RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/M/22
21 March 2003
(03-1652)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 24-25 OCTOBER 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Cristian Espinosa Cañizares (Ecuador)
1. The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 24-
25 October 2002.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................... ..........2
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF  ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS ..............................................................5
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI- DUMPING ACTIONS............................6
D. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION
OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION...............7
E. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION..22F. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION.................................................................................................................. ..............24
G. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................... .................24
(i) Korea – India's anti-dumping measures on  NBR (acrylonitrile butadiene rubber)......24
(ii) Korea – Japan's anti-dumping measures on PSF (polyester staple fibre)....................25(iii) European Communities – Anti-dumping investigation by India of cold-rolled flat
products of stainless steel originating in the European Union, Japan, Canada
and the United States ....................................................................................................27
(iv) European Communities – Anti-dumping investigation initiated by the Andean
Community on sorbitol originating in France ..............................................................28
(v) Thailand – Australia's imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of certain steel
shelving kits from Thailand...........................................................................................29
(vi) Thailand – Australia's imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of pineapple
concentrate and canned pineapple from Thailand........................................................30
(vii) Colombia - Mexico's anti-dumping investigation of ceramic tableware and
replacement articles of  ceramic tableware...................................................................31
(viii) Report on Technical Assistance Activities by the Rules Division in the area of
anti-dumping.................................................................................................................31
(ix) Second inquiry by the Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Development
concerning the Committee's activities in respect of special and differential
treatment pr ovisions......................................................................................................32
(x) Inquiry by the Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of
Technology concerning any discussion, submissions or other developments
relating to trade and t echnology tr ansfer .....................................................................33
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..............................................................................................33
I. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6) .......................33G/ADP/M/22
Page 2
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
3. The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda was the review of notifications of new
or amended anti-dumping legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures adopted
by the Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (document G/ADP/W/284, 12 February 1996).
The Chairman observed that a reminder of all applicable deadlines for submissions for the Spring 2003meetings of the Committee, as well as for the Working Group on Implementation and the Informal Group
on Anti-Circumvention, would be circulated shortly and requested Members to respect these deadlines.
4. The Chairman then turned to the substantive discussion.  Questions concerning new
notifications of legislation were to have been submitted to the Member concerned and the Secretariat
no later than three weeks before the meeting, that  is, by 3 October 2002.  As provided for in the
agreed procedures, Members receiving written questions in time, were asked to respond orally to
those questions in the meeting and to respond in writing to all questions received in written form.  TheChairman reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked in the meeting.  Such follow-up
questions had to be submitted in writing no later than 14 November 2002 if the Member posing the
question wished to receive a written answer.  Written answers to all written questions submitted were
to be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 8 January 2003.
5. The Chairman recalled that a notification submitted by Antigua & Barbuda
,
G/ADP/N/1/ATG/1, had been on the agenda of the April 2002 meeting.  The Chairman noted that the
notification on the agenda for this meeting, G/ADP/N/1/ATG/2, had been circulated before the April
meeting, but too late to be included on the agenda of that meeting.  The Committee had taken note of
the circumstances, including the fact that the second notification would be on the agenda of this
meeting.
6. The questions regarding the notification of Antigua & Barbuda can be found in the following
document:
G/ADP/Q1/ATG/1 Submitted by the European Communities 
NO WRITTEN RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE .
7. The Chairman recalled that notification G/ADP/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.5 by  Argentina had been
on the agenda for the April 2002 meeting, and that several Members had raised questions concerning
this notification.  Argentina had made a statement at that meeting, in which it indicated that the entry
into force of the legislation reflected in the notification in question had been delayed pending the
enactment of the necessary implementing regulations.  This was the substance of the notification set
out in document G/ADP/N/1/ARG/Suppl.6, which was on the agenda of this meeting.  No questions
were submitted concerning this notification.
8. Argentina stated that the necessary implementin g regulations still had not been issued and
requested that the Committee defer the review of the legislation contained in document
G/ADP/N/1/ARG/Suppl.5, including the questions subm itted by Members regarding this notification
(G/ADP/Q1/ARG/11, G/ADP/Q1/ARG/12, G/ADP/Q1/ARG/13, G/ADP/Q1/ARG/14, submitted by
the United States, Canada, the European Communities, and Turkey, respectively), until after the
necessary regulations had been issued.
9. The Committee took note of the statement made by Argentina and agreed to revert to this
notification at a later date.
10. The questions regarding the notification of Brazil can be found in the following document:G/ADP/M/22
Page 3
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/10 Submitted by the United States
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/BRA/11 Replies to the United States
11. The Chairman noted that China  had submitted two notifications with respect to national
legislation prior to this meeting: (i) document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/1, containing a list of the laws and
regulations relevant to the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which was included on the agenda under this
item, and (ii) document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2, which wa s a notification of relevant legislative text.
12. No questions were posed concerning the first notification
13. The Committee took note of the first notification.
14. The Chairman noted that second notification had not been received in time for it to be
circulated in all three WTO languages six weeks before the meeting, and was therefore not included in
the agenda of the meeting under the item pertaining to review of national legislation.  The  Chairmanstated that the review of the notification in document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 would be undertaken in the
normal course of business at the next regular meeting of the Committee, in April 2003, pursuant to the
procedures for review of legislation notifications adopted by the Committee in 1996 and set out in
document G/ADP/W/284.  The delegate of China informed the Committee that 11 administrative laws
regarding anti-dumping had been promulgated, that the required translation was in progress and thatthe English version will be notified in advance of the next regular meeting of the Committee.
15. The Committee took note of the statements.
16. The questions regarding the notification of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/TPKM/1 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/TPKM/2 Submitted by the United States
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/ADP/Q1/TPKM/2 Replies to the European Communities and the United States
The Chairman thanked the delegate of Chinese Taipei for having made responses to the questions
available as room documents.  He encouraged other Members to follow this example and provide atleast preliminary written answers in time for the meeting.
17. The Chairman recalled that a notification submitted by Grenada
, G/ADP/N/1/GRD/1, had
been on the agenda of the April 2002 meeting.  The Chairman noted that the notification on the
agenda for this meeting, G/ADP/N/1/GRD/2, had been  circulated before the April meeting, but too
late to be included on the agenda of that meeting.  The Committee had taken note of the
circumstances, including the fact that the second notification would be on the agenda of this meeting.
18. No questions were posed concerning the notification of Grenada.  The Committee took note
of the notification.
19. No questions were posed regarding the notification of Japan.  The Committee took note  of the
notification.G/ADP/M/22
Page 4
20. The questions regarding the notification of Lithuania can be found in the following
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/LTU/1 Submitted by the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/LTU/2 Submitted by the United States
G/ADP/Q1/LTU/3 Submitted by Mexico
Answers to these questions can be found in the following documents:
G/ADP/Q1/LTU/4& Corr. 1 Replies to the European Communities
G/ADP/Q1/LTU/5 Replies to the United States
G/ADP/Q1/LTU/6 Replies to Mexico
The Chairman thanked the delegate of Lithuania for having made responses to the questions posed by
the European Communities and by the United States available as room documents, and again
encouraged other Members to follow this example in the future.
21. No questions were posed concerning the notification of Turkey.  The Committee took note  of
the notification.
22. The Chairman thanked all delegations for their replies to the questions posed, as well as the
Members who had formulated questions.  The process of reviewing notifications continued to be a
positive one, of benefit to all Members.  He reminded Members that follow-up questions were to be
submitted in writing to the Member whose legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat, no laterthan 14 November 2002 if the Member posing the follow-up question wished to receive a written
response.  Members were requested to submit written answers to all questions received in writing by
that date.  Those answers were to be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 8 January 2003.
23. The Chairman reminded Members that, pursuant to the adopted procedures for review of
notifications of legislation contained in document G/ADP/W/284, in order for a new notification of
legislation to appear on the agenda of the spring 2003 meeting of the Committee, it had to circulated
in three languages no later than 20 March 2003.  As a practical matter, in light of the translation
requirements, the Chairman informed the Committee that notifications of legislative text received
after 20 February 2003 were unlikely to be translated in time to meet the above agreed deadline.
24. He informed Members that that the following notifications were expected to be on the agenda
for the next regular meeting of the Committ ee in spring 2003:  G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2 (China),
G/ADP/N/1/DOM/3 (Dominican Republic), G/ADP/N/1/LVA/2/Suppl.2 (Latvia),G/ADP/N/1/NIC/1/Suppl.1 (Nicaragua), and G/ADP/N/1/PAK/2/Suppl.1 (Pakistan).  As was its
practice, the Secretariat would inform Members of any additional new notifications to be considered
at that meeting.  The deadline for submission of questions regarding new notifications of legislation
for next spring's meeting would be 10 April 2003.
25. Turning to the last aspect of review of national legislation, the Chairman reminded Members
that, in accordance with the agreed procedures for review of legislation set out in document
G/ADP/W/284, Members desiring to pose questions a bout notifications of legislation or regulations
previously reviewed by the Committee were to have submitted those questions in writing to the
notifying Member and to the Secretariat no later than 12 September 2002.  As no written questions
had been received by the Secretariat by that date, there was no discussion under this agenda item.
26. The Chairman informed Members that in order for a previously reviewed notification of
legislation or regulations to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in spring 2003,G/ADP/M/22
Page 5
questions regarding such notification must be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose
notification is in question, no later than 20 March 2003.
B. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
27. The Chairman recalled that a request for the semi-annual report for the second half of 2002, to
be submitted by 30 August 2002, had been circulated to the Members in document G/ADP/N/92,
dated 1 July 2002.  He reported that although it appeared that most Members taking actions had
submitted semi-annual reports, and that a large proportion of the reports were submitted in a timely
fashion, there continued to be some problems with reporting in accordance with the guidelines
adopted by the Committee and set out in document G/ADP/1.  He pointed to the continued failure of
some Members to submit the separate annex tables called for, listing definitive duties and
undertakings in force at the end of the period, and measures revoked during the period, or to submit
"nil" notifications if no actions were taken during the period.
28. The Chairman also reminded Members that item 19 of the "Guidelines for Information
Provided in Semi-Annual Reports", as reflected in document G/ADP/1, required that information on
all cases pending at the end of the period should be reported, even if there was no action taken during
the period for which the report was submitted.  The Chairman noted that the Secretariat was always
prepared to assist Members in applying the requirements for completing semi-annual reports.  He alsourged Members to bring to the attention of the Committee any problems they were experiencing with
the notifications of other Members, as peer pressure might lead Members to more fully comply with
their notification obligations, and would provide an incentive for Members to seek the assistance of
the Secretariat in this respect, if necessary.
29. The Chairman stated that Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified in
paragraph 1 of document G/ADP/N/92 Addendum 1, dated 14 October 2002.  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.  In addition to those Members listed, India, Indonesia,
Lithuania and Malaysia had submitted semi-annual reports, too late to be included in that document.
Those reports had been made available as room documents for the meeting.
30. In addition to the Members who submitted semi-annual reports, a number of Members, listed
in paragraph 2 of document G/ADP/N/92 Addendum 1, had notified the Committee that they had not
taken any anti-dumping actions during the period in question.  In addition, Croatia had submitted such
a notification too late to be included in that document.
31. The Chairman noted that while there appeared to be a degree of general compliance with the
obligation to submit semi-annual reports, or reports of no actions taken, there remained a significant
number of Members who had not submitted either type of report.  With respect to notifications of noaction, there was no good explanation for some Members' failure to make this notification in a timely
fashion.  The Chairman reiterated that 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 arelatively simple task.
  Members who had not filed a semi-annual report for the second half of 2002
were identified in document G/ADP/N/92 Addendum 1 at paragraph 3.
32. The Chairman strongly urged all Members to comply with the requirement to submit semi-
annual reports in a timely fashion in the future.  The Chairman noted that any Member who submitted
a semi-annual report in written form before the close of business on the last day of the meeting wouldbe identified as having done so in Annex B of the Committee's Annual Report.G/ADP/M/22
Page 6
33. The Chairman then turned to the review of the semi-annual reports submitted.
34. The delegate of the United States, with reference to the semi-annual report submitted by
China, referred to the agreed procedures for semi-annual reports, which provided that all cases
pending at the end of the period should be reported, even if there was no action taken during the
period for which the report was provided.  He noted that the United States was aware of a number ofpending investigations which were not reflected in China's semi-annual report, such as the initiation of
an investigation in February 2002 concerning coated art paper from the United States and also the
investigation concerning imports of lycine from the United States, which was pending.  He stated that
the United States was aware of several other cases involving imports from the United States, as well
as from other Members, which did not appear in the report provided by China.  The United States
requested China to review these cases or at least to provide some information on the status of the
investigations.
35. The delegate of China stated that the reason no information on the investigations in question
was provided was that no preliminary measures were taken during the period.
36. The delegate of the United States stated that he believed that it was important that Members
be aware of and report on all pending cases, even if no action was taken during the period for which
the report was provided.
37. The delegate of Mexico supported the statement by the United States.
38. The delegate of the United States, with reference to the report submitted by India, noted that
in Column 12 of the report, India reflected dumped imports as a percentage of domestic consumption,
but in the case of iso-propyl alcohol, the percentage figure was stated in terms of share in demand.  He
requested India to provide some explanation as to the difference, particularly what proportion ofdomestic consumption might not be reflected in the figure reported in the table.
39. The delegate of India stated that he would refer the matter to his capital for clarification.
40. The delegate of Thailand informed the Comm ittee that his authorities had noticed some
erroneous entries on page 3 of its report, document G/ADP/N/92/THA, and stated that Thailand
would inform the Secretariat on rectifications to be made.
41. The delegate of Indonesia made a correction to its report regarding the misplacing of certain
dates.  Specifically, under item 10, the second date of initiation of an investigation against ferro
manganese and silicon manganese imported from Korea actually referred to the initiation of an
investigation against phthalic anhydride imported from Korea.
42. The Committee took note of the reports and the statements made.
43. The Chairman noted that some of the suggestions and comments made in the informal
sessions of the Working Group on Implementation and in informal meetings of the Committee,
seemed to involve possible additional information to be provided in the semi-annual reports.  In that
context, he suggested that that Members might consider whether it was necessary or appropriate to
undertake a discussion of the format for semi-annual reports, noting that possible changes to the semi-
annual report format might be a useful topic of discussion in the Working Group on Implementation.
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL ANTI-DUMPING ACTIONS
44. The Chairman noted that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping
actions received were circulated to the Committ ee in documents G/ADP/N/90 and 91, and 93 throughG/ADP/M/22
Page 7
96.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final anti-dumping actions had been
notified by Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Egypt, the European Communities, India, Korea,
Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, South Africa, Turkey, and the United States.
45. The Chairman noted that there continued to be a lack of full compliance in this area, as some
Members had submitted semi-annual reports indicating anti-dumping actions in progress, but did notsubmit reports of preliminary or final actions taken.  The Chairman reminded Members that the
reports of preliminary and final actions were critical to give all Members prompt knowledge of
preliminary and final actions taken and certain information regarding those actions.
46. He observed that, at the Committee's regular meetings, there was almost no discussion of the
information submitted by Members in their semi-annual reports and in their reports of preliminary and
final actions.  This might be interpreted as indicating that Members were satisfied with the way in
which other Members were conducting anti-dumping investigations, imposing measures, andnotifying the Committee.  If that was not the case, the meetings of the Committee should serve as the
forum for discussion of Members' concerns.
47. The delegate of Chile noted that a possible reason for the limited discussions could be the fact
that problems regarding implementation were being discussed in another forum as well.
48. The Committee took note of the statements made.
D. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION1
49. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's
Republic of China to the WTO provides that all subsidiary bodies, including the Committee, "which
have a mandate covering China's commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol shall,
within one year after accession, review, as appropria te to their mandate, the implementation by China
of the WTO Agreement and of the related provisions of [the] Protocol".  He noted that China was to
provide relevant information in advance of the re view, including information specified in Annex 1A
of the Protocol, and that China can also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or toany other specific commitments made by other Members on the Protocol in subsidiary bodies which
have  a relevant mandate.  The Committee must report the results of the review promptly to the
Council for Trade in Goods.  Review is to take pl ace after  accession in each year for eight years with
a final review in year 10 or at an earlier date decided by the General Council.  There are no
procedures set out for the conduct of the transiti on review in the Protocol, except that China is to
provide relevant information in advance of the review.
50. The Chairman noted in this regard that there is no information specified for submission to the
Committee under Annex 1A.  He observed that China had made several of the notifications required
of all Members under the Agreement, which co uld be found in documents G/ADP/N/1/CHN/1 and
G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2, both of which concern legisl ation, and G/ADP/N/92/CHN, which is China's
semi-annual report for the period 1 January-30 June 2002.  China had also notified preliminary or
final actions, as reflected in G/ADP/N/95.  Members had submitted questions in the context of thetransition review, all of which related to China's notification of legislation in document
G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2.  The Chairman reminded Members that that notification would be included on
the agenda of the Committee's meeting in spring 2003 in the regular course of business.  Before
                                                     
1 The portion of the minutes of the meeting regard ing this agenda item was previously circulated in
document G/ADP/8, dated 18 November 2002.G/ADP/M/22
Page 8
turning to the questions posed by Members, the Chair asked whether any Member had any general
comments.
51. The delegate of the United States made a statement regarding the US views on the transitional
review mechanism.2  He stated that the remedies authorized by the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”)form an essential part of the current rules-ba sed international trading system.  Transparency,
predictability, and adherence to the rule-of-law are all critical to the WTO-consistent application of
these remedies, as well as to ensuring that they don’t  act as an unjustifiable barrier to trade.  Hence, it
is in all Members’ interests to ensure that each Member promptly and effectively implements their
WTO obligations in this area.
52. He continued by stating that Members' joint goal in this transitional review mechanism should
be to conduct a thorough and meaningful review, both to highlight to China its successes, and toidentify areas where more work needs to be done.  As China is becoming increasingly active in using
its anti-dumping law, it is important that it lay out its plan for bringing its practices into better
conformity with its WTO commitments where there are gaps.  The United States wanted to do its
utmost to facilitate such a review and urged China to join in the review in the spirit in which it is
intended.  A key part of the review is for Members to ask questions about areas of China’s practicesthat they do not understand.  The United States and five other Members posed such questions.
3
53. The United States recognized and applauded China’s efforts to implement trade remedy laws
and regulations consistent with WTO requirements.  China had been prompt in promulgating new
regulations and implementing rules, with new regulations having gone into effect on 1 January 2002,
followed by eleven sets of provisional implementing rules between February and April.  TheUnited States were disappointed, though, by the delay in China’s notifying these regulations and rules
– the regulations were not notified until May (by name only) and the text of the regulations not until
September (G/ADP/N/1/CHN/1 and 2, respectively).  To the knowledge of the United States, China
has not yet notified its statute governing anti-dumping measures nor the text of its provisional
implementing rules.
4
54. With regard to transparency, the United States encouraged the Ministry of Foreign Trade and
Economic Cooperation’s (MOFTEC) efforts to make non-confidential information submitted during
anti-dumping proceedings available to interested parties and to the public.  To the United States'
knowledge, the State Economic and Trade Commission (SETC) has not established a means to make
available to the public, or even to interested parties, non-confidential summaries of materials
submitted to the agency.  At both agencies, there appears to be little or no disclosure of their
respective analysis and decision-making process.  However, none of the anti-dumping investigationsthat China had initiated since its accession to the WTO had reached the point of a preliminary
decision.  The United States hoped China took advantage of this early stage to further develop
transparency in its proceedings.
55. The United States were also encouraged that the notified regulations embrace the principles of
rule of law and due process.  However, the regu lations provide no elaboration on these topics.  In
particular, China should identify the specific statute or statutes that govern its anti-dumping actions
and notify those laws to the Committee.  China also should clarify the roles of Chinese government
entities involved in China’s anti-dumping regime:  MOFTEC, SETC and the State Council Tariff
                                                     
2 Subsequently circulated as document G/ADP/W/428, 28 October 2002.
3 G/ADP/Q1/CHN/1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
4 The United States reserved comment and the right to pose questions on the provisional rules and the
topics that they covered until China formally submitted the text of the rules to the Committee.  A list of the
provisional rules that China had issued was included in China’s May notification.G/ADP/M/22
Page 9
Commission.  Also unclear are the entities to whom  appeals of anti-dumping determinations may be
made and the rules under which such appeals will be conducted.
56. China had made a significant effort to mold its revised regulations to the provisions and
requirements of the AD Agreement, which was particularly evident when the notified regulations are
compared with China’s pre-accession anti-dumping regulations.  The language in China’s notifiedregulations appeared generally to follow that in the AD Agreement, although there were certain areas
where key provisions were omitted or were worded in an ambiguous manner.  In addition, China
included certain provisions that do not appear in the AD agreement.  The most prominent example
was Article 56 of the notified regulations, which indicates that China may take “corresponding”
measures when another country “discriminatorily” imposes anti-dumping measures on exports from
China.  This provision appeared to have provoked universal comment – each of the Members that
submitted TRM questions expressed concern about Article 56.  The United States and other Membersalso had questions about such topics as:
• The factors that China will examine in conducting an injury analysis under Article 3 of the
AD Agreement;
• China’s definition of “interested” and “related” parties under Articles 6.11 and 4.1 of the AD
Agreement, respectively;
• China’s calculation of export price and normal value under Article 2 of the Agreement;
• China’s use of facts available in anti-dumping determinations under Annex II of the AD
Agreement; and
• How China intended to identify and address evasion of anti-dumping measures.
57. The questions the United States and other Members posed attempted to seek understanding of
the issues noted above.  The United States were disappointed that China had not provided writtenanswers to those questions.  Such responses would have greatly facilitated the review during these
meetings.  In order to make the review useful to all, China included, the United States urged China to
agree to submit in a timely manner, written responses to the questions posed by the Members.
58. The delegate of the United States stressed that the United States does not take issue with
China’s use of anti-dumping remedies, so long as such actions comport with WTO rules.  TheUnited States also looked forward to continued cooperation with China, such as through technical
assistance exchanges, as it develops its trade remedy regime.  The United Stated hoped these
exchanges would foster a mutual understanding of each other’s unfair trade laws and promote fair
application of the rules in accordance with WTO guidelines.  In that regard, the United States had just
completed a programme of comprehensive anti-dumping training assistance to a delegation of traineesfrom the Shanghai WTO Affairs Consultation Centre over the course of their four-month stay in
Washington this autumn.  The United States were eager to provide similar assistance to the
Government of China, as well as other groups within China that need such training.
59. The Chairman thanked the delegate of the United  States and invited the delegate of China to
take the floor to make a statement or to respond to the questions found in documents
G/ADP/Q1/CHN/1, and G/ADP/Q1/CHN/3-7.
60. The delegate of China stated that China welc omed this opportunity to address the Committee
on the implementation of China’s commitments with regard to Anti-Dumping within the framework
of paragraph 18 of China’s Protocol of Accession.  China’s accession to the WTO reflected the strongG/ADP/M/22
Page 10
quest of China for a fair and open trading system, and the resolution to resist protectionist pressures of
all kinds. Therefore, in spite of the challenges and difficulties arising from WTO Membership, the
Chinese Government had taken a firm and positive stand on the implementation issues, for example,
institutional restructuring, undertaken by China to better adapt to the demands posed in particular by
the WTO accession, fulfilling WTO obligations and China's accession commitments.
61. As part of the implementation efforts, an enormous amount of preparations had been made by
various related government agencies for the smooth proceeding of this review.  To facilitate this
exercise, he would present to the Committee a brief introduction in this regard.  His statement would
be composed of three parts.  The first part described the implementation of the AD Agreement and
China's preparation for this review; the second part would be China's responses to the questions and
comments from Members raised before this meeting, a nd in the last part of the presentation, he would
raise some issues of concern to China for the attention of Members.
62. Part one - implementation of the Agreement and preparation for the review.  First, on
the issue of China’s legislation on anti-dumping practices.  The Foreign Trade Law of The People’s
Republic of China  came into force on 1 July of 1994, which marked the establishment of the anti-
dumping system in China.  Article 30 of the Law stipulates that, “Where a product is imported at less
than normal value of the product and causes or threatens material injury to an established domesticindustry concerned, or materially retards the establishment of a particular domestic industry, the State
may take necessary measures in order to remove or ease such injury or threat of injury or retardation”.
Article 32 of the Law stipulates that, in the event of such situation, “the authority or agency
designated by the State Council shall conduct investigations and make determinations…”
63.  Under the above-mentioned Articles of the Foreign Trade Law, China promulgated The
Regulations on Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures  on 25 March of 1997.  These regulations,
the first regulations on anti-dumping in China, were drafted with help from the United States and the
European Union.  After China’s accession to the WTO, China promulgated The Regulations of The
People’s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping  on 1 January 2002 on the basis of WTO rules, taking
into account the experience China had gained in applying the Regulations  of 1997, and also the
practices of some other WTO Members.  China cherished the cooperation and technical assistance
received from WTO Members in the formulation of the new regulations.
64. Compared with the Regulations  of 1997, the new Regulations  are more detailed, with
59 Articles, and provide more predictability as well as transparency to the parties concerned.  And, in
the same spirit, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation of China (MOFTEC)
promulgated as many as eleven administrative rules regarding anti-dumping, namely:
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Public Hearing in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Questionnaire in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on On-The -Spot Investigations in Anti-Dumping
Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Information Disclosure in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Price Understandings in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Access to N on-Confidential Information in Anti-Dumping
Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Sampling in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on Interim Review in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Provisional Rules of MOFTEC on New Shipper Review in Anti-Dumping Investigations;
• Rules of MOFTEC on Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty in Anti-Dumping Investigations.G/ADP/M/22
Page 11
65. Being an integral part of China’s anti-dumping regulations, the above-mentioned rules
provide guarantees to protect the interests and rights of all the parties concerned.  The translation of
these rules was underway and the English versions would be notified to this Committee soon.
66. Second, on the application of the legislation.  Based on the provisions of The Regulations on
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures  of 1997, China initiated its first anti-dumping
investigation on newsprint on 10 December 1997.  In total 12 investigations were initiated with 8
concluded under the Regulations  of 1997.
67. By the end of September 2002, China had initiated 21 anti-dumping investigations on
products from 20 countries and regions, covering petrochemical, steel, chemical and paper products,
etc.  To date, of the total of 21 investigations, 8 had been concluded, and the other 13 were still in
process.  Of the 8 investigations concluded, 2 in vestigations were terminated due to no injury to
domestic industry.  The other 6 investigations resulted in definitive measures.  With regard to thesemeasures, some exporters were granted a zero duty rate; some exporters were given price
undertakings; and certain Members were excluded from the investigation on the basis of negligible
import volumes.
68. In the process of formulating the above-mentioned Regulations  and rules, China spared no
efforts in maintaining consistency with the relevant  WTO rules in all aspects, including the initiation
procedures and the subsequent investigation, the determination of dumping and injury, reviews, etc.
69. Third, notification by China under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  After accession, China had
fully implemented its notification obligations pursuant to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On
28 May 2002, China notified to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices the regulations and
administrative rules on Anti-Dumping in accordance with Article 18.5 of the Anti-DumpingAgreement, which is contained in the WTO document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/1.  On 27 August 2002,
China further submitted to the Committee the English version of the Regulations on Anti-Dumping ,
which is contained in the WTO document G/ADP/N/1/CHN/2.  On 3 September 2002, China
provided to the Committee a notification concerning the anti-dumping actions taken during the first
half of 2002, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Last but not least, China hadalso notified promptly preliminary and final measures taken.
70. Part two - responses to the comments and questions of common concern to some
Members .  Some Members had submitted questions with regard to the anti-dumping legislation and
the practices of China in advance of the meeting.  Some Members who raised questions expressed
their concern that Chinese regulations on anti-dumping were too simple to completely reflect the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and that China’s anti-dumping practices may not be fully compatible with
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
71. First, as just mentioned, China strictly observed the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the process
of formulating the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping  so as to ensure the
latter’s full consistency in all areas.  Second, under the Regulations , MOFTEC has formulated
11 rules for Chinese anti-dumping practices.  Relevant rules on injury enquiries are in the process of
formulation by the State Economic and Trade Commi ssion (SETC).  These rules, together with the
Regulations  itself, form a comprehensive package of China’s anti-dumping legislation to fully
implement the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  As just mentioned, the translation of these rules is
underway.  After China had notified the English versions to the Committee, Members would find
answers very easily for their questions.
72. The delegate of China then addressed some specific questions posed by Members.G/ADP/M/22
Page 12
1. Function of various government Author ities in anti-dumping investigations.  At
present, there are three government administrations who deal with anti-dumping matters in
China -- the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC), the State
Economic and Trade Commission (SETC) an d the State Council Tariff Commission.
MOFTEC and the SETC are the investigating authorities.  MOFTEC is in charge of theinvestigation and determination of dumping.  SETC is responsible for the investigation and
determination of injury.  The Tariff Commission decides whether to levy provisional or
definitive anti-dumping duty.  Under Articles 29, 38 and 50 of the Anti-Dumping Regulations
of China , the Tariff Commission decides whether to levy an anti-dumping duty, including the
level of the duty, upon a proposal made by MOFTEC on the basis of the investigation
findings.  However, the level of the duty decided by the Tariff Commission cannot exceed the
dumping margin determined by MOFTEC.  Other than the above-mentioned functions carriedout by SETC and the Tariff Commission, MOFTEC deals with the other issues related to anti-
dumping including notification, consultation, etc.
2. Implementation of Article 56 of the AD Regulation.  Some Members also
expressed their concern on the “corresponding measures” under Article 56 of China’s Anti-
Dumping Regulations .  The delegate of China made clear that that (1) so far China had not
applied Article 56 and therefore had not yet taken any “corresponding measures” in any case,
(2) being a WTO Member, before taking “corresponding measures”, China would resort to
the dispute settlement provisions under Article 17 of the AD Agreement and dispute
settlement provisions under Annex II of the WTO Agreement, if the other party was a WTOMember.
3. Administrative and Judicial review.  If the concerned parties disagree with the
relevant anti-dumping decisions, Article 53 prescribes the mechanism of administrative and
judicial review.  Where interested parties disagree with the final determination, the decisionson the imposition of anti-dumping duties, the retroactivity of anti-dumping duties, refund of
anti-dumping duties and imposition of anti-dumping duty on new shippers, they can apply for
administrative reconsideration.  In accordance with Article 14 of The Administrative Review
Law of the People's Republic of China , the review authority shall be the department under the
State Council that carried out the administrative action.
For judicial review, China had The Administrative Litigation Procedure Law of the People’s
Republic of China .  According to this law, the People’s  Court, at intermediary level, within
the jurisdiction of which the government authority making the administrative decision in
question is located will deal with litigation against this government authority.  Furthermore,
the People’s Supreme Court of China is in the process of formulating rules on hearings in the
administrative litigation on anti-dumping.  After its promulgation, China would notify WTOas soon as possible.
As to the standard of the review, the reconsideration authority or the court shall focus on
whether there are procedural irregularities, abuse of power, improper interpretation and
application of law, etc.  However, they are not entitled to reinvestigate the case.
4. Best Information Available (BIA).  Article 21 of China’s Anti-Dumping
Regulations  stipulates that the investigating authority may make determinations on the basis
of the facts available and the best information available, if the interested party fails to provide
the information required, or refuses to provide relevant materials, or otherwise fails to providenecessary information within a reasonable time-limit or significantly impedes the
investigation.  This Article is consistent with Article 6.8 and the provisions of Annex II of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.G/ADP/M/22
Page 13
In the questionnaires, China underscores, in bold letters, “ If, within the p rescribed time-
frame, your company fails to submit the completed questionnaire as required, or fails to
submit a comprehensive and accurate answer sheet, or does not allow MOFTEC to
verify the information and materials provided, MOFTEC may, pursuant to the Anti-
Dumping Regulations of the PRC , make determinations on the basis of the facts available
and best information available. ”  This principle applies to the injury enquiries as well.
In practice, Chinese investigating authorities always try to verify all the information and
materials submitted by the responding companies.  Best information available (BIA) is
applied only when the information required is not submitted or the submitted information can
not be verified with due difficulties.
5. Anti-circumvention.  Some Members also asked questions with regard to Article 55
of China's Anti-Dumping Regulations , which stipulates that MOFTEC and SETC may take
appropriate measures to prevent the circumvention of anti-dumping measures.  Although this
Article provides the possibility of remedial measures when circumvention takes place, the
delegate of China made it clear that, to date, China had not invoked this Article and had nottaken any anti-circumvention measures.  However, China noted that quite a number of
Members do have relevant rules and practices on anti-circumvention.  This issue has been
under discussion for a long time in the WTO, and was also a subject of the Negotiating Group
on Rules, as well as the Committee.  Once any new disciplines were agreed, China shall fully
implement them.
73. Part three, the Market Economy status of China and the implementation of Annex 7 to
China's accession protocol by certain Members.    Section 18 of China’s Protocol of Accession also
stipulates that China can also raise issues relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to any other
specific commitments made by other Members in the Protocol.  The Chinese delegation had beenrequested, by Chinese enterprises who have been fo r a long time the victims of other Members’ unfair
anti-dumping practices, to raise at this meeting their serious concerns over other Members' anti-
dumping regulations and practices against Chinese products.
74. The first would be the issue of "market economy status" ("MES").  Despite the fact that China
had made remarkable achievements over the past two decades in the establishment of its market
economy and that Chinese companies were now totally driven by market forces in their business
operations, China had noticed that few Chinese companies had been granted market economytreatment.  To a large extent, this was due to the fa ct that the criteria and procedures provided for in
China’s Protocol of Accession, which justify fair treatment towards Chinese companies meeting
market conditions, were not properly reflected in the anti-dumping rules and practices maintained by
some Members.  These inconsistencies seriously impaired the interests of Chinese companies and
impeded normal trade between China and these Members.  China required those Members toobjectively evaluate the achievements that China had made in establishing a market economy system
and to strictly observe the relevant WTO rules to ensure fair treatment of Chinese companies.
75. The delegate of China also reminded some Members of the commitments they had made with
regard to the reservation of some existing anti-dumping measures against Chinese products that are
not consistent with WTO rules. Annex 7 of the Prot ocol provides clear-cut phase-out arrangements for
these.  China required that these provisions be carried out by these Members in due course.
76. China had been fulfilling its WTO accession commitments in a positive and serious spirit.
The efforts made, as well as the difficulties that have been overcome, should be recognized by all
Members.  Great improvement had been made in terms of legislative construction, market access
opportunities, and policy transparency since China’s accession to the WTO.  The delegate of Chinahoped that the information notified to the Committee prior to the meeting and the presentation madeG/ADP/M/22
Page 14
just now would help facilitate this review.  As a new Member of WTO, the Chinese Government was
willing to enter into closer cooperation with the WTO as well as other Members.  
77. With the guidance of the Chair and cooperation from Members, the delegate of China was
convinced the review could greatly improve understanding between China and other Members, and
would achieve positive results.
78. The Chairman thanked the delegate of China and inquired whether Members had follow-up
questions or comments with respect to China's intervention.
79. The delegate of the United States thanked the Chinese delegation for its statement and its
cooperation in the review.  He asked the Chinese delegation whether it intended to provide detailed
answers to each of the questions raised by the Members in advance of this meeting?
80. The delegate of the European Communities thanked China for the explanations given and for
the efforts undertaken in order to implement the obligations taken in acceding to this organization.
The EC had listened very carefully to what had been said and had tried to compare what had been said
to the questions which had been posed by the EC prior to the meeting, but had not found replies to all
its questions.  The EC realized that a significant number of the questions posed could probably be
answered, as the delegate of China pointed out, by looking at the provisional rules for which English
translations were being prepared, and to which th e EC looked forward.  Some of the questions also
covered issues which, at least at first sight, did not appear to be covered by these provisional rules.
These were the EC's questions concerning normal value, injury, legal representatives, and so on.  The
EC wondered whether China envisaged to give a reply on these questions which do not relate to the
provisional rules, and if so, at what time could the EC expect such a reply.
81. The delegate of Chinese Taipei echoed the positive remarks made by the previous speakers,
that credit should be given to China for their obvious efforts in preparing those responses to the
questions and comments tabled by his delegation and several others.  However, he was not sure,
having heard the Chinese oral presentation, whether all of his delegation's concerns had been
thoroughly responded to.  His authorities would study China's responses later in detail, and might ask
follow-up questions.  As one of China's major trading partners and a major investor, Chinese Taipeifelt very much obliged to identify and address several important concerns in areas where China might
have lapsed in its implementation of the Protocol of Accession.  Of course, Chinese Taipei strongly
believed that China's smooth implementation was in the best interest of all Members, including China
itself.  Therefore, his delegation welcomed and appreciated the opportunity to exchange views with
Chinese colleagues, taking advantage of this review mechanism, and wished China well in this review
exercise.
82. The delegate of Japan thanked the delegate of China for the explanations given.  China's
explanations covered some questions Japan had posed beforehand, but many of the questions still
remained unanswered.  Therefore, Japan was looking forward to answers from China, and also to the
notification of the other regulations referred to by the Chinese delegate.
83. The delegate of Korea stated that, as one of the questioning Members, he appreciated very
much the Chinese response, which was  to the point and presented in a very cooperative manner.  His
delegation was especially very much encouraged by the response of China that Regulation 56 would
be implemented in strict compliance with the Dispute Settlement Understanding and the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  Furthermore, Korea was also  very much encouraged that anti-circumvention
will be implemented only after there are unified rules arrived at through negotiation.
84. The delegate of Cuba thanked China for such a broad and complete presentation, and
congratulated China for the considerable efforts th at they had made in barely a year followingG/ADP/M/22
Page 15
accession.  Cuba saw that work had been done on legislation and on very complex and technical
subjects, such as that addressed in the Committee.  Cuba was still involved in the same process.  Cuba
recognized China's efforts in the context of a burdensome exercise which is being conducted in
parallel in several bodies of the organization.
85. The delegate of Canada thanked the delegation of China for its presentation, which had been
helpful.  Canada also wondered whether China woul d be providing answers in writing to the questions
that had been submitted as part of this exercise.
86. The delegate of China thanked the Members who had spoken for their positive comments.
With respect to the questions raised by the United  States, the European Communities, Chinese Taipei,
Japan, Korea, Cuba and Canada, he invited his colleague to give responses to some specific questions.
87. The delegate of China, before turning to spec ific questions posed by WTO Members, made a
general remark.  He noted that every country has a different legal culture.  It is Chinese tradition for
the legislative body just to set forth the general principles and the guidelines for carrying out of
administrative action, and to leave room for the impl ementing authority to formulate detailed rules to
accommodate changing circumstances.  It was not in tended that the legislative authority compel the
implementing authority to violate China's international obligations.  On the contrary, as Members
know, the WTO Anti-Dumping rules are evolving, the simplification of the legislation especially foranti-dumping legislations is to allow the Chin ese Government actively to participate in the
negotiations and take into account the changing circumstances when the legislations are implemented.
88. Turning to the specific questions, the delegate of China observed that as there were so many
questions put to China, it was not appropriate to read the question first and provide replies.  Instead,
he would structure his replies by the sequence of the Articles as they appear in the notifiedregulations.
89. First with regard to Article 1, concerning the legal basis for the formulation of the anti-
dumping regulation, this question had already been answered by the head of the Chinese delegation --
the legal basis for the anti-dumping regulations is the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of
China.
90. Coming to Article 4, with regard to paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Regulations, several
questions were posed by WTO Members.
(a) The first question would be what is the difference between the terms "country" and
"region".  The delegate of China noted that, as a matter of fact, there are some
separate customs territories. In Chinese, the term "country" has sovereign meaning
and some anti-dumping measures have had to be imposed against products from a
separate customs territory as well as from customs unions, which are for certain notcountries.
(b) The second question would be under what conditions the price and the quantity of
sales do not permit a fair comparison.  The delegate of China stated that when the
price is below cost according to Article 2.2.1 sales of the like product in the domestic
market of the foreign country or sales to third countries at prices below per unit costof production plus administrative selling and general cost might be seen as not being
in the ordinary course of trade.  As to the quantity, the delegate of China noted
footnote 2 of the AD Agreement, providing that the domestic sales have to be more
than five per cent of those exports to China.G/ADP/M/22
Page 16
(c) The third question is that what is an appropriate third country.  Normally, to
determine an appropriate country would mean that the price has to be representative
as required by Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement.
(d) The fourth question is how to determine the reasonable amount for expenses and
profits. The delegate of China confirmed that China would comply with the rulescontained in Articles 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 for the determination of cost and profits.
91. As regards Article 5, one question was raised on paragraph 2 of Article 5, that is, under what
conditions the price will be deemed unreliable.  The delegate of China noted that China construed this
term as what is provided for in Article 2.3, that is, the price will be deemed unreliable when there is
any association or compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party.
92. With respect to Article 6, many Members raised the concern that the Chinese legislation did
not list all factors that may affect price comparability.  However, the delegate of China noted thatthere are some provisions in Article 6 that will require the investigating authority to make adjustments
to those factors which might affect price comparability.  In the provisional rules on initiation of anti-
dumping investigations, China listed all those factors that might affect fair comparison that are listed
in the Agreement, the difference in physical characteristics, level of trade and the quantity of sales,
etc.
93. With respect to Article 8, several questions were raised.
(a) The first concern was that from the wording of Article 8 of China's regulation, no
differentiation was made between injury.  In  other words, injury in this Article was
used as a general term, that includes material injury, threat of material injury and
material retardation.  This is why some Members were concerned that some factorsonly relate to a specific type of injury determination.  They worried that the Chinese
investigating authority would apply all those factors to a single injury determination.
As he had stated, injury was used as a general term, so the Chinese authorities had
formulated all the factors that might be rela ted to an injury determination for all types
of injury.  However, in practice, the inve stigating authority, that is the SETC, would
look into those factors relating to the specific type of injury.  For example,
paragraph 4 of Article 8 only relates to the threat determination, not the current
material injury situation. In China's provisional rules on initiation of anti-dumping
investigations, the petitioner is required to provide a different set of data.  If Members
had had an opportunity to look at the provisional rules, they would find that
paragraph 6, that is the production capacity or export capacity of the exporting
country, only is required when the injury allegation was made on the basis of threat ofmaterial injury.
(b) The third concern raised by WTO Members was that paragraph 3 of Article 8 did not
list all the factors that are listed in the rele vant WTO rules.  Members worried that the
Chinese investigating authority may consider fewer economic factors than those
required by the WTO Agreement.  The delegate of China first stated that theeconomic factors that are listed in the AD Agreement are non-exhaustive.  That was
also the case for Article 8, paragraph 3.  In practice the investigating authority always
considers all possible economic factors and indices having a bearing on the position
of the domestic industry.
94. With regard to Article 11, the delegate of China clarified that there might be a problem of
translation.  In Chinese this Article states that if domestic producers are related to exporters or
importers they may be excluded from the domestic industry.  If one looks at the English translation,G/ADP/M/22
Page 17
one may have the impression that the exclusion is mandatory.  Another point is how to determine that
the domestic producers are related to exporters or importers.  The criteria China takes into account in
practice are exactly as stipulated in the AD Agreement, footnote 16.  That is, whether the domestic
producer controlled the exporter or importer or the domestic producer and the exporter or importer
jointly controlled the third person, or are controlled by the third party.  This is the same as providedfor in the AD Agreement.
95. With regard to Article 12, the question is how to determine the scope of the like product.  In
practice, China considers several factors, physical characteristics, use, marketing channels, etc. None
of those factors are decisive, and it has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  The delegate of China
noted that this is the view taken by  the WTO panels and Appellate Body.
96. Coming to Article 13, some Members asked what is the meaning of "relevant organization".
The delegate of China explained that in the Chinese legal system, they have different kinds oforganizations.  Some have personality and some have no legal personality.  Looking at the wording of
Article 13, only natural persons, legal persons are mentioned.  If there were no reference to other
relevant organizations, the provision might exclude trade associations, or trade unions from being
considered as interested parties.
97. Addressing questions concerning Article 19.
(a) The first question is the scope of the interested parties.  The scope of the interested
parties as set out in the AD Agreement is non-exhaustive in nature.  If one looks at
the wording of Article 19, it lists some of them, and then refers to other interested
organizations and parties.  China wants to encompass as many as possible of those
interested parties and take a participating ro le in the investigations, to express their
views to enable the investigating authority to make their determinations on an
objective basis.
(b) The second question is the notification to the known exporters.  Some Members
questioned that the Chinese Government never notified the known exporters.  The
delegate asserted that this was not the case.  Indeed, in some cases, China did notnotify the known exporters.  However, when China fulfilled the obligation under the
AD Agreement, to give notification to the government of the exporting country
before the initiation of the case, China always asked the diplomatic representative to
kindly notify their exporters that the Chinese Government had initiated an anti-
dumping case against them.  Those requests were always accepted, so in that case
China did not notify the exporters.  After the initiation, normally the foreign exporter
would retain a Chinese lawyer to represent them in the case.  The Chinese authoritiesnotified all decisions to their legal representatives.
(c) The third question is that China has no provisions on the content of the public notice.
Yes indeed, in the regulation there were not su ch rules.  However, in China, it is not
appropriate for the State Council to deal with such specific issues.  Those issues are
left to the Ministry.  When China formulated the provisional rules on initiation of thecase, China had a specific and very detailed provision on what has to be contained in
the public notice.
98. Coming to Article 20.G/ADP/M/22
Page 18
(a) Some Members asked whether the Chinese investigating authority would require
consent from the companies concerned before on-the-spot verification is carried out.
The answer was yes.  In every case, before Chinese officials conducted an on-the-spot
verification, they always obtained consent from the company concerned and informed
them of the time schedule of the verification.
(b) The second question was when the request for on-the-spot verification is objected to,
whether best information available would be used.  The delegate of China directed
Members' attention to Article 21.  In that Article, China did not use the words "the
investigating authorities shall  make a determination on the basis of best information
available", it used the word " may".  That means that it is not mandatory for the
investigating authority to use the best information available when the request for on-
the-spot verification is objected to.  In practice, China always tried to verify by othermeans the information submitted.  If it could be verified without undue delay, China
did not resort to best information available.
(c) The third question was regarding disclosure of the result of the verification.  China
had a provisional rule on disclosure of information concerning the anti-dumping
investigation.  There, China had a specific procedure for disclosure of the result ofverification to the parties that verified.
(d) The fourth question was whether China had specific rules on sampling.  The answer
was yes, China did have very specific rules on sampling.
99. With regard to Article 22.
(a) The first question was what constitutes confidential information?  In accordance with
the WTO rules, that is the AD Agreement, there are two kinds of confidential
information.  That is, information that is confidential by nature, and the second kind
of confidential information is information that a party provides on a confidential
basis.  China does the same in practice.
(b) The second question was whether China had rules on summaries of confidential
information, to which the answer was yes.
(c) Another question was raised about the wording in paragraph 2 of Article 22.  The
regulation says that the request for confidentiality has to be "justifiable".  Some
Members raised a concern that this is different from "warranted".  The delegate of
China indicated that this was simply a matter of translation, and one can read
justifiable as warranted.
(d) The fourth question about confidential information was that whether China had rules
similar to administrative protective orders, such as are used in the United States.  The
answer was no. Confidential information is  only for the use of the investigating
authority, it is not allowed for the legal representative of parties other than the party
submitting it, to access such confidential information.
100. With regard to Article 23, the delegate of China stated that MOFTEC had established a
special office for access to public files in the investigation.  Those files were readily available to the
public, not only the interested parties.
101. With regard to Article 27, one question was raised.  China's law mentioned five circumstances
in paragraph 1, while in paragraph 2 just three were listed.  Some Members asked what the differenceG/ADP/M/22
Page 19
is between the two paragraphs.  The delegate of China stated that paragraph 2 sets out the
circumstances in which a case had to be terminated against a specific country or region, on the
products from that country or region, meeting the conditions stipulated in paragraph 2, 3 and 4.  The
first paragraph is talking about the termination of the whole case, to use the term of the EC, that is the
proceeding will be terminated under the circumstances of the first paragraph.  Under the secondparagraph only an investigation against a specific country will be terminated.
102. With regard to Article 28, several questions were raised.
(a) The first was the time-period of the provisional anti-dumping measure in Article 30,
and why it can be extended to 9 months.  The delegate of China directed Members'
attention to Article 38, which indicated that the final anti-dumping measure will be
decided upon by the Tariff Commission under the State Council.  What governs the
exercise of the discretion of the Tariff Commission is Article 42, that is, the amountof the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping established in the
final determination.  That is to say, although China had no explicit lesser duty rule, it
did keep such a possibility, to apply a lesser duty rule, if the Tariff Commission sees
fit.  That means that the provision of Article 30, that a provisional measure can be
extended up to 9 months, is consistent with the AD Agreement.  This brought himback to Article 28, regarding which some Members raised a question concerning the
refund of the provisional anti-dumping duty.  The delegate of China stated that first,
when the provisional duties collected have to be refunded, there are no further actions
for importer or exporter to take for the refund. MOFTEC will notify the Customs to
make those refunds.  Second, China made such refund within 90 days, according toArticle 9.3.2 of the AD Agreement.  Third, no interest will be paid on those refunds.
(b) The second question with regard to Article 28 was that China did not follow the AD
Agreement in formulating the conditions to impose provisional measures.  That is
according to Articles 7.1.1 and 7.1.3, if the injury determination is made on the basis
of threat, the threat has to be imminent and only under the circumstances that ifprovisional measures are not imposed the threat of material injury will become a
current injury.  China did not set forth such conditions in Article 28.  However, he
asked Members to note that in Article 28 China used the word may not shall .
103. With regard to Article 31, some Members raised the question that the Chinese regulations did
not stipulate that the small margin of increase of price was to be required, when the lesser increase in
price would enough to remove the injury.  However, the delegate of China noted that this was not
mandatory by nature, so China did not incorporate such provisions in its regulation.
104. With regard to Article 48, some Members asked that China did not make clear whether the
extension of anti-dumping measures will be five years.  The delegate of China stated that China
wanted to keep the possibility that it would extend an anti-dumping measure shorter than five years.
With that, he stated that he had finished with the answers to specific questions.
105. The delegate of China noted that, with respect to the question raised by several Members
regarding written answers, the Chinese delegation had no written answers.  He noted that
paragraph 18 of the Protocol of China's Accession serves as the only legal basis governing the TRM
exercise, and asserted that no one in the room could justify a request for written responses from that
paragraph.  Of course, China had noticed that there were some differences in the understanding of the
paragraph, but China believed it was not the mandate of this Committee to interpret the paragraph,and he hoped the Committee would not waste time.  The second point he made was that China
believed the information provided prior to the mee ting, at the meeting, and the explanations made by
his colleague, were sufficient for a meaningful review.  China understood that it was technical, and hisG/ADP/M/22
Page 20
delegation could agree that the statement made by the head of the Chinese delegation be submitted to
the Secretariat and Members could get copies for transparency purposes.  The third point he wanted to
make in addressing the concerns of Members was that, since the experts from China were here for the
review, Members who had any follow-up questions might approach those experts, and China would
hold informal bilateral discussions with them.  He stated that informal bilateral contacts had nothingto do with the TRM, and China was not intending to  substitute this for multilateral exercise, but to
supplement the multilateral exercise.
106. The Chairman thanked the Chinese delegation for the detailed answers and comments
provided to the Committee, noting that Members would benefit from it.
107. The delegate of Chinese Taipei thanked the Chinese delegation for its replies, and raised two
points as follow-up.
(a) First, about Article 30 of the notified regulation.  China had replied that because the
Tariff Commission has the possibility to look into the lesser duty, the provisional
measure may be extended to nine months.  He sought clarification that it was not
merely because the Commission has the mandate to look into the matter.  That is, the
provisional measure would last for nine months only in the case where the
Commission did conduct the examination on lesser duty.
(b) The second follow-up question was about the provisional rules on initiation which his
delegation had raised in its question.  His understanding was that this provisional rule
was only available in Chinese.  His authorities had taken the effort to look into the
Chinese version, and could comprehend the provisions there.  They had found that in
Article 39 of the provisional rules on initiation, if the investigating authority intendedto conduct an on-site investigation, this intention must be announced in the Public
Notice.  His question concerned whether or not an on-site investigation would only be
conducted when it is mentioned in the Public Notice.  He recognized that the text of
the provision was not available to all Members for the time being, so would be more
than happy to wait until everybody had the notification available and have thequestion outstanding at that point.
108. The delegate of the European Communities thanked China for the very extensive and very
valuable replies.  He had been quite impressed with the degree of detail which the delegate has
entered into on the various issues raised.  He did not want to enter into the issue whether there was
any legal obligation to provide written responses or  not.  He considered that the reply had been
fantastic, to use the word of the head of the Chinese Delegation, and constituted a very valuable
contribution in understanding the Chinese Anti-Dump ing Law.  Simply on that basis alone, it would
be extremely helpful to have some written record of  this because it would help for future reference.
Without entering into any discussion of obligation, he thought it would simply be helpful for
everybody here to understand the replies if they were available in written form.
109. With respect to one question put by his delegation, concerning the issue of legal
representation in case of anti-dumping proceedings, he thought China had not replied.  The questionwas whether non-Chinese lawyers can make representations for exporters in the context of anti-
dumping proceedings in front of MOFTEC and SETC, and should this not be the case then the EC
would appreciate it if China could explain why not.
110. The delegate of the United States thanked the Chinese delegation for the lengthy and
comprehensive answers to the questions.  The United States did have a few follow-up questions.G/ADP/M/22
Page 21
(a) The first was, recognizing that the lesser duty rule is not mandatory, in what cases
had the Tariff Commission lowered the margin recommended by MOFTEC?  And
what criteria did it apply to identify the appropriate margin.
(b) The United States asked to be given an example of an other relevant organization that
would be considered legal under the Chinese system.
(c) The United States also asked whether the Tariff Commission is subject to judicial
review in the People's Court, and whet her it would be subject to the Court's
determinations?
(d) In the discussion of the questions on sampling, the delegate indicated that China does
in fact have rules on sampling.  The United States would appreciate it if China could
specify where those rules may be found.
(e) In a similar vein, in the discussion of confidential information and the need to provide
public summaries of such information, again the delegate indicated that China does
have rules with respect to such public summaries.  Again, the United States would
appreciate it if China could specify where these rules may be found.
(f) One additional question at this time related to the delegate's discussion of notification
to known exporters.  In that discussion, if he had understood correctly, the delegate ofChina seemed to indicate that China regarded notice to the government of the
exporting country as constituting notice to the exporters, and requesting that the
exporting countries government provide notice to the exporters.  The United States
asked if China could provide some additional indication of how it believed that to be
consistent with the requirements of Article 6.1.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
111. The delegate of China briefly responded to the follow-up questions.
(a) First, with respect to legal representation in the anti-dumping investigations,
according to China's rules it is not allowed for foreign attorneys-at-law to represent
foreign exporters or other parties, to make submissions or to attend the public
hearings.  This was because China's law on attorneys-at-law does not allow a foreignlawyer not qualified to practice law in China to act.  Since anti-dumping
investigations are quasi-judicial exercise, it is not allowed.  He noted that this was not
the appropriate forum to discuss whether foreign lawyers can represent interested
parties in an anti-dumping case – that was a matter of Trade in Services.
(b) As to the function of the Tariff Commission and the State Council, he clarified that
the Tariff Commission cannot amend the dumping margin determined by the
MOFTEC.  However, it can take a differ ent decision on MOFTEC's proposal for the
final anti-dumping measures.  That is to say, the Tariff Commission can lower the
duty rate.  However, it cannot raise the anti-dumping rate above the dumping margin
determined by MOFTEC.
(c) Another point was that the Tariff Commissi on is also subject to judicial review.
(d) Regarding the rules for summaries of confid ential information, he noted that it was
not easy to formulate very detailed rules for a summary of confidential information.
He was not aware of any country which had specific rules.  What he had said was that
China had some rules on the summary of confidential information, that is, theG/ADP/M/22
Page 22
summary has to be meaningful to enable the other party to understand the substance
of the information submitted on the confidential basis.
(e) As to the question of notification to known exporters, in practice, it was difficult for
the Chinese authorities to find the addresses of exporters in the petitioner's
application, so it was very difficult to carry out such a notification.  However, if itwas possible to notify known exporters, the authorities would do that.
(f) With regard to Article 30 of the Chinese Anti-Dumping Regulation, he noted that the
similar article in the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent stated that whenever the competent
authorities are entitled to consider whether to impose a lesser duty, the provisional
measure can be extended to 9 months.  China did have that possibility.  Having said
that, he clarified that in practice, China had never extended provisional measures
beyond 6 months.
112. The delegate of China noted that China understood that the questions could not be exhausted
by one TRM.  A TRM is an 8-10 year programme, and China did not expect to graduate from an 8-
10 year programme in one year, so there would be many more opportunities, multilateral and bilateral.
China hoped to cooperate with other Members on this issue.
113. The Chairman considered that Members recognized this to be a useful exercise.  Important
information had been presented, and everybody had learned a great deal about the Chinese Anti-
Dumping laws and the implementation of the Anti-Du mping Agreement in China.  He noted that, as
he had mentioned earlier in the meeting, the legislation that was the subject of questions today would
be on the Committee's agenda in the spring, in the regular course of business, so as the delegate of
China had said, there would be more opportunities to continue discussing these issues.
114. Turning to the Committee's report on the review, the Chairman noted that there are no
guidelines for the report contained in the Protocol.  In several other bodies that had undertaken the
transition review, the Chairman had, acting on his own responsibility, prepared a brief, factual report,
with references to the documents concerned, and at taching the portion of the minutes of the meeting
which relate to the transition review.  He asked Members whether this procedure should be followed
in the Committee.
115. The Committee so decided.5
E. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
IMPLEMENTATION
116. The Chairman recalled that, as most Members were aware, the Working Group on
Implementation met in regular session on Monday, 21 October 2002.  Despite the lack of new papers
on the topics referred to the Group for discussion, the Group had had a useful and productive meeting.A thorough discussion took place of the most  recent revision of the draft recommendation on
conditions of competition that may be relevant to a decision whether a cumulative assessment of the
effects of imports is appropriate.  The Chairman noted that additional revisions suggested during the
discussion would be incorporated into a new revised version of the draft recommendation, which
would be circulated to Members.
117. Members had also discussed briefly the outstanding issue of the status of adopted
recommendations.  Although the draft text as such was not discussed during the meeting, copies had been
made available to Members at the request of one Member.  The Chairman had urged Members to think
                                                     
5 The Committee's Report was circulated as document G/ADP/8, dated 18 November 2002.G/ADP/M/22
Page 23
about this issue in the context of the work on im plementation issues in both the Working Group and
the Committee, and the mandate of Ministers in the Decision on Implementation-Related Issues and
Concerns to draw up recommendations on the matters referred to the Committee.  In this regard
several Members had commented that the concern with the status of adopted recommendations pre-
dated the Ministers' decision to refer implementation issues to the Committee and the Working Group.Some had noted that the lack of agreement on the draft decision concerning the status of adopted
recommendations need not affect the work of the Group either in the implementation process, or more
generally with regard to its future work.  Several Members had stated the view that the content of the
discussions was as important as any recommendation that might emerge from the discussions.
118. Members had discussed the course of future work of the Group and the Chairman had
suggested that Members think about the number and length of meetings of the Group, and consider
the possibility of choosing new topics of discussion.  One Member had suggested, in the lattercontext, that it might be useful to divide proposed topics into those that Members envisioned as
leading to a recommendation, and those opened for discussion without the intention of going forward
to a draft recommendation.  Other Members had commented that the possibility of recommendations
had, in the past, emerged from the discussions themselves, and that therefore it might not be useful to
limit the possibility at the outset.  Members generally considered that it remained appropriate toschedule two days for the meetings of the Group.
119. Members had agreed that it would be appropriate to begin the process of choosing new topics
for discussion.  While Members need not limit themselves, they might, if they considered it
appropriate, note that one or another topic was being proposed for discussion.  Proposals for new
topics of discussion were to be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 31 March 2003.  TheSecretariat would compile suggestions received by that date and circulate them to Members, for
consideration at the next meeting of the Working Group.
120. Finally, the Chairman  reiterated that the next Meeting of the Group was scheduled to begin
Tuesday, 29 April 2003 and noted that the deadline for submissions on any of the topics currently
before the Working Group was Tuesday, 18 March 2003, and the deadline for submission ofproposals of new topics was Monday, 31 March.  As usual, the Secretariat would circulate a reminder
of the deadlines for all the Anti-Dumping meetings in the spring.  Members were urged to respect
these deadlines, in order to allow the Secretariat to  translate and circulate the submissions before the
meeting as this will allow delegations and capital-based experts to study the submissions in their
preferred WTO language and prepare considered responses, which will enhance the discussions.
121. The delegate of the United States requested, if possible, that the minutes for this meeting be
made available prior to the December 2002 General Council meeting.
122. The Chairman responded that the Secretariat would make every effort to prepare the minutes
as soon as possible.  However, if the minutes were circulated before the next General Council meeting
in December, they would necessarily be incomplete, because the answers to questions on legislation
were only due to be submitted in January 2003.  There was therefore a technical problem in
responding favourably to the request by the United States.
123. The delegate of the United States took note of the technical problems, but would welcome
having incomplete minutes with a supplement to be issued once written responses had been received.
124. The Committee took note of the report by the Chairman and statements made.G/ADP/M/22
Page 24
F. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT ON MEETING OF THE INFORMAL GROUP ON ANTI-
CIRCUMVENTION
125. The Chairman stated that, as most Members were aware, the Informal Group on Anti-
Circumvention met during the morning of Wednesday, 23 October 2002.  Members had had a lively
and informative discussion sparked by a paper submitted by one Member under topic 2.  Despite thefocus of the paper, the discussion had ranged over all three of the topics set out in the framework for
discussion.  In addition, one Member had provided answers to written questions posed by two other
Members regarding its previously submitted paper.  One additional paper, addressing topic 3, which
was first introduced at the Informal Group's meeting last spring, was also on the agenda.  This paper
was briefly introduced again, but no substantive discussion of it took place.
126. Members had also considered the future work programme of the Group.  The Chairman noted
that continued useful discussion would be difficult in the absence of new papers.  However, in light ofthe debate sparked by one Member's paper submitted for the meeting, it seemed clear that there was
room for further submissions and discussion in the future.  Members had agreed that the Group should
continue the discussions, mandated by Ministers at Marrakesh, in meetings held in conjunction with
the regular meetings of the Committee.  It was su ggested that the Group might realistically schedule
the meetings of the Group for half-day sessions.
127. The Chairman strongly urged Members to submit papers under the first three topics in the
Group's framework of discussion, set forth in document G/ADP/W/404, and to follow on from the
discussion at this meeting with comments and que stions.  He expressed the hope that in future
meetings, more Members would participate actively in the work of the Informal Group, not only by
submitting papers, but by taking part in the discussions themselves.
128. Finally, the Chairman reiterated that the next meeting of the Group was scheduled for the
morning of Thursday, 1 May 2003.  The deadline for submissions for that meeting was
25 March 2003.  He urged Members to make maximum efforts to respect this deadline, to allow the
Secretariat to translate and circulate Members' submissions in a timely fashion before the meeting.
This would allow delegations, and particularly capital-based experts, to study the submissions in theirpreferred WTO language and prepare for the meeting.
129. The Committee took note of the Chairman's report.
G. OTHER BUSINESS
(i) Korea – India's anti-dumping measures on NBR (acrylonitrile butadiene rubber)
130. The delegate of Korea expressed a number of concerns regarding the decision of the Indian
authorities in their sunset review.  First, he noted some inconsistency in the calculation of the
dumping margin.  In the Disclosure Statement of Essential Facts dated 13 December, the dumpingmargin was given as US$109 per metric ton.  However, in the final finding, published in the
Government Gazette 8 days after the disclosure, the margin went up to more than US$400 per metric
ton.  No formal explanation had yet been provided  and the delegate of Korea expressed concern that
the Indian authorities might have relied upon inaccurate and biased information obtained from a
secondary source and not on the information duly submitted to and verified by the authorities.  If thiswere be the case, it might be in contravention of Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraph 3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.
131. Second, the delegate of Korea stated that the Indian Government had disclosed certain
information submitted by a Korean company on a confidential basis and which it explicitly requested
to be treated as such, in breach of Article 6.5 of the Agreement.G/ADP/M/22
Page 25
132. Third, he stated that the Indian Government had made a determination to extend the anti-
dumping measure without conducting a detailed anal ysis of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping
and injury, in violation of Article 11.3.
133. Lastly, the Indian Government seemed to have considered only part of the injury factors
stipulated in Article 3.4 – although the authorities alleged that they had considered appropriate injuryparameters, there was no evidence that they had evaluated all of the requisite factors specified in the
Agreement.
134. Korea was of the view that the final decision of India should be invalidated and the measure
be terminated immediately.  The delegate of Korea informed the Committee that a more detailed
paper on this case had been delivered to the Indian delegation in advance of the meeting.
135. The delegate of India stated that the detailed paper would be forwarded to his capital for
consideration.
(ii) Korea – Japan's anti-dumping measures on PSF (polyester staple fibre)
136. The delegate of Korea expressed serious concerns regarding the decision by the Japanese
authorities.  First, Korea was of the view that the Japanese decision on the product under investigation
and its like product was not only inconsistent with Article 2.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, but
also with the jurisprudence of the WTO derived from the Indonesian automobile case and someothers.  According to Korea, the Government of Japan considered Korean regenerated PSF as a like
product of Japanese virgin PSF, even though they are different from each other in both physical and
non-physical characteristics, including manufacturing process, interchangeability, channels of
distribution, common manufacturing facilities a nd employees, producer and customer perception,
price and use.  In addition to the above, none of the Japanese regenerated PSF producers participatedin the petition as it was filed by only the virgin PSF industry while the industry is composed of large-
scale major corporations which are strictly different from small regenerated PSF producers.
137. Second, the delegate of Korea stated that the decision by the Japanese authorities to initiate
the investigation was not supported by sufficient evidence to justify the initiation, as most of the
evidence provided by the petitioners on dumping, injury and the causal link between the allegeddumping and injury was based on mere presumptions.  The authorities had failed to separate the
regenerated PSF from virgin PSF in analysing evidence of injury and causal link in violation of
Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
138. Third, in Korea's view, the calculation of the dumping margin contained many flaws - in the
calculation method, the adjustment in the difference in product quality and grade, the exchange rate
and currency conversion, the level of trade adjustment and the circumstances of sale.
139. Fourth, the evidence of injury and threat of injury were insufficient, as all the major indicators
of injury to the Japanese virgin PSF producers did not support a finding of material injury. The
volume of alleged dumped imports from Korea showed mere fluctuation during the investigation
period, the prices of Korean PSF exports did not decline, and a price depression of domestic products
was not caused by the alleged dumped imports from Korea.  Furthermore, there was no actual or
potential decline in sales and the share of alleged dumped imports from Korea in the total imports hadbeen decreasing.  Korea therefore questioned the existence of a causal link between Korean imports
and material injury to the domestic industry.
140. Lastly, the delegate of Korea asserted that there were procedural defects in the investigation,
as the Japanese Government extended the investigation period by three months claiming that further
investigation was necessary, although the Korean authorities could not find any special circumstancesG/ADP/M/22
Page 26
to justify the extension.  The scope of the investigation was also unduly extended from five Korean
companies to include many other small companies during the investigation.  These actions were not
only in contravention of Article 5.10 of the Agreement, but also were violations of the letter and spirit
of the Agreement.
141. For these reasons, Korea believed that the final decision of Japan was not consistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and requested Japan to immediately terminate the measure. The delegate of
Korea informed the Committee that a detailed paper on the issue had been delivered to the Japanese
delegation in advance of the meeting.
142. The delegate of Chinese Taipei stated that this case concerned a measure which also affected
its exports.  There were basically three concerns which he would like to address. The first concern
related to the price undertaking.  Chinese Taipei exporters had opted for the application of price
undertakings during the investigation.  It was with that understanding that the exporters had replied tothe questionnaires, but rejected the request for an on-site investigation.  However, the Japanese
authorities responded in a very rapid and inattentive way.  According to Article 8.2 of the Agreement,
price undertakings shall not be sought or accepted from exporters until the authorities have made a
preliminary affirmative determination of dumping and injury.  The Japanese proceedings did not
include any preliminary determination.  Therefore, the opportunity for Chinese Taipei exporters toactively seek a price undertaking had been severely restrained.  As a result, an ultimatum on the terms
of a price undertaking was delivered to the exporters on 10 July with a grace period of only five days
to decide whether to accept it or not.
143. Second, as a consequence of the decision of the Chinese Taipei exporters to seek price
undertakings, and the fact that they replied to the questionnaire but rejected the request for an on-siteinspection, the authority totally disregarded information provided by the exporters and decided to use
the best information available.  To make matters worse, the information provided by the applicants
which requested 8.8 per cent anti-dumping duty was not even good enough for the investigating
authority and they went elsewhere and came up with information even better than the best information
available provided by the applicant, and made the final determination of a higher dumping margin at10.3 per cent.
144. Last, but not least, the investigation in question was initiated on polyester staple fibres whose
imports only constitute 4.5 per cent of the total domestic production.  After the finding that the
dumping margin for the largest company in Korea was at 0 per cent, the alleged dumping volume
would be less than 3 per cent of the total domestic production.  With such a small amount of imports
vis-à-vis  the domestic production, Chinese Taipei had serious reservations about the material injury
found by the investigating authority.
145. Chinese Taipei reserved its right to further pu rsue this matter in the Committee or in other
appropriate fora.
146. The delegate of Japan noted that it had resorted to only a few anti-dumping measures so far.
Japan had strictly observed anti-dumping rules by sticking to the principles of GATT that anti-
dumping measures should be taken only in situati ons where dumping and injury truly exist and where
the measure truly is necessary.  With respect to this particular case, he emphasized that the
investigation had been conducted consistently with the AD Agreement and the relevant domestic
laws.  With respect to the issue of like product regarding regenerated PSF and virgin PSF, the
Japanese authority had made an overall examination in terms of such factors as physical
characteristics, uses, channels of distribution, production process, prices, interchangeability, tariffclassification and industrial users’ perceptions.  In consequence, the Japanese authority reached the
conclusion that regenerated PSF and virgin PSF constituted a single like product.  The delegate ofG/ADP/M/22
Page 27
Japan expressed his authorities' willingness to have talks with Korea and Chinese Taipei on a bilateral
basis for further clarification and discussion on this particular case.
147. With respect to the procedural matter concerning a price undertaking raised by Chinese
Taipei, the delegate of Japan stated that the Japanese authority was quite open to the discussion of
price undertakings, but for the entire duration of the investigation Chinese Taipei had made noconcrete proposals for price undertakings. On the issue of best information available, he stated that the
Japanese authority used the best information available because Chinese Taipei’s companies rejected
on-the-spot investigation and the authority had therefore decided that materials submitted by
Taiwanese companies were unreliable.  The Japanese authority had used the submitted materials as
the best information available, and totally based the dumping margin on the submitted materials by
Taiwanese companies.  The delegate of Japan reiterated that his authorities were open to further
discussion on a bilateral basis.
148. The delegate of China stated that the correct nomenclature and name of Chinese Taipei is not
Taiwan, but the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
(iii) European Communities – Anti-dumping investigati on by India of cold-rolled flat products of
stainless steel originating in the European Union, Japan, Canada and the United States
149. The delegate of the European Communities expressed its concern regarding the anti-dumping
investigation carried out by India on cold-rolled flat products of stainless steel originating in the
European Union, Japan, Canada and the United States. He stated that the Indian investigating
authority had disclosed the findings in this case and it had found dumping margins ranging from 20-
265 per cent.  A disclosure document had been issued, but this document did not contain any
information whatsoever on the proposed anti-dumpi ng measures on imports of the product concerned.
The European Communities believed the findings of  this investigation violate the AD Agreement in
several aspects.  First, there was a wrong determination of dumping.  Second, it would appear that the
rights to have disclosure and the rights of defence of parties concerned had not been respected.  Third,
the determination of injury and also the determination of causal link did not seem to be in line with
the AD Agreement.
150. As far as dumping was concerned, it was clear from the disclosure document that one
dumping margin for one major EU exporter had been calculated by comparing a normal value based
on first-quality Community steel and export price for second-quality steel exported to India.  The
Indian authorities had refused to take account of this fact and therefore the dumping margin was, in
the view of the European Communities, wrongly determined.  Second, as far as procedural rights were
concerned, in terms of injury the disclosure by the Indian authorities was very incomplete and fell
well below the standard, and thus due process had been denied.  There also appeared to be anassumption in the disclosure that it was up to the inte rested parties to raise and to rebut the arguments
for and against the existence of injury.  This is clearly not the case.  Article 3 of the AD Agreement
makes it very clear that the onus is on the investigating authority to establish whether injury exists.
Indeed, any injury finding requires a demonstration based on positive evidence, irrespective of any
information supplied by the parties.  More specifically, no disclosure had been made on priceundercutting and price depression, either in actual or in indexed form.  The European Communities
had simply been informed that such price injury had been established.
151. The delegate of the European Communities also noted that one of the two Indian
complainants in this case apparently failed to coopera te properly in this investigation.  Data from this
company were used to establish injury.  For example, this particular company had provided no salesfigures, yet the Indian authorities had used partial data supplied by this company.  What was worse,
apparently none of the information supplied by either complainant was verified by the authorities.  In
light of these shortcomings, the conclusion of the Indian authorities that the domestic industryG/ADP/M/22
Page 28
suffered injury, was entirely unjustified.  Indeed, there was a fall in the market share of imports and a
corresponding huge rise in the market share of the Indian domestic industry.  The market share of
allegedly dumped imports from the exporting countries under investigation had decreased from 32.3
per cent to 30.5 per cent, while the share of the domestic industry increased very substantially, from
28.19 per cent to 40.25 per cent.  In fact, it was imports that appeared to be suffering, but this aspect,that the domestic industry increased market share so significantly, both in the investigation period and
during the full 3-year analysis period, was not analyzed in the disclosure.
152. Furthermore, the Indian authorities had made no effort to identify the various causes of injury,
but it was clear that such other causes existed.  The larger of the two complainants had increased
capacity three-fold over the last three years and was operating at one third of its capacity.  The other
complainant’s capacity had fallen sharply - this was the company that did not appear to have
cooperated.  According to the European Communities, it had not been provided with any explanationof why there was a rise for one of the companies and a fall for the other.  In fact, the Indian authorities
had refused to address this capacity issue during the investigation on the grounds that insufficient
information had been provided by the complainants.  The concerns that the European Communities
have with regard to this case were further heightened by the fact that India had recently initiated an
anti-dumping investigation against the European Communities, Australia, Canada, Singapore, SouthAfrica, Romania and Venezuela concerning hot-rolled steel products.  The most worrying feature was
that this initiation was based on threat of injury and the combined market share of the six exporting
countries, or entities, was as little as 3 per cent.  The European Communities was therefore of the
opinion that the proceeding on cold-rolled flat products should be terminated forthwith without the
imposition of any anti-dumping measures.
153. The delegate of India stated that he would convey the issues raised by the European
Communities to his capital upon receipt of the full text of the European Communities' statement.
(iv) European Communities – Anti-dumping investigat ion initiated by the Andean Community on
sorbitol originating in France
154. The delegate of the European Communities stated that by resolution 639/2002, published in
the Official Journal of the Cartagena Treaty of 12 August 2002, the Secretary-General of the Andean
Community had decided to initiate an anti-dumping investigation on imports of sorbitol produced by a
French producer.  The complaint was lodged by an Ecuadorian producer, apparently the only sorbitol
producer in the Andean Community.
155. The Secretary-General, as the investigating authority on behalf of the Andean Community,
which considers itself as a customs unio n, had based his decision on Article 2(d) of
Decision 283/1991, which apparently contains rules on anti-dumping investigations.
156. This initiation raised a number of questions.  First, to the European Communities' knowledge,
neither the Andean constitution agreements, nor th e anti-dumping rules, had been notified to the
WTO.  The delegate of the European Communities inquired whether there was any notification of the
documents.  If there was no such notification, the European Communities would like to know when
such notification would take place.
157. Second, on the basis of the information available to the European Communities, it would
appear that the Andean Community neither constitutes a customs union, nor is it a free-trade area.
This seemed to at least be the case with regards to  the product in question, sorbitol.  The information
available to the European Communities indicated that the relevant duty rates applied by Ecuador,
Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru to each other and to the rest of the world vary.  For instance,the rate applied by Ecuador and Colombia is 15 per cent, while the rate applied by Venezuela and
Bolivia is 10 per cent.  Therefore, the delegate of the European Communities inquired whether one ofG/ADP/M/22
Page 29
the Members of the Andean Community could explai n the legal basis, under the WTO rules, of this
anti-dumping activity of the Secretary-General of the Andean Community.
158. The delegate of Colombia responded that she had taken note of the European Communities
statement and that the concerns raised would be transmitted to her authorities.  She stated that
Colombia was of the view that was not appropriate in this Committee to study the issue of substantialshare of trade according to Article XXIV:2 of the GATT.
159. The delegate of Ecuador took note of the European Communities' statement and responded on
a preliminary basis to the concerns raised.  He informed the Committee that as the Andean
Community was not a Member of the WTO, it did not notify its legislation to the WTO, but each
country member did communicate this legislation to the WTO.  As concerns anti-dumping legislation,
this had been done.  The information referred to by the European Communities, Decision 283/1991,
was notified by some of the Members of the Andean Community.  The delegate of Ecuador stated thathe did not wish to enter into a discussion whether the Andean Community is a free-trade area or a
customs union or not, but wished to point out that, for at least the last eight years, the Andean
Community had resisted an analysis of whether or not it is a free-trade area.  It does cover a
substantial part of trade and this had been included since 1997, but this was not a subject to be
discussed in this forum.
160. Concerning the third point raised by the European Communities, the delegate of Ecuador
stated that the legal basis for the initiation of this anti-dumping investigation would be found in the
legislation, the Decision previously referred to, which is a legislation of the region and which was
notified by at least the member countries.
161. The delegate of Ecuador informed the Committee th at it would revert to this matter in writing
at the next meeting of the Committee.  To conclude, he pointed out that the Secretariat of the Andean
Community had started the investigation in August and one might presume the existence, at least on a
preliminary basis, of dumping of crystallized and non-crystallized sorbitol imports under 2905, 4900
and 3860 originating in an enterprise in the European Communities, until the year 2002.  Evidence
had been found to show the threat of injury or injury to domestic production from products originatingin France and possible dumping practices carried out within the 12 previous months.
162. The delegate of the European Communities thanked Colombia and Ecuador for the
preliminary statements they had given and looked forward to replies in writing.  He added however
that the European Communities were nevertheless perplexed at finding out that some Members have
simultaneously two sets of anti-dumping legislation in force.
(v) Thailand – Australia's imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of certain steel shelving
kits from Thailand
163. The delegate of Thailand expressed concerns on the imposition of anti-dumping duties on
certain steel shelving kits from Thailand by Australia.  The Australian authority, in September 2001,
had decided to impose an anti-dumping duty of 47.8 per cent on Thai imports based on a 3-month
period of investigation, that is from 1 January to 31 March 2001.  The concern of Thailand was
whether the 3-month time-frame was justified and sufficient to determine that there was dumping orinjury to the Australian domestic industry.  He noted that the issue of the time-frame of the period of
an investigation had been raised by WTO Members for some time and Members were all aware that
the Working Group on Implementation and this Committee were in the process of drafting a
recommendation concerning the time-period to be considered in making a determination of negligible
import volumes for the purpose of Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement.  The shortest period discussed inthe meetings and written in the draft was 6 months, which is still longer than the 3-month time-frame
used by the Australian authority.G/ADP/M/22
Page 30
164. In addition, Article 15 of the AD Agreement also recognizes that special regard must be given
by developed country Members to the special situation of developing country Members when
considering the application of anti-dumping measures.  Thailand was of the view that the AD measure
imposed by Australia was in this case not based on positive and sufficient evidence and failed to
comply with the obligation under Article 15.  The delegate of Thailand requested Australia to clarifythe issue and expressed the hope that its concerns will be taken into consideration when  reviewing the
case.
165. The delegate of Australia confirmed that that the period of investigation for dumping was
determined to be 1 January – 31 March 2001, as that was the only period for which there were any
imports from Thailand of the particular product.  However, for the purposes of injury analysis the
period was 1 October 1999 – 31 March 2001.  Australia did publish the statement of reasons and a
report, and in either case, no concerns had been expressed either by the company or the ThaiGovernment.
166. With respect to the second issue, the delega te of Australia repeated that the period of
1 January – 31 March 2001 was the only period for which there were any imports at all, and that this
issue was therefore of no practical consequence.  He pointed out that the Australian authority was still
in the process of drafting a recommendation.  He stated that in one sense the issues raised by Thailandgo beyond Article 15, but in any event, expressed the hope that the answers given indicated that
Australia had not been in breach of Article 15 or its responsibilities under the AD Agreement.
(vi) Thailand – Australia's imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of pineapple concentrate
and canned pineapple from Thailand
167. The delegate of Thailand raised concerns about the Australian imposition of anti-dumping
duties on pineapple concentrate and canned pineapple from Thailand.  In this case, the Australian
Customs Service (ACS) had initiated an anti-dumping investigation on pineapple concentrate and
canned pineapple from Thailand on 29 January 2001, based on the application lodged by the sole
Australian producer of pineapple products, Golden Circle Limited (GCL).  Subsequently, ACS had
made a determination and imposed provisional measures on pineapple juice concentrate and pineapplefruit exported from Thailand in the form of securities, effective 28 August 2001 and 4 October 2001
respectively.  The actual amount of the security was not published as it was confidential.  On
4 October 2001, the Minister had accepted the ACS recommendation to impose AD duties on
pineapple juice concentrate and pineapple fruit exported from Thailand.
168. The concerns expressed by Thailand were:  First, in calculating normal value, construction of
costs is allowed under the AD Agreement.  However, Article 2.2.1.1 states that costs shall normally
be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation if they arekept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles in the country of export and
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under
consideration.  Even though the Thai exporters provided all necessary information to the ACS during
its lengthy verification visits, the ACS had reject ed the sample companies’ actual cost allocation.
Instead, the ACS used its own net realizable valu e (NRV) method of cost allocation, which was less
reasonable as it ignored the differences in the individual company’s product styles.  The ACS also did
not provide an explanation as to why it considered the cost allocation of the sample companies as
being unreasonable.
169. Second, from October 2001 until the present, the ACS was still imposing provisional
measures, in the form of securities, on all other Thai exporters, even though Article 7.4 of the AD
Agreement states that the application of provisional measures should be limited to as short a period as
possible.  The provisional measures should last no longer than six months and the Australian current
system of security cannot continue indefinitely.  The Thai authorities and exporters had raised theseG/ADP/M/22
Page 31
concerns to the ACS several times, but had not yet received a satisfactory response from the ACS.
Thailand therefore would appreciate it if Australia could address the issue of the securities currently in
place on pineapple products exported by residual or new exporters.
170. As Thailand had already provided a copy of its statement to the Australian delegation and to
the Secretariat, the delegate of Thailand requested the Australian delegation to provide written repliesto the concerns raised.
171. The delegate of Australia responded that it was not correct to simply say that the ACS had not
provided an explanation as to why it rejected the company’s allocation method and determined the
cost using the net realizable value method.  Detailed explanation was given in the statement of
essential facts and in the report.  On the last point,  the complication had arisen in this particular case
because the matter was referred to an internal review mechanism.  The delegate of Australia
expressed his authorities' willingness to meet with the Thai authorities and the relevant exporters toresolve this matter.
(vii) Colombia - Mexico's anti-dumping investig ation of ceramic tableware and replacement
articles of ceramic tableware
172. The delegate of Colombia stated that Mexico had initiated an anti-dumping investigation on
Colombian exports of ceramic tableware, and replacement articles of tableware, on 21 January 2002.
Information had been presented to Mexican authorities by Colombian exporters as well as by the
importing company in Mexico.  With the informa tion provided it was clear that there was no
dumping.  The Mexican authorities did not calculate adjustments to the normal value in the
reconstructed export price.  The adjustments, rather, were increased, reducing the export price.  In
light of this, Colombia requested that the Mexican authorities take into account the concernsexpressed in the course of the investigation and that they strictly apply the provisions of the
Agreement.
173. The delegate of Ecuador informed the Committee that it was in a situation similar to that of
Colombia on this issue, involving the Mexican investigation of ceramic tableware. He echoed the
concerns expressed by Colombia and requested that the Mexican delegation take these concerns intoaccount.
174. The delegate of Mexico responded that the investigation was currently under way and that
there still was a time-period in which it was possible to submit further information by exporters.  In
addition, as a part of the procedure a public hearing is also provided for, where comments and
arguments from exporters, as well as by the governments of the exporting parties, will be able to be
heard.   Mexico took note of the concerns expressed.
(viii) Report on Technical Assistance Activities by the Rules Division in the area of anti-dumping
175. The Chairman noted that the question of Technical Assistance in the anti-dumping area was
briefly discussed during the spring meeting of the Committee.  Some Members at that meeting had
indicated that they would appreciate receiving a report on the technical assistance activities of the
Secretariat in the area of anti-dumping and the Chairman had therefore requested the Secretariat to
prepare a brief report describing the number and kind of activities undertaken since January of thisyear by the Secretariat and the Rules Division in the area of anti-dumping.
176. The Chairman emphasized that his report only described technical assistance in the anti-
dumping area – the Rules Division also provides comparable technical assistance in the areas of
countervailing measures, safeguards, and subsidy disciplines.G/ADP/M/22
Page 32
177. The Rules Division conducts specialized technical assistance activities in the anti-dumping
area on both a regional and a country-specific basis.  This is in addition to routine contacts with
delegations and capital-based officials in which technical issues under the AD Agreement are
discussed.
178. Regional activities are usually in the form of seminars.  Participants are most often officials of
Members with little or no experience in anti-dumping or other rules area matters, and officials of
countries in accession.  The purpose of these seminars is principally to clarify the relevant WTO
rights and obligations in the rules area in general,  and with respect to anti-dumping in particular.
However, the Rules Division also conducts specialized regional workshops for investigators from
WTO Members.  These are intended to provide in-d epth technical assistance in such areas as the
calculation of dumping margins, injury analysis and investigation procedures.
179. Country-specific activities focus on the specific needs of a particular Member, and can be
either seminars or workshops for training investigative staff, or more specialized activities such as
assistance in drafting legal provisions or regulations.
180. Seminars and workshops generally last from three to five days, and often involve two
members of the Rules Division staff as instructors.  From January 2002 to date, the Rules Division
had done 7 regional and 5 country specific programmes involving anti-dumping matters.  It had alsoconducted 2 specialized national workshops, and a third such workshop was scheduled for
December 2002.
181. The Chairman also deemed it useful to Members, and especially to their capital-based experts
present in the meeting, to explain the procedures  involved in requesting and obtaining technical
assistance from the Rules Division in the area of anti-dumping.
182. As Members would appreciate, the Secretariat has limited resources, both human and
financial, to provide technical assistance.  Demand for technical assistance far outstrips the capacity to
supply such assistance, not only in the Rules Divisi on but in the Secretariat as a whole.  To ensure
proper planning and that the available resources are maximized, the Technical Cooperation Division
earlier this year had requested Members to submit, in writing, requests for technical assistance in 2003by 31 July 2002. Requests for 1038 technical assistance activities were received.  74 of these requests
were in the area of trade remedies, that is, anti-dumping, countervailing measures, and safeguards.
That was the second largest group of requests, after the 84 requests for activities in the area of
Services.  The Technical Cooperation Division was in the process of developing a Coordinated WTO
Secretariat Annual Technical Assistance Plan fo r 2003.  A first draft of the plan, contained in
document WT/COMTD/W/104, was discussed in the Committee on Trade and Development in early
October.
183. The Committee took note of the report, copies of which were made available in the room.
184. The delegate of Egypt thanked the Secretariat for the national seminar held in Cairo during
the period 16-18 September 2002.
(ix) Second inquiry by the Chairman of the Comm ittee on Trade and Development concerning the
Committee's activities in respect of special and differential treatment provisions
185. The Chairman informed the Committee that he had received a letter from
H.E. Ambassador Smith, the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and
Development – copies of the letter were made available in the room.  Ambassador Smith had
requested information on any discussions, or other developments, relating to special and differential
treatment that had taken place in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and its subsidiary bodies,G/ADP/M/22
Page 33
in the form of a report before 30 November 2002.  In response to this request, the Chairman intended
to send a letter to the Chairman, reporting th at the Committee, through the Working Group on
Implementation, had been conducting discussions examining Article 15 of the AD Agreement, but
that, as yet, there had been no outcome of those discussions to be reported.  Should those discussions
come to a conclusion before 30 November 2002, he undertook to provide any relevant additionalinformation to the Chairman of the Special Session at that time.  Copies of the Chairman's response
would be provided to Members.
186. The Committee took note of the statement
(x) Inquiry by the Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology
concerning any discussion, submissions or other developments relating to trade and
technology transfer
187. The Chairman informed that he had received a letter from H.E. Ambassador Stefan
Johannesson, Chairman of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, in which it was
noted that the Working Group was examining the relationship between trade and transfer of
technology, as well as any possible recommendations on steps that might be taken within the mandate
of the WTO to increase flows of technology to developing countries.  The Working Group decided at
a meeting held on 10 October to request information from other WTO bodies regarding any work thatthey may have done in this regard, or that they plan to carry out in relation to trade and transfer of
technology.  The Chairman was therefore requested to inform the Working Group of any discussion,
submissions and/or other developments relating to trade and technology transfer that may have taken
place in the Committee, or its subsidiary bodies, by 20 November, in order that he could report the
response at the meeting of the Working Group on 28 November.  In response to this request, theChairman intended to send a letter to Ambassador Johannesson informing him that there had been no
discussions, submissions, or other developments in the Committee or its subsidiary bodies relating to
trade and technology transfer.  Copies of this response would be provided to Members.
188. The Committee took note of the statement.
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
189. 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, and taking into
consideration the Easter Monday holiday on 21 Ap ril 2003, it was proposed that the next regular
meeting of the Committee be held in the last w eek of April 2003, that is, the week of 28 April –
2 May 2003.
190. The Chairman considered that it would be reasonable to shorten the Committee's overall
meeting schedule by one day and therefore proposed th at the Committee begin its regular spring meeting
in the afternoon of Thursday, 1 May 2003.  A meeting of the Working Group on Implementation had
already been scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, 29 and 30 April, and a meeting of the Informal
Group on Anti-Circumvention for the morning of Thursday, 1 May.  By starting the meeting of the
Committee on Thursday afternoon, the Committee would have the full day on Friday available, if
necessary, to complete its business.
191. The Committee decided to meet on the dates proposed by the Chairman.
I. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 18.6)
192. The Chairman noted that, pursuant to Article 18.6 of the Agreement, the Committee was
required to review annually the implementation and operation of the Agreement, taking into accountG/ADP/M/22
Page 34
the objectives thereof, and to inform annually th e Council for Trade in Goods of developments during
the period covered by the review.  Copies of a draft report had previously been made available to
Members for comment.
193. The delegate of the United States stated that he wished to make general comments about the
annual report.  In the view of the United States, the annual report was an extremely important
document – it was the only officially sanctioned representation of the work of the Committee and it
would be best that this stood as the only official representation from the WTO of the work of this
Committee.  With respect to other documents that might have been issued by the Organization in
regard to work conducted in this Committee, the United States did not have the opportunity to place
such documents or raise the issue of such documents under "Other Business" of the Committee as it
did not receive them until late the previous day.  To the extent that such a document referred to
statistics reported by Members to the Committee, the United States believed that such documentsshould prominently note any limitations on the data on which they are based.  For example, the
United States had noted in recent days that certain information was not included in reports of
initiations conducted during the reporting period, and additionally, the Chairman had noted that some
Members had not provided semi-annual reports.  Both of these omissions, the United States believed,
could substantially influence the statistics to a degree that was simply unknowable.  Nevertheless, theUnited States recognized the value of such statistics in comparison to the statistics put out by other
organizations on the incidence of anti-dumping measures.
194. Second, the United States was also of the view that that such documents put out by this
Organization should clearly define such terms as "developed" and "developing" when they are used.
Third, the United States believed that such documents produced by this Organization should eliminatereferences to non-WTO Members.  Investigations conducted against imports from non-WTO
Members might be conducted on  a very different basis from investigations conducted with respect to
imports from WTO Members, as those investigations by definition were not subject to the ADP
Agreement.  However, the United States did recognize the importance of accurate statistics put out by
this Organization and which show which Members ha d a concentration of exporters who had engaged
in dumping.  The United States believed that such information would prove very useful as work on
underlying market distortions in progress in the Rules Negotiating Group.
195. The delegate of India commented that some of the issues raised by the United States needed
to be looked into carefully.  One issue on which India wanted to express an opinion there and then
was about the definition of "developing" and "developed", as the delegate was not sure whether this
was the forum for discussing that issue.  This had come up in many other fora as well.  However, if
one were to read the WTO Agreements, then everyone was clear as to what was meant by a"developing country" and what was meant by a "developed country".  Of course, if the United States
delegate had another context in mind, India would like clarification.
196. The delegate of United States agreed with India that this was not the appropriate forum to
discuss the issue of "developing" versus "developed" countries.  That issue was being discussed in
other fora and it was precisely with this in mind that the United States believed that such referencesshould not be made when discussing the work carried out by this Committee.
197. The meeting was recessed to allow preparation of a final version of the draft annual report,
reflecting the current meeting, which was made available to Members, and the meeting was resumed.G/ADP/M/22
Page 35
198. The Committee adopted the annual report.6
199. The meeting was adjourned.
__________
                                                     
6 Subsequently circulated as document G/L/581, dated 29 October 2002.