba,G/ADP/M/15
Page 18
together with the highest dumping margin in the inve stigation, claiming that Cuba failed to cooperate.
Cuba stressed that both the exporter and the Cuban producer responded to the questionnaires giving
the information reasonably available to them and within the time-limit set by Revenue Canada, with
only a short extension of three days.  Even though the questionnaires were incomplete, Cuban parties
were requested to furnish information during this period and have it translated.
101. The questionnaire submitted to the Government did not receive a response because its scope
went beyond the objective of the investigation.  C uba believed that the information provided by the
exporter was sufficient, if the investigating author ity had acceded to the request originally made by
Cuba.  In view of Canada's long participation in this Committee, where it had always advocated strict
compliance with the rules, and taking into account the good trade relations and the collaboration
between the two countries, Cuba hoped that during the remainder of the investigation proceedings the
Canadian authorities would correctly interpret Article  15 of the Agreement to the letter and apply the
special and differential treatment due to a developing country.
102. The delegate of Canada thanked the delegate of Cuba, and noted that the respective parties
had agreed to meet over the course of the next few days to address some of the concerns that the
Cuban delegation had raised.  However, the Canadian delegate took the opportunity to respond to
some of the points raised by the Cuban delegate.  First of all, with respect to the initiation, the
Canadian authorities determined that a properly documented complaint had indeed been filed and that
the requirements of Article 5.8 of the Agreement in respect of de minimis  volumes and negligibility
had been met.  With respect to cooperation and flexibility by Canada, as had been noted already,Canada had agreed to meet with Cuba's delegate.  However, there had already been at least two
exchanges of correspondence between the two Geneva missions since this case was initiated.  In
addition, the Canadian Ambassador in Cuba had recently met with Cuban authorities and again
reviewed the procedures.
103. The Canadian delegate emphasized the importance of completing the questionnaires and
providing the Canadian authorities with information upon which decisions can be made.  With respect
to Article 15 and the special considerations, Canada was certainly aware of Cuba's status as a
developing country and Canada's obligations in respect to developing countries as provided for in the
Agreement.  Canada was quite prepared to discuss the possibilities of constructive remedies which
may be identified by the Government of Cuba prio r to the final determination of dumping and injury.
In the interim however, Canada also emphasized the importance of receiving a complete response toquestionnaires that were sent to the Government of  Cuba and to the exporters to ensure that the
Canadian authorities' determination could be made on the basis of complete facts, particularly
concerning the Cuban economy and its domestic markets.
(iii) Chairman's letter to the Chairman  of the Council for Trade in Goods
104. The Chairman reminded Members that he had sent a letter to the Chairman of the Council for
Trade in Goods concerning the activity of this Committee since its last annual report in October 1998.
As Members were aware, the Goods Council met to consider annual reports of subsidiary bodies on
15 October 1999.  As the Committee's regular meeting was already scheduled for after that date,
rather than call a special meeting to adopt an inte rim report for consideration by the Goods Council,
the Chairman had sent a letter to the Goods Council Chairman setting forth a factual statement of the
activities of the Committee, and its subsidiary bodies the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation and the
Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, since the a doption of the Committee's last annual report in
October 1998.  Copies of the Chairman's letter were sent by fax to all Members, and copies were also
circulated prior to the Goods Council meeting on 15 October 1999, at which the Council took note ofthe letter.   The Goods Council also noted the fact that the Committee would be meeting in late
October, would adopt its Annual Report at that time, and would forward it to the Goods Council as
soon thereafter as possibleG/ADP/M/15
Page 19
105. The Committee took note of all the statements made
I. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
106. The Chairman reminded Members that the Committee had 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.  Accordingly, the next regular meeting of the Committee would normally be held in
the week of 24 April 2000.  However, as that week begins with the Easter holiday, the next regular
meeting of the Committee would instead be held the following week, the week of 1 May 2000.  In
light of previously scheduled meetings of th e Ad Hoc Group on Implementation and the Informal
Group on Anti-Circumvention, the Committee would therefore meet on Thursday, 4 May 2000.
J. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
107. Before proceeding to discussion and the adoption of the Committee's annual report, the
Chairman noted that a number of complaints about the annual review process in WTO Committees
had been voiced in the context of preparations for the Seattle Ministerial.  Essentially, Members had
raised concern that the annual review process is routine and does not provide an opportunity for
meaningful review of implementation of, inter alia , the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
108. While the Committee early on had decided on a process for conducting its annual reviews,
this was, of course, not written in stone.  The Chairman expressed his willingness to see a change in
the Committee's annual review process if this would make it more useful and meaningful to Members.
However, in order to do that, input from Memb ers regarding how to improve the annual review
process and report was needed.
109. The Chairman recalled that Article 18.6 of the Agreement provides that the Committee shall
review the implementation and operation of the Agreement annually, taking into account its
objectives.  It also provides that the Committ ee shall inform the Council for Trade in Goods of
developments during the period covered by each such review.  Thus, the Committee's responsibility in
this regard might be separated into a review process and a reporting process.  So one question to be
considered was what is it that Members believe should be the nature of the annual review process?  A
second question to be considered was what informat ion or discussion or analysis would Members like
to see in the annual report, keeping in mind that adoption of the annual report requires a consensus
among Members?  Concerning both questions, rather than have a general discussion in the abstract,
the Chairman invited Members to make specific suggestions, so that concrete proposals could beconsidered, and perhaps acted upon.
110. No Member spoke in response to the Chairman's comments
111. The Chairman noted that despite the concerns expressed in other fora, no specific proposals
had been made concerning the Committee's annual review and report.
112. The Committee adopted its annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods.1
113. The meeting was adjourned.
__________
                                                     
1Subsequently circulated as document G/L/340, 1 November 1999.