RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/M/10
24September 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3952)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OFTHE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON28-29 APRIL 1997
Chairman: MrOleLundby (Norway)
1. TheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices (the"Committee") helditsregular meeting on
28-29 April 1997.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Observers: International intergovernmental organizations ..............2
B. Review ofnational legislations ..............................3
- neworamended notifications notpreviously reviewed bythe
Committee: ......................................3
(i) Brunei Darussalam (G/ADP/N/1/BRN/1)
(ii) Fiji(G/ADP/N/1/FJI/1)
(iii) Guatemala (G/ADP/N/1/GTM/2-G/SCM/N/1/GTM/2)
(iv) Indonesia (G/ADP/N/1/IDN/2-G/SCM/N/1/IDN/2)
(v) India (G/ADP/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.1)
(vi) Japan (G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Corr.2 &Suppl.1-
G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Corr.2 &Suppl.1
(vii) Korea (G/ADP/N/1/KOR/2)
(viii) Liechtenstein (G/ADP/N/1/LIE/1-G/SCM/N/1/LIE/1)
(ix) Singapore (G/ADP/N/1/SGP/2-G/SCM/N/1/SGP/2)
(x) Thailand (G/ADP/N/1/THA/3-G/SCM/N/1/THA/3)
(xi) Uganda (G/ADP/N/1/UGA/2-G/SCM/N/1/UGA/2)
(xii) Uruguay (G/ADP/N/1/URY/2)
- notifications thathavealready beenreviewed bytheCommittee: ....6
(i) Canada
(ii) European Community
(iii) Israel
(iv) NewZealand
(v) United States
C. Application oftheEuropean Community 'samended regulation on
Anti-dumping .........................................7G/ADP/M/10
Page2
Page
D. Semi-annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Actions (Article 16.4)
(G/ADP/N/22 andAddenda) ................................9
E. Preliminary andFinal Anti-Dumping Actions (G/ADP/N/20, N/21, N/23,
N/24, andN/25) .......................................10
F. European Community -Investigations concerning theAnti-Circumvention
Measures onImports ofRetail Electronic Weighing Scales ortheParts
thereof from Japan, Singapore andIndonesia .....................11
G. Follow UptotheSingapore Ministerial Declaration .................12
H. Anti-Circumvention -Chairman 'sReport andFollow Up..............17
I. Other Business .........................................19
(i) Japan -United States investigation ofsupercomputers
(ii) Japan -ECdelays inanti-dumping investigations
(iii) India -South Africa anti-dumping andcountervailing dutyactions
(iv) United States -Philippines investigations offloatglass from Thailand
J. Election ofOfficers ......................................22
K. DateofNext Regular Meeting ...............................22
A. Observers: International Intergovernmental Organizations
3. TheChairman recalled that,under theprocedures adopted bytheGeneral Council forobserver
status forinternational intergovernmental organizations (WT/L/161, Annex 3),requests forobserver
status weretobeconsidered onacase-by-case basis byeachWTO body towhich arequest hadbeen
addressed, taking intoaccount suchcriteria asthenature ofthework oftheorganization concerned,
thenature ofitsmembership, thenumber ofWTO Members intheorganization, reciprocity withrespect
toaccess toproceedings, documents andother aspects ofobservership, andwhether theorganization
hadbeeninvolved inthepastwiththework oftheGATT. Atitsmeeting on7February, theGeneral
Council hadnoted thattheIMFandtheWorld Bank hadbeengiven observer status inWTO bodies
pursuant totheAgreements between theWTO andthese twoinstitutions. With regard toother
internationalintergovernmentalorganizations,theGeneralCouncilhadagreed:(a)thattheorganizations
which already hadobserver status intheGeneral Council onanadhocbasisbegranted observer status
immediately; (b)thatforinternational intergovernmental organizations whose requests hadnotyet
beenconsidered theChairman would conduct consultations; (c)toinvite theother WTO bodies to
proceed inasimilar way. Asindicated indocument G/ADP/W/402, theACPGroup, IMF, OECD,
UNCTAD, andWorld Bank hadrequested observer status inthisCommittee.
4. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheobserver status oftheIMFandtheWorld Bank. TheCommittee
further decided tograntregular observer status toUNCTAD, onthebasisthattherewould bereciprocity
withrespect todocuments, proceedings andother aspects ofobservership.
5. With respect totherequest bytheOECD, therepresentative ofBrazil indicated thatfurther
analysis wasrequired before theCommittee could decide onobserver status fortheOECD.G/ADP/M/10
Page3
6. Thedelegate ofThailand, speaking onbehalf oftheASEAN countries, noted thattherequest
forobserver status bytheCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures, which alsooperated
intheRules areahadnotbeendecided bytheOECD. Hesuggested thattheCommittee delay itsdecision
untiltherelated SCM Committee hadreviewed thematter.
7. Therepresentatives ofIndia, Pakistan, andSriLanka expressed similar concerns, andsupported
thesuggestion thattheCommittee delay itsdecision ontherequest oftheOECD pending further
discussions.
8. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee defer action ontheOECD 'srequest forobserver
status untilalaterdate, butcontinue toallow theOECD observer status onanadhocbasis.
9. TheCommittee sodecided.
10. Turning totheACPGroup 'srequest, theChairman indicated thattheACPGroup hadrequested
observer status inseveral WTO bodies andthattheChairmen ofthose bodies were consulting with
Members regarding therequest. TheChairman proposed toconduct similar consultations withrespect
totheACP Group 'srequest forobserver status inthisCommittee.
11. TheCommittee sodecided.
B. National Legislations
- Review ofNeworAmended Notifications notpreviously reviewed bytheCommittee
12. TheChairman recalled thatquestions concerning newly notified legislations weretohavebeen
submitted totheMember concerned andtotheSecretariat by7April 1997. While most questions
were received bytheSecretariat afterthatdate, overall thesituation oflatesubmissions wasnotas
badasithasbeeninthepast. TheChairman urged Members tocontinue toimprove inthisregard
asreview oflegislation remained animportant aspect oftheCommittee 'swork, andwould remain
aregular itemontheCommittee 'sagenda.
13. TheChairmanremindedMembersthat,ifwrittenanswerstoquestionsaskedorallyatthemeeting
weredesired, those questions weretobesubmitted inwriting totheMember whose legislation was
concerned, andtotheSecretariat, nolaterthan26May1997. Written answers toallquestions were
tohavebeensubmitted totheSecretariat nolaterthan30June1997.
14. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofBrunei Darussalam canbefound inthefollowing
document:
G/ADP/Q1/BRN/1 submitted byHong Kong
NOWRITTEN ANSWERSHAVEYETBEEN PROVIDEDBYBRUNEIDARUSSALAM.
15. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofFijicanbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/FJI/1 submitted byHong Kong
TheCommittee tooknoteofthefactthatFijiwasnotrepresented atthemeeting.
NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE YET BEEN PROVIDED BYFIJI.G/ADP/M/10
Page4
16. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofGuatemala canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/1 submitted byMexico
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/2 submitted byCanada
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/3 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/4 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/5 follow upquestions submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/GTM/6 submitted byKorea
NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE YET BEEN PROVIDED BYGUATEMALA.
17. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofIndia canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/IND/3 submitted byCanada
G/ADP/Q1/IND/4 submitted bytheUnited States
Theanswers provided byIndia tothese questions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/IND/5 toCanada andtheUnited States.
18. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofIndonesia canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/1 submitted bytheEuropean Community
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/2 submitted byTurkey
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/3 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/4 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/5 submitted byKorea
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/7 supplementary question submitted bytheEuropean Community
Theanswers provided byIndonesia tothesequestions canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/IDN/6 totheEC,Turkey, theUnited States, Hong Kong, andKorea
NOWRITTEN ANSWERSHAVEYETBEEN PROVIDEDTOTHESUPPLEMENTARY
QUESTION SUBMITTED BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY.
19. Noquestions were asked concerning thenotification ofJapan.
20. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofKorea canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/1 submitted byCanada
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/2 submitted bytheEuropean Community
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/3 submitted byTurkey
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/4 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/5 submitted byMexico
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/6 submitted byChile
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/7 follow upquestions submitted bytheEuropean Community
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/8 follow upquestions submitted byChile
Theanswers provided byKorea canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/KOR/9 toALLG/ADP/M/10
Page5
21. ThequestionsregardingthenotificationofLiechtensteincanbefoundinthefollowingdocument:
G/ADP/Q1/LIE/1 submitted byHong Kong
Theanswers provided byLiechtenstein canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/LIE/2 toHong Kong
22. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofSingapore canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/2 submitted byCanada
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/3 submitted byTurkey
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/4 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/5 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/6 submitted byCanada
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/7 submitted byKorea
Theanswers provided bySingapore canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/SGP/8 toALL
23. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofThailand canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/THA/1 submitted byPoland
G/ADP/Q1/THA/2 submitted byCanada
G/ADP/Q1/THA/3 submitted bytheEuropean Community
G/ADP/Q1/THA/4 submitted byTurkey
G/ADP/Q1/THA/5 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/THA/6 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/THA/7 submitted byKorea
G/ADP/Q1/THA/8 follow upquestions submitted bytheEuropean Community
NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE YET BEEN PROVIDED BYTHAILAND.
24. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofUganda canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/UGA/1 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/UGA/2 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/UGA/3 submitted byKorea
TheCommittee tooknoteofthefactthatUganda wasnotrepresented atthemeeting.
Theanswers provided byUganda canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/UGA/4 toALL
25. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofUruguay canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/URY/2 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/URY/3 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/URY/4 submitted byMexico
G/ADP/Q1/URY/5 submitted byChileG/ADP/M/10
Page6
G/ADP/Q1/URY/6 submitted byKorea
G/ADP/Q1/URY/7 submitted byCanada
Theanswers provided byUruguay canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/URY/8 toALL
- Review ofNotifications thathavealready beenreviewed bytheCommittee
26. TheChairman recalled thatfollow-up questions concerning anumber oflegislations thathad
already beenreviewed bytheCommittee werereceived toolatetoplace thenotifications ontheagenda
oftheCommittee 'smeeting lastOctober inaccordance withtheprocedures agreed onbytheCommittee.
Those notifications, andthequestions andanswers concerning them, werethusincluded ontheagenda
forthepresent meeting. Inaddition, thedelegate ofIsrael hadbeenunable tobepresent attheOctober
meeting, andtheCommittee hadagreed toputthereview ofIsrael'slegislation ontheagenda ofthis
meeting.
27. Thefollow upquestions regarding thenotification ofCanada canbefound inthefollowing
documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/1 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/4 submitted byHong Kong.
Theanswers provided byCanada canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/3 toHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/CAN/5 toHong Kong
28. Thefollow upquestions totheEuropean Community canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/1 submitted byHong Kong
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/4 submitted byHong Kong.
Theanswers provided bytheEuropean Community tothequestions found indocument
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/1 canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/EEC/3
NOWRITTEN ANSWERS HAVE YET BEEN PROVIDED BYTHE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY TOTHE QUESTIONS FOUND INDOCUMENT G/ADP/Q1/EEC/4.
29. TheChairman informed theCommittee thatIsrael wasnotrepresented atthemeeting because
ofanational holiday inIsrael. TheChairman stated thattherepresentative ofIsrael hadundertaken
toaddress thequestions regarding itsnotification atthemeeting oftheCommittee onSubsidies and
Countervailing Measures laterintheweek. TheCommittee tooknoteofIsrael'sabsence.1
1Israel responded toquestions atthemeeting oftheCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing
Measures heldon1-2May1997. Seedocument G/SCM/M/14 at¶¶20-21.G/ADP/M/10
Page7
30. Thequestions regarding thenotification ofIsrael canbefound inthefollowing documents:
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/1 submitted bytheUnited States
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/2 submitted bytheEuropean Community
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/3 submitted byJapan
Theanswers provided byIsrael canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/ISR/4 toALL
31. Thefollow upquestions toNewZealand canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/NZL/1 submitted byHong Kong
Theanswers provided byNewZealand canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/NZL/2 toHong Kong
32. Thefollow upquestions totheUnited States canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/1 submitted byHong Kong
Theanswers provided bytheUnited States canbefound inthefollowing document:
G/ADP/Q1/USA/2 toHong Kong
33. TheChairman reminded Members that,intheMinisterial Declaration adopted atSingapore
lastDecember, Ministers hadnoted thatMembers were"mindful oftheirobligations tocomplete their
domestic legislative process without further delay," andhadreminded Members that"[e]ach Member
should carefully review allitsexisting orproposed legislation ...toensure ...fullcompatibility with
theWTO obligations, andshould carefully consider points made during review intherelevant WTO
bodiesregardingtheWTOconsistencyoflegislation,...andmakeappropriatechangeswherenecessary."
Hesuggested thattheCommittee might needtoconsider whether andhowitcould report onwhat
MembersweredoinginordertocomplywiththeseaspectsoftheMinisterialDeclaration.TheChairman
suggested thatMembers takethismatter under consideration, andconsult witheachother andthe
Chairman astohowthiscould beaccomplished, withaviewtodiscussing theissuebefore theissuance
oftheCommittee 'sAnnual Report inOctober.
34. TheChairman noted that,inorder forapreviously reviewed notification oflegislation toappear
ontheagenda oftheCommittee 'snextregular meeting inOctober 1997, questions weretobesubmitted
totheMember whose notification isinquestion, andtotheSecretariat, nolaterthan12September 1997.
C. Application oftheEuropean Community 'samended Regulation ofanti-dumping
35. TheChairman explained thattheEuropean Community 'snotification ofitsamended regulation
(G/ADP/N/1/EEC/2/Suppl.1)hadnotbeenincludedontheagendaunderthereviewofnationallegislation
because ithadnotcirculated toMembers inallthree WTO languages sixweeks before themeeting,
asprovided forintheprocedures forreview oflegislations adopted bytheCommittee. However, this
notification would beincluded asanewnotification ontheagenda fortheOctober 1997 Committee
meeting, andallMembers would havetheopportunity toposequestions.G/ADP/M/10
Page8
36. JapanhadnonethelesssubmittedquestionswithrespecttotheEuropeanCommunity'snotification,
which canbefound indocument G/ADP/Q1/EEC/2. Thedelegation ofJapan hadasked thatthisitem,
anditsquestions, beincluded ontheagenda ofthismeeting.
37. Thedelegate ofJapan noted thattheprincipal issueaddressed bythePanel, inthe1995panel
report onEuropean Community -Anti-Dumping Duties onAudio Tapes inCassettes Originating in
Japan (ADP/136), concerned asymmetrical adjustments made bytheEuropean Community when a
constructed normal value iscompared withaconstructed export price. Although thePanel'sreport
hadnotbeenadopted, Japan hadpressed theEuropean Community tomodify itslegislation concerning
adjustments intheabove-mentioned circumstances allthesame.
38. Thedelegate ofJapan stated thatinDecember 1996, 18months afterthePanel report hadissued,
andatthelastpossible moment forcomments, theEuropean Community hadintroduced therelevant
amendments. Japan wasnotimpressed withthechanges introduced bytheEuropean Community.
Although Japan accepted thatitmight notbepossible toinclude detailed guidelines concerning
adjustments indomestic legislation, adescription ofbasic principles governing allowances should be
possible. Therepresentative ofJapan suggested thattheamendments made bytheEuropean Community
wereunsatisfactory,andcouldevenallowforcontinuedasymmetricallowancesincertaincircumstances.
Heindicated thattheEuropean Community should clarify itsnewlegislation, toensure thatthere is
noconflict withthefindings ofthepanel.
39. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Community stated thattheCommittee wasnottheappropriate
forum fordiscussing thePanel report referred tobyJapan, which hadbeendiscussed extensively in
theTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices. Nevertheless, heindicated thatparts of
thePanel report wereacceptable totheEuropean Community. Thiswasthecase,forexample, regarding
thePanel'sstatement thatdomestic legislation should contain anon-exhaustive listofallowances. The
European Community hadincluded suchanon-exhaustive listofallowances initsrecent amendments.
Thedelegate oftheEuropean Community stressed theimportance ofavoiding aclosed listofallowances.
Thedelegate oftheEuropean Community thenreplied orally toJapan'swritten questions.
40. Therepresentative ofMexico noted that,eventhough thePanel report remained unadopted,
thedecision ofthatPanel stillstands. ThefactthataPanel report isnotadopted doesnotmean that
ameasure condemned byaPanel isGATT-consistent.
41. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated that,asamatter ofprinciple, afaircomparison should be
made between thenormal value andexport price. Hesuggested thatthecentral question washow
tomake dueallowances ifprice comparability isaffected when using aconstructed export price.
According toHong Kong, there aretwosources ofguidance inthisregard. First, thereport ofthe
Panel onEuropean Community -Anti-Dumping Duties onAudio Tapes inCassettes Originating in
Japan. Second, thegeneric principle offaircomparison contained inArticle 2.4oftheAnti-Dumping
Agreement, which provides apermanent yardstick against which anti-dumping measures should be
measured.
42. TheChairman noted that,because ofthetiming element referred toearlier, written answers
would nottechnically berequired fromtheEuropean Community untilaftertheCommittee 'smeeting
inOctober, when thisnotification would appear ontheagenda asaregular item. However, hesuggested
thatearly submission ofthewritten answers would bewelcomed.
43. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community indicated thatitwould endeavour toprovide
itsresponses inwriting totheSecretariat forcirculation toMembers before thattime.
44. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.G/ADP/M/10
Page9
D. Semi-annual reports ofanti-dumping actions
45. TheChairman noted thatsemi-annual reports forthesecond halfof1996 weretohavebeen
submitted by28February 1997. Unfortunately, asseemed tobehabitual formany Members, almost
allsemi-annual reports werereceived late. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
European Communities, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, NewZealand, Peru, Singapore, South
Africa, Thailand, Turkey, theUnited States, andVenezuela, hadsubmitted semi-annual reports. In
addition 22Members, identified indocument G/ADP/N/22/Add/1, hadnotified theCommittee that
theydidnottakeanyanti-dumping actions during theperiod inquestion, andEcuador, SriLanka and
Tanzania hadrecently notified theCommittee ofthesame.
46. While there hadbeensome improvement incompliance, particularly intheuseoftheagreed
format,asinthepast,mostnotificationsweresubmittedwellaftertheapplicabledeadlines,andsixty-nine
Members hadnotfiledsemi-annual reports. TheChairman acknowledged thathewasrepeating remarks
thatMembers hadheard many times before, andwastosome extent speaking tothewrong audience,
asasignificant proportion oftheMembers whohavefailed tomake theirnotifications werenotpresent.
However, hefeltitnecessary torepeat thatthecontinuing failure ofMembers tosubmit complete semi-
annual reports inatimely fashion limited theCommittee 'sability toconsider thesubstance ofthose
notifications. Transparency wasthusreduced, andtheCommittee 'sability toconduct theimportant
tasks ofsurveillance andmonitoring waslimited.
47. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Community noted thatthesemi-annual report ofAustralia omitted
anumber ofreviews initiated during thelastreporting period.
48. Therepresentative ofAustralia explained thatthecasesreferred tobytheEuropean Community
concerned five-year sunset reviews. Sheexplained thatapagewasmissing fromtheAustralian semi-
annual report, andthatarevised semi-annual report correcting thiserror would besubmitted.
49. Therepresentative ofChile requested information concerning thestatus ofaBrazilian
investigation intoimports ofmagnesium phosphate from Chile.
50. ThedelegateofBrazilinformedtheCommitteethatquestionnairesweresenttoChileanexporters
inOctober 1996, andthattheinvestigation wasstillunderway. Heindicated thatafinalhearing with
interested parties wasprovisionally scheduled forAugust 1997.
51. Thedelegate ofCanada sought clarification concerning theEuropean Community investigation
concerning magnetic disks fromCanada. Hestated thatAnnex IoftheEuropean Community 'ssemi-
annual report indicated thattheinvestigation hadbeenterminated inJuly1996, whereas Annex VI
indicated thatthecasehadnotyetbeenconcluded.
52. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community explained thatAnnexes IandVIreferred to
different investigations. Annex Ireferred toananti-circumvention investigation concerning goods
fromCanada thatwasterminated on25July1997, while Annex VIreferred toaproceeding concerning
goods originating inCanada thatwasstillunderway.
53. Thedelegate ofEgypt asked theEuropean Community forinformation ontwoinvestigations
concerning bedlinen andunbleached cotton fabric, initiated inSeptember 1996 andFebruary 1996
respectively.
54. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community informed theCommittee thattheinvestigation
intobedlinenwasabout tobefinalised, andthatpreliminary measures hadalready beenlevied. SubjectG/ADP/M/10
Page10
toconfirmation, hestated thattheinvestigation intounbleached cotton fabric wasstillunderway, and
thatnomeasures hadbeenimposed.
55. Therepresentative ofKorea commented ontheUnited States anti-circumvention investigation
concerning colour televisions from, interalia,Korea. Hestated thatananti-circumvention investigation
wasonlyappropriate ifthere wasananti-dumping order tobecircumvented. Thejustification for
continued anti-dumping measures should beinvestigated before allegations ofcircumvention, especially
astheapplication fortheinterim review oftheanti-dumping measures hadbeen filedbefore the
application foranti-circumvention measures. Attempts tolinktheresults oftheanti-circumvention
investigation withthedetermination torevoke theanti-dumping measures would beequivalent toplacing
thecartbefore thehorse. Given thatoneyearhadelapsed since theapplication forthereview was
accepted, Korea urged theUnited States toconclude thereview by11June1997, inaccordance with
Article 11.4oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Furthermore, Korea strongly urged theUnited States
toimmediately make adetermination initsanti-circumvention investigation. Even though theAnti-
Dumping Agreement contains noprovision onanti-circumvention, itdoesrequire allinvestigations
andreviews tobeconcluded within oneyear. Inaddition, theUnited States Tariff Actstipulates that
authorities shall, tothemaximum extent practicable, make adetermination within 300daysofthedate
ofinitiation ofanti-circumvention investigations. Heexpressed Korea 'sconcern thatexcessive burdens
hadbeenplaced onrespondents asaresult offivemonths passing without anydetermination.
56. Thedelegate oftheUnited States regretted thatshewasnotwellinformed onthiscase, since
theUnited States hadonlyreceived notice ofKorea 'squestions thepreceding day. Shestated that
theUnited States would revert totheCommittee onthismatter when thenecessary factshadbeen
procured.
57. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated hiscountry 'sprincipled objections totheimposition ofanti-
dumping measures outside thecircumstances provided forbyGATT 1994 Article VIandtheAnti-
Dumping Agreement. Hestated thattheprovisions ofUnited States legislation providing foranti-
circumvention measures were incompatible withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Heexpressed his
country 'ssupport fortheprevious intervention byKorea.
58. Thedelegate ofJapan stated that,asamatter ofgeneral principle, anti-circumvention measures
arecontrary toArticles 1and18oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement, andArticle VIofGATT 1994.
59. TheCommittee tooknoteofthecomments andstatements made.
E. Notifications ofpreliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions
60. TheChairman noted that,sincethelastregular meeting oftheCommittee, Argentina, Australia,
Canada, theEuropean Community, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, NewZealand, Peru, South Africa,
andThailand hadnotified preliminary andfinalactions taken, asidentified indocuments G/ADP/N/20,
G/ADP/N/21, G/ADP/N/23, G/ADP/N/24, andG/ADP/N/25.
61. Aswithother notification requirements, there appeared tobealackoffullcompliance inthis
area,assome Members whohadsubmitted semi-annual reports indicating actions inprogress hadnot
submitted anyreports ofpreliminary orfinalactions taken. Hereminded Members thatanimportant
aspect oftheCommittee 'staskwasitsroleinmonitoring anddiscussing actions taken byMembers.
IfMembers didnottaketheirobligations tonotify seriously andcomply, theCommittee would be
prevented from accomplishing itsgoalofconsidering Members 'compliance withtherequirements
oftheAgreement.G/ADP/M/10
Page11
62. Thedelegate ofCanada sought clarification fromIndiaconcerning itsanti-dumping investigation
ofnewsprint from Canada.
63. Therepresentative ofIndia informed theCommittee thattheinvestigation wasinprogress,
andthatfurther details would beprovided toCanada bilaterally.
64. TheCommittee tooknoteofthequestions andcomments.
F. European Community -Investigations concerning theanti-circumvention measures onimports
ofretail electronic weighing scales orthepartsthereof fromJapan, Singapore andIndonesia
65. Therepresentative ofJapan recalled thattheEuropean Community hadinitiated twoanti-
circumvention investigations inAugust 1996. Oneinvestigation concerned certain retail electronic
weighing scales originating inJapan butassembled inortranshipped through Indonesia. Thesecond
investigation concerned imports ofpartsofcertain electronic weighing scales originating inJapan and
Singapore butassembled intheEuropean Community. Thebasisforbothinvestigations wasArticle 13
oftheEuropean Community 'sAnti-Dumping Regulation, eventhough nosuchprovision iscontained
intheAnti-DumpingAgreement.AccordingtoArticle1oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement,anti-dumping
measures mayonlybeapplied under thecircumstances provided forinArticle VIoftheGATT, and
pursuant toinvestigations initiated andconcluded inaccordance withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement.
Heconcluded therefore thattheArticle 13oftheEuropean Community Regulation, andthetwo
investigationsinitiatedonthebasisthereof,wereinconsistentwiththeEuropeanCommunity'sobligations
under theAnti-Dumping Agreement. Toensure consistency withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement, he
suggested thattheinvestigation against imports from Indonesia should follow normal procedures in
analysing dumping andinjury. Hestated thattheEuropean Community would bejustified inapplying
appropriate measures against imports ofparts andcomponents originating inJapan andSingapore if
thelatter aredeemed tobedumped andcausing injury. Herepeated thattheAnti-Dumping Agreement
didnotauthoriseanti-circumventioninvestigations.Henotedthat,despitetheseriousconcernsexpressed
byJapan onearlier occasions, theEuropean Community hadcontinued withthetwoinvestigations.
Herequested theimmediate termination ofbothinvestigations. Hestated thatJapan reserved itsright
totakeallappropriate action under theWTO Agreements.
66. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community explained thattwoinvestigations concerning
allegedcircumventionwereopenedfollowingcomplaintsbytheEuropeanCommunityindustrycontaining
proof ofchanges inthestructure oftrade. Theonlyexplanation forsuchchanges appeared tobethe
circumvention ofanti-dumping measures. Hestated thatArticle 13oftheEuropean Community
Regulation isinconformity withbothArticle VIofGATT 1994 andtheAnti-Dumping Agreement,
astheCommunity hadexplained onearlier occasions. Henoted inparticular thatArticle 13includes
anexamination ofbothdumping andinjury. Heindicated totheCommittee thattheinvestigations
would beconcluded shortly.
67. Thedelegate ofIndonesia expressed hiscountry 'ssupport fortheposition taken byJapan on
anti-circumvention, noting thatthere wasnoprovision intheAnti-Dumping Agreement authorising
theapplication ofanti-circumvention measures. Heurged theEuropean Community toreconsider its
position, orviolate Article 1and18oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement.
68. Therepresentative ofSingapore shared theviews expressed byJapan onthismatter, noting
thatneither Article VIofGATT 1994northeAnti-Dumping Agreement provide foranti-circumvention
measures. Shestated thattheAnti-Dumping Agreement onlyallows theapplication ofanti-dumping
measures afteraninvestigation ofdumping, injury andcausality. Inthepresent case, there wasno
basis forextending existing anti-dumping duties toimports ofparts andcomponents oftherelevant
product. Instead, anewinvestigation should beinitiated todetermine whether imports ofsuchpartsG/ADP/M/10
Page12
andcomponents aredumped andcausing injury. Sherequested theEuropean Community toterminate
these twoanti-circumvention investigations.
69. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated hiscountry 'sprincipled objections toanti-circumvention
measures, which arenotprovided forineither Article VIofGATT 1994 ortheAnti-Dumping
Agreement. Heexpressed hiscountry 'ssupport forthepositions ofIndonesia, Japan andSingapore,
adding thatnothing intheAnti-Dumping Agreement allows theapplication ofanti-circumvention
measures. Heaffirmed thatArticle 13oftheEuropean Community 'sAnti-Dumping Regulation is
inconsistent withtheAnti-Dumping Agreement, andurged theEuropean Community toterminate
proceedings initiated pursuant tothatprovision.
70. Thedelegate ofKorea expressed hiscountry 'sagreement withtheposition taken byJapan,
since anti-circumvention measures areinconsistent withArticle 1oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement.
Hestated that,asanexception tothemost-favoured-nation principle, anti-dumping measures should
benarrowly implemented.
71. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted that,given thatitwasacknowledged thatvalid
anti-dumping measures mayexist, itwasacurious position thatcircumvention ofvalidmeasures was
alsopersevalid. Thiswasnotareasonable ortenable position. Rather, valid issues fordiscussion
included whatanti-circumvention measures arevalid, andunder whatconditions. These weresubjects
properly taken upindiscussions pursuant totheMinisterial Decision onAnti-Circumvention.
72. Thedelegate ofJapan indicated thathiscountry 'sserious concerns werejustified bytheabove
discussion. Heacknowledged theEuropean Community 'sstatement thattheinvestigations would be
concluded shortly. However, hestated thattheinvestigations hadalready imposed aburden oninterested
parties, andhadhadanegative effect ontrade. Hetherefore requested theirimmediate termination.
73. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Community reiterated thattheinvestigations hadbeeninitiated
following complaints containing sufficient evidence ofcircumvention, andthatinitiation wastherefore
fullyjustified. Hesuggested thatdiscussions concerning anti-circumvention should beaccelerated,
andindicated thewillingness oftheEuropean Community toengage insuchdiscussions inanyforum
thatwasagreed upon.
74. TheCommittee tooknoteofallthestatements made.
G. Follow uptoSingapore ministerial declaration
75. TheChairman recalled thatMinisters hadmade anumber ofstatements intheSingapore
MinisterialDeclarationconcerningimplementationoftheWTOAgreements,notificationsandlegislation,
andtheparticular situation ofdeveloping country Members. These statements recognized that
implementation andcompliance withnotification andlegislation obligations would require further effort
onthepartofMembers, suggested thattherelevant bodies, suchastheCommittee, should takesteps
topromote fullcompliance while considering practical proposals forsimplifying thenotification process,
andnoted theagreement ofMinisters toimprove theavailability oftechnical assistance todeveloping
countries.
76. TheChairmanaskedtheCommitteetoconsiderwhatappropriatestepscouldbetakentopromote
fullcompliance withnotification requirements, whether therewereanyaspects ofnotification thatcould
besimplified, andreview technical assistance andtraining efforts intheanti-dumping areainparticular,
andwithrespect tocontingent trade remedies ingeneral.G/ADP/M/10
Page13
77. TheChairman recalled thattheAdHocGroup onImplementation wasscheduled toholdits
firstsubstantive meeting on30April 1997. While theAdHocGroup didnotprovide technical assistance
toanyspecific Member, theChairman expressed hisbelief thatitswork could beofsignificant benefit
toMembers, andparticularly developing country Members andnewusers ofanti-dumping measures,
inunderstanding some ofthepractical questions involved inanti-dumping investigations, andhow
different Members haveaddressed those issues. Moreover, intheAdHocGroup, theCommittee had
created aforum fordiscussion inwhich issues ofimplementation andpossible simplification of
notification procedures could fruitfully bediscussed.
78. Intheareaoftechnical assistance, theSecretariat, andspecifically theRules Division, had
amulti-faceted programme ofassistance andtraining available todeveloping country Members, new
users ofanti-dumping measures, andcountries intheprocess ofaccession.
79. Oneaspect ofthisprogramme concerned training workshops ontheuseofcontingent trade
remedies. TheWorkshop Programme hadbegan under theTokyo Round Anti-Dumping Committee,
which haddecided inApril 1993tosupport aprogramme ofworkshops fordeveloping countries and
former State-trading countries, andhadrequested members oftheCommittee tosupport theprogramme
andparticipate initsfinancing.
80. Between February 1993andmid-April 1997, theRules Division hadorganized andconducted
twelve anti-dumping workshops. Twohundred andfifty-four individuals from fifty-seven countries
hadparticipated. Theworkshops werefinanced primarily through grants andassistance inkind, such
asinstructors andconference facilities, provided bygovernments andinstitutions, including theAsian
DevelopmentBank,theInter-AmericanDevelopmentBank,theCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunity,
theJapanFairTradeCentre,andtheGovernmentsofAustralia,Finland,Mexico,NewZealand,Norway,
Switzerland, andtheUnited States.
81. InconnectionwiththeWorkshopProgramme,theSecretariatalsoorganizedspecializedseminars
toexplain exporters ’rights andobligations inanti-dumping andcountervailing investigations. Four
suchseminars involving 58individuals from 25countries hadbeenconducted todate.
82. Theprogrammewascontinuing,withatleasttwomoreanti-dumpingtrainingworkshopsplanned
before theendof1997, withfinancing from theAsian Development Bank andtheDutch Fund. In
addition, twogeneral seminars covering Agreements intheRules areawere scheduled totakeplace
during 1997, withfinancing provided bytheNorwegian Fund. Itwasestimated thatatleast65
government officials from 20countries would participate inthese training efforts during 1997. The
Secretariat would alsoprovide staffforaforthcoming training programme organized andfinanced by
theGovernment ofKorea.
83. TheChairmaninformedtheCommitteethattheSecretariatalsoprovidescountryspecifictraining
programmes, which include detailed technical instruction focused onproblematic issues inthe
administration ofcontingent traderemedies legislation. Eleven suchprogrammes, focusing ondifferent
aspects ofWTO Agreements intheRules area,hadbeenconducted todate,andtwomore wereplanned
before theendof1997, withfinancing from theEuropean Commission.
84. Thedelegate ofBrazil noted that,onseveral occasions, members oftheSecretariat participated
inanongoing training programme ofBrazilian trade officials involved inanti-dumping, subsidies,
countervailing measures andsafeguards. Heexpressed hisgratitude fortheSecretariat 'scontribution
tothisprogramme.
85. Thedelegate ofArgentina expressed hiscountry 'sgratitude forassistance fromtheSecretariat
intechnical assistance programmes. Hestressed theimportance ofalltechnical cooperation effortsG/ADP/M/10
Page14
inallowing amore effective implementation ofWTO Agreements intherulesarea. Healsothanked
Members whose financial contributions hadfunded therelevant technical assistance programmes.
86. Thedelegate ofKorea provided abriefdescription ofthetechnical assistance programme to
beheldinKorea during May/June 1997.
87. Thedelegate ofThailand stressed theimportance oftechnical assistance programmes forcertain
Members, since theygenerate understanding oftherelevant rules andobligations, andbroaden the
knowledge oftheWTO obligations ofMembers. Thework oftheCommittee, Secretariat andMembers
hadproven essential tothesystem. Therefore, Thailand lentitsfullsupport tothecontinuation of
technical assistance programmes bytheCommittee.
88. Therepresentative ofPeruexpressed hiscountry 'sgratitude fortheefforts ofthose involved
inthetechnical assistance programmes fromwhich ithadbenefited. Hesuggested thatsuchprogrammes
should becontinued, bothforthebenefit ofdeveloping countries directly, andforthebenefit ofthe
WTO system asawhole. Hesuggested that,aftereachWorkshop, theMembers concerned should
provide abriefreport oftheevent.
89. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated that,asamatter ofprinciple, technical assistance programmes
should assist Members inimplementing theresults oftheUruguay Round, andincomplying withtheir
WTO obligations. Hestressed thatthere isnoWTO obligation toadopt anti-dumping legislation or
takeanti-dumping actions. Henoted thatthemosteffective waytoavoid inconsistencies withtheAnti-
DumpingAgreementwasnottoadoptanti-dumpinglegislation,andnottoapplyanti-dumpingmeasures.
While acknowledging thatitwasamatter ofpolicy foreachMember todecide whether toadopt anti-
dumping legislation andtakeanti-dumping actions, hestated thatthefundamental question ineach
caseshould bewhether ornotitwasnecessary totakeanti-dumping actions. Onlythenshould aMember
consider howbesttocomply withtherelevant WTO obligations.
90. Thedelegate ofIndia expressed hiscountry 'sgratitude forthevarious technical assistance
programmes from which India hadbenefited, andsuggested thattheSecretariat continue withsuch
efforts forthebenefit ofother developing countries.
91. Therepresentative ofChile expressed gratitude forthetechnical assistance provided bythe
Secretariat tohiscountry, andreferred totheadvantages oftechnical assistance programmes forthe
WTO system asawhole.
92. TherepresentativeofSingaporealsoexpressedhercountry'sgratitudeforthetechnicalassistance
provided bytheSecretariat. However, sheemphasised theneedforeffective follow uptotheMinisterial
DecisionattheSingaporeMinisterialConference.Sheobservedthat,insubstance,theMinistersattached
veryhighpriority tofullandeffective implementation oftheWTO Agreements, consistent withthe
goaloftrade liberalization. Anti-dumping action doesnotfulfil thegoaloftrade liberalization.
Singapore fullyshared theview expressed bytheCommittee inits1996 Annual Report, thatmuch
remained tobedoneinorder toachieve fullimplementation oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement. Singapore
wasconcerned notonlywithinconsistencies inthelegislation ofcertain Members, butalsotheway
suchlegislation wasapplied. Inaddition, Singapore referred totheincreasing useofanti-dumping
measures, which would negate efforts towards trade liberalization. Itwastherefore necessary to
determine howthesubstance oftheMinisterial Decision could bepursued. Inthisregard, itwas
necessary fortheCommittee tohavemore teethintheoversight offullandeffective implementation
oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement byeachMember. Thereview carried outbytheCommittee should
notstopshort atquestions andanswers. Singapore suggested theinclusion offollow upreviews in
theagenda ofregular Committee meetings, withtheSecretariat compiling listsofoutstanding issues
andquestions. Concerning thesimplification ofnotifications, Singapore looked forward tosubstantiveG/ADP/M/10
Page15
inputfromMembers.Singaporesuggestedthatsuchconsiderationscouldbalancethecontentoftechnical
assistance programmes, whose objective should notonlybetoassist developing countries inthe
application ofanti-dumping measures.
93. TheChairman reminded Members thattechnical assistance wasintended toenable Members
toproperly implement theWTO Agreements, andwascarried outinresponse toneeds expressed by
Members. Itdidnotreflect anyviewonthepartoftheSecretariat astowhether ornotanti-dumping
actions should betaken. TheroleoftheSecretariat istoinstruct Members inunderstanding theAnti-
Dumping Agreement, sothatitmight beproperly implemented. Implementation ishelped boththrough
technical assistance, andthrough thetransparency resulting fromthereview andnotification process.
94. TheChairmanthenaskedwhetherMemberscouldreporttotheCommitteeontheirownactivities
intheareaoftechnical assistance.
95. TheUnited States reported onitsowntechnical assistance activities conducted atthespecific
request ofMembers andacceding Members. Thetwoprimary programmes involve theCommercial
LawDevelopment Programme ("CLDP"), andtheInternational Trade Commission ("ITC") andthe
Commerce Department 'sImport Administration. TheCDLP provided assistance inthedevelopment
andimplementation ofdeveloping legalsystems, primarily inCentral andEastern Europe, theBaltic
countries andtheCommonwealth ofIndependent States. Programmes focused onlaws, regulations
andadministrative practices affecting domestic andforeign trade. Assistance wasprovided intheform
ofexpert advisers, placed inthecountry concerned, andshort-term training through workshops and
seminars. Seminars onanti-dumping andcountervailing dutylawsandregulations werealsoprovided
bytheITCandtheCommerce Department 'sImport Administration forforeign delegations visiting
Washington. Atleast16seminars hadbeenheldoverthelast18months. Seminars hadalsobeen
heldinanumber offoreign countries. Inaddition, ITCandImport Administration officials made
presentations onUnited States anti-dumping andcountervailing dutyprocedures incountries which
wereunfamiliar withtheseprocedures andweresubject toinvestigation. Furthermore, theUnited States
Agency forInternational Development ("AID") hadprovided assistance inLatin America tohelp
governments establish policies thatwould putthem incompliance withtheirWTO obligations. AID
wasalsopreparing apaper ontradeopenness, policy reform, economic growth andpoverty reduction,
which would address governments 'obligations under theWTO Agreements.
96. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community expressed support forthetechnical assistance
programmes oftheSecretariat, forwhich theEuropean Community hadprovided funding. Hereported
ontheEuropean Community 'sowntechnical assistance activities, carried outeither inconjunction
withtheWTO Secretariat, orindependently bytheEuropean Commission. Inparticular, theEuropean
Commission hadcarried outseminars incountries thatwereneworfuture users oftheAnti-Dumping
Agreement, andincountries thathadapplied formembership intheWTO. These seminars werevery
similar tothose provided bytheWTO Secretariat, andcomprise twotypes. First, therewereseminars
forcivilservantsinadministrationsthathadnotinthepastappliedanti-dumpingmeasures.Theobjective
ofsuchseminars wastoexamine theprocedural andsubstantive norms toberespected indomestic
anti-dumpinglegislation.Second,therewereseminarsformanagers,exporters,andgovernmentofficials
incountries subject toinvestigation bytheEuropean Community. Thepurpose ofthese seminars was
tofamiliarise exporters andgovernment officials withtheEuropean Community procedures. Finally,
theEuropean Community alsocarried outtechnical assistance pursuant tospecific requests, including
advice onthedrafting oflegislation, administrative organization, etc.
97. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee express itsthanks andsupport fortheefforts of
Membersinvolvedintechnicalassistanceprogrammes,andexpressitssupportforthetechnicalassistance
programmes carried outbytheSecretariat intheareaofcontingent trade remedies.G/ADP/M/10
Page16
98. TheCommittee sodecided.
99. TheChairmanrequestedcommentsfromMembersonSingapore'ssuggestionthattheSecretariat
should compile alistofimplementation issues thatmight bediscussed atsubsequent meetings.
100. Thedelegate oftheUnited States expressed concern regarding thecompilation ofanysuch
listfordiscussion bytheCommittee, inlightofthedecision toaddress issues ofimplementation in
theAdHocGroup onImplementation.
101. Therepresentative ofSingapore clarified thatherproposal didnotinvolve discussion ofnew
issues, orraising newareasforfurther negotiation, butwasrestricted toissues andquestions concerning
implementation raised during theCommittee 'sreview oflegislation. Singapore suggested thatthese
issues should formpartoftheCommittee 'sagenda, separate fromtheactivity oftheAdHocWorking
Group.
102. Thedelegate oftheEuropean Community noted thatSingapore 'sproposal seemed useful, as
questions concerning implementation oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement mayrequire some clarification.
However, theEuropean Community expressed concern regarding possible duplication oftasksbythe
AdHocGroup andtheCommittee. TheEuropean Community requested more timetoconsider
Singapore 'sproposal.
103. TheChairman proposed thatheconduct informal consultations ontheSingapore proposal.
104. Thedelegate ofHong Kong expressed hiscountry 'sgratitude forSingapore 'sproposal, since
theCommittee 'sreview ofnational legislation should notbelimited toquestions andanswers. Issues
identified bytheCommittee during thereview process should becompiled inalist,tofocus future
discussion intheCommittee. Hong Kong expressed support fortheChairman 'sproposal.
105. Therepresentative ofArgentina queried thepurpose andscope oftheinformal consultations
proposed bytheChairman, since theactivities ofboththeCommittee andtheAdHocGroup were
already clearly defined. Thedelegate queried whether thetopics onwhich theChairman proposed
toconsult were notalready covered bytheactivities oftheCommittee andAdHocGroup.
106. Therepresentative oftheUnited States expressed some uncertainty astothesubstance of
Singapore 'sproposal. Shesuggested thatthetypeofwork envisaged bySingapore would ultimately
beperformed bytheAdHocGroup, subject totheagreement oftheCommittee. Itwasunclear,
therefore, whyanynewprocess wasneeded. Whereas theUnited States could discuss thepossibility
ofincluding additional tasks fortheAdHocGroup, itwasuncomfortable withthecreation ofanew,
separate process.
107. TheChairman stressed theneedfortheCommittee tofollow upontheSingapore Ministerial
Declaration. There wassome uncertainty concerning howtheCommittee could addtotheworkalready
done, andconcerning thedividing linebetween thework oftheCommittee andtheAdHocGroup
respectively. These issues could beaddressed inconsultations, without prejudgments. Theconsultations
could examine theSingapore proposal, todetermine whether, orhow, theCommittee could domore
concerning implementation ofandfollow uptotheSingapore Ministerial Declaration. Theconsultations
would constitute aclarification process.
108. TheCommittee agreed thattheChairman should conduct suchconsultations.G/ADP/M/10
Page17
H. Anti-circumvention
109. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee haddecided atitsspecial meeting inDecember
1995thattheChairman would consult informally onthetasksetfortheCommittee bytheMinisterial
Decision onAnti-Circumvention, andwould inform theCommittee periodically ondevelopments in
those informal consultations. Themost recent informal consultations inthisregard were heldin
March 1997. Asaresult ofthose consultations, Members hadagreed uponaframework forcontinued
discussions oftheissue ofanti-circumvention, assetforth indocument G/ADP/W/404, dated
20March 1997.
110. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheagreed framework forcontinued discussion oftheissue of
anti-circumvention.
111. TheChairman proposed that,inorder tobestaccomplish thework setoutintheframework,
theCommittee establish anInformal Working Group onAnti-Circumvention. TheChairman noted
that,aswiththeinformal consultations heldtodate,participation intheInformal Working Group would
beopentoallMembers. Inaddition, asanInformal Working Group, thisbody could notmake any
decisions ontheissues discussed, butwould make recommendations forconsideration bytheCommittee
asawhole.
112. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitysecondedtheChairman'sproposal.Heexplained
thatthework tobecarried outresults from aMinisterial Decision, andshould therefore beeffected
intheCommittee itself. However, foroperational reasons itwould bebeneficial toestablish aseparate
Working Group. Asthemandate comes from aMinisterial Decision, thereply should begiven at
thehighest possible level.
113. ThedelegateofHongKongstressedtheimportanceofmaintainingthediscussionsoftheWorking
Group onaninformal basis, evenifthecreation ofaWorking Group could raisetheprofile ofthe
Group 'swork. Inthisregard, hetherefore supported theinformal status tobemaintained bythe
Chairman'sproposal.However,hequeriedwhethertheterm"InformalWorkingGroup"wasappropriate
terminology, given theformality possibly implied bythisterm.
114. Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated that,inprinciple, thework should beundertaken by
theCommittee, since thematter hadbeenreferred totheCommittee bytheMinisters. However, the
UnitedStatesindicatedthatthemostimportantconsiderationwasthecreationofatransparentframework
forthiswork, within which allMembers mayparticipate fully. Recognizing thattheproposed Informal
Working Group would meetthese criteria, andacknowledging thedifficulties ofperforming thiswork
intheCommittee, theUnited States supported theChairman 'sproposal.
115. Therepresentative ofCanada expressed hercountry 'ssupport fortheChairman 'sproposal.
116. Thedelegate ofJapan stated thatcaution wasneeded when creating anewmechanism inthe
WTO, especially onedealing withasensitive issue. Itwasnecessary toclarify themandate andpurpose
ofthenewbody, andtherelationship oftheproposed Informal Working Group withthecurrent informal
consultations andwiththeCommittee itself. Ifthepurpose andmandate ofthenewbodywasthesame
asthatofthecurrent informal consultations, itscreation might notbenecessary orproductive interms
ofallowing theCommittee toexamine anti-circumvention further.
117. TheChairman explained thattheproposal would notchange thesubstance, purpose ormandate
ofthecurrent informal consultations. Thecreation oftheInformal Working Group would merely place
theseinformalconsultationsontheWTOmap.Itscreationwouldalsoalleviatetheinconsistencybetween
instructions intheform ofaMinisterial Decision andactivity intheform ofinformal consultations.G/ADP/M/10
Page18
118. Thedelegate ofAustralia endorsed theproposal andclarifications made bytheChairman.
Sheexplained thatAustralia sawnoparticular connotations inthetermInformal Working Group.
119. Therepresentative ofSingapore supported thefactthattheChairman 'sproposal would not
change thesubstance orpurpose ofcurrent informal consultations. However, sheshared theconcerns
expressed byJapan andHong Kong thattheterm"Working Group" might inject acertain element
offormality intotheprocess.
120. ThedelegateofNewZealandemphasisedtheneedfortheCommitteetoproduceconcreteresults,
given thecontent oftheMinisterial Decision. Given theagreement ofMembers onthework tobe
performed, henoted thatthemain difficulty layinthetitleofthebody completing thatwork. For
thisreason, analternative titlemight beappropriate.
121. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community emphasised thattheworkonanti-circumvention
hadbeenreferred totheCommittee bytheMinisters. Itwasnotreferred toinformal consultations
outside theCommittee. Given theinstructions intheMinisterial Decision, theleasttheCommittee
could dowastoinform theMinisters thatithadcreated anInformal Working Group toexamine the
matter.
122. Therepresentative ofVenezuela emphasised thedelicate nature oftheissue, noting thatitcould
notberesolved byinformal consultations alone. Forthisreason, amechanism thatwould permit
adequate progress must beestablished. Hetherefore supported theChairman 'sproposal, provided
themaincharacteristicsoftheWorkingGroupwereexplainedinadvance,andprovideditwassufficiently
transparent andallowed fullparticipation byallMembers.
123. TheChairman reaffirmed thatthesubstance ofthediscussions would remain unchanged. The
proposed Informal Working Group would, however, attach importance totheworkcarried outpursuant
totheMinisterial Decision, andwould accord itgreater support fromtheSecretariat. TheChairman
suggested thatthetitle"Consultative Group" might bemore acceptable tocertain delegations.
124. Thedelegate ofHong Kong emphasised thattheframework fordiscussions would never have
beenagreed onifdiscussions hadtaken place formally intheCommittee. Henoted agreement inthe
Committee onthefactthatthework should continue, without anychange insubstance. Hesupported
theChairman 'sproposal concerning theterm"Consultative Group".
125. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thattherealissue athand wastransparency.
Henoted thatmany countries hadnotexpressed their views onanti-circumvention, andthatthe
Committee hadnotyethadthebenefit ofafulldebate onthemerits oftheissue. Theframework for
discussions oftheissues hadbeenagreed on,although theyhadnotyetbeenfullyaired inapublic
debate. TheUnited States would agree toanytitleforthenewbody, provided itallowed alldelegations
tobenefit from afulldebate oftheissues.
126. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community expressed reservations concerning theattempts
ofcertain delegations tomaintain theinformal nature ofdiscussions onanti-circumvention. Hecalled
fordelegations toturntothesubstance ofthedebate, andnotremain blocked onformalities.
127. Therepresentative ofJapan stated that,provided transparency wasmaintained, thecreation
ofaConsultative Group would beacceptable.
128. Thedelegate oftheUnited States suggested thetermInformal Consultative Working Group,
given theappeal ofthese different words todifferent delegations. Shestressed theneedforaforum
inwhich alltheviews onthismatter could beaired.G/ADP/M/10
Page19
129. Thedelegate ofAustralia noted thatthename ofthebody would notalterthesubstance of
thediscussion, given theframework agreed onbytheMembers. Shenoted thattheMinisters had
asked theCommittee todomore thanmerely consult onanti-circumvention. Forthese reasons, she
proposed theterm"Informal Group onAnti-Circumvention".
130. TheChairmanproposedthattheCommitteeestablishtheInformalGrouponAnti-Circumvention.
131. TheCommittee sodecided.
132. TheChairman noted thathehadinformed theCommittee lastweek ofhisintention tohold
discussions onthematter ofanti-circumvention, andthatsuchdiscussions hadbeenscheduled forthat
morning. However, since theCommittee 'smeeting hadrunover, there wasneither thetimenorthe
needtoreschedule those discussions. Instead, theChairman raised certain practical matters regarding
theInformal Group onAnti-Circumvention, andasked forcomments concerning thetiming ofthefirst
meeting oftheInformal Group onAnti-Circumvention.
133. TherepresentativesoftheUnitedStates,VenezuelaandArgentinasuggestedthatthefirstmeeting
oftheInformal Group onAnti-Circumvention should beheldback-to-back withtheOctober meeting
oftheAdHocGroup onImplementation.
134. Thedelegate ofHong Kong agreed, although henoted thatsuchscheduling should notsuggest
anyoverlap inthesubstance oftheissues addressed bythetwoGroups.
135. Thedelegate ofNewZealand agreed thatthefirstmeeting could beheldback-to-back, although
henoted thatthetwoGroups might move atdifferent speeds thereafter. Forthisreason, thefactthat
thefirstmeeting oftheInformal Group onAnti-Circumvention washeldback-to-back withtheOctober
meeting oftheAdHocGroup onImplementation should notsetaprecedent.
136. TheChairman proposed thatthedateofthefirstmeeting oftheInformal Group onAnti-
Circumvention,andthedateforsubmissionofpapers,shouldbelinkedtothedateoftheOctobermeeting
oftheAdHocGroup onImplementation.
137. TheCommittee sodecided.
I. Other business
(i) Japan -United States investigation ofsupercomputers
138. Thedelegate ofJapan expressed concern regarding thecurrent United States anti-dumping
investigationofJapanesesupercomputers,andtheinterventionbytheDepartmentofCommerce("DOC")
prior totheinitiation ofthatinvestigation.
139. Heexplained that,inMay1996, aJapanese manufacturer wonthetender forsupercomputer
procurement made bytheUnited States National Center forAtmospheric Research (NCAR). However,
theprocurementprocesswasaccompaniedbysomeextraordinaryanddisturbingdevelopments,including
activity intheUnited States Congress. Serious consideration wasgiven toaproposal byCongressman
Obey thatpersonnel whoapproved acontract forsupercomputer equipment would havetheirsalaries
withheld iftheDOC made afinding ofdumping. Aswaspointed outbyamember oftheUnited States
International Trade Commission, anysuchmeasure would beincontravention ofArticle 18ofthe
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Theproposal waseventually rejected.G/ADP/M/10
Page20
140. According tovarious newsmedia reports, another oddfeature intheprocurement process was
aletter sentbytheNational Science Foundation (NSF) totheUniversity Corporation forAtmospheric
Research (UCAR) on17May1996. Intheletter, NSFreminded UCAR thatitwasrequired toobtain
NSF'sapproval fortheprocurement, andthatNSF"remained concerned about thedumping issue".
NSFrequired UCAR togivedueconsideration tothisissue, andtoeliminate thedumping concern
before theprocurement.
141. Another unusual development wasthecalculation ofadumping margin bytheDOC prior to
theinitiation ofananti-dumping investigation. On20May1996, threedaysaftertheletter ofthepre-
clearance requirement ofNSFtoUCAR, theDOC wrote toNSFestimating thesuccessful bidder 's
dumping margin as163.38%, andexpressing significant concerns thatimportation ofthesupercomputer
system would threaten theUSsupercomputer industry withmaterial injury.
142. Headded thaton29July,some twomonths afterthose communications among theDOC, NSF
andUCAR, CrayResearch, which isthesoleUSproducer ofsupercomputers andwasoneofthebidders
fortheprocurement, filed apetition requesting ananti-dumping investigation intoJapanese
supercomputers. TheNSFissued astatement that"itwould beinappropriate forNSFtoapprove this
procurement untilthedumping issue hasbeenresolved".
143. Japan considered theaction taken bytheDOC tobeinappropriate andunfair from many
viewpoints. Thedisclosure oftheestimated dumping margin before initiation ofinvestigation iswithout
precedent, andtheaccuracy oftheestimated margin isdoubtful. Inthiscontext, Japan requested answers
tothefollowing questions: First, whatwasthelegalbasisforDOC intervention under United States
law? Does theDOC havethecompetence totakesuchactions under United States anti-dumping
legislation orregulations? Second, would theDOC takefurther action ofthissortinthefuture? If
not,what distinguishes thecurrent casefrom potential future cases? Third, theaction oftheDOC
accorded aJapanese product lessfavourable treatment thanthataccorded toadomestic product. What
wasthelegal basis forthatdiscrimination under theWTO Agreement? Fourth, whydidtheDOC
notseektheviews ofthecompany thathadwonthebidbefore assessing thatbidinthelightofthe
USanti-dumping law? Given thefactthattheDepartment 'sconclusions rested onanestimate ofthe
number ofcomputers thatwould besoldinthefuture, howcould itreach anyvalidconclusions without
anyinformation fromthesuccessful bidder? Fifth, given thefactthattheDOC hasalready made an
assessment ofthepricing ofthebidbytheJapanese company, canitnowbeexpected tomake an
objective andunbiased assessment ofthatmatter inthecurrent anti-dumping proceedings? Finally,
theUShasrepeatedly asserted thatitisverysensitive totheimpact ontrade caused bydisclosure of
dumping-related information. HowistheDOC'sintervention explained inthelightofthesaidprinciple?
Therepresentative ofJapan requested adetailed explanation ofwhyandhowtheintervention happened,
andassurances thatsuchinterventions would notrecur.
144. Astotheanti-dumping investigation which wasinitiated on19August 1996, thedelegate of
Japan stated thatthesuccessful bidder hasfiledacaseagainst theDOC intheUSCourt ofInternational
Trade, andhasbeenrefusing tocooperate withtheDOC inproviding thedatafortheanti-dumping
investigation duetoitsconcerns overtheDOC'simpartiality. Inresponse, thedumping margin in
theDOC'spreliminary affirmative determination wasataveryhighlevel, onthebasis ofthebest
information available. Japan reserved itsWTO rights inthismatter, andrequested anexplanation
andassurances from theUS.
145. Therepresentative oftheUnited States offered alimited number ofobservations concerning
thismatter. Henoted thattheso-called Obey Amendment hadnotbeenre-introduced inCongress,
andwastherefore nolonger anissue. Hestated thattheDOC hadnochoice buttousethebest
information available inrespect ofNEC, because thatexporter hadnotcooperated intheinvestigation.
Given ongoing litigation intheUnited States, heexpressed reservations about making more detailedG/ADP/M/10
Page21
replies toJapan'scomments. Hemade ageneral observation thatadministering authorities areinan
unusual situation withrespect tobringing anti-dumping investigations, since theyplayahybrid role:
bothinvestigative andjudicial. Forthisreason, theDOC wasveryconcerned tomaintain dueprocess
andtransparencyinitsproceedingsand,aftertheinvestigationwascomplete,everypieceofdatainvolved
would become amatter ofpublic record. Headded thatitwasroutine foronebranch oftheUnited
States Government toreceive anenquiry oradvice fromanother. There isnolegalbartoonebranch
oftheUnited States Governing advising another branch, subject tocertain limitations concerning
proprietary information etc.
146. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
(ii) Japan -ECdelays inanti-dumping investigations
147. ThedelegateofJapanexpressedconcernregardingdelaysinEuropeanCommunityanti-dumping
investigations, including bothoriginal investigations andreview proceedings. Henoted thatArticle
5.10oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementstipulatesthat"investigationsshall,exceptinspecialcircumstances,
beconcluded within oneyear, andinnocasemore than18months, aftertheirinitiation," andthat
Article 11.4provides that"anysuchreview shallbecarried outexpeditiously andshallnormally be
concluded within 12months ofthedateofinitiation ofthereview."
148. HenotedthattheEuropeanCommunitywascurrentlyengagedinnineanti-dumpingproceedings
-excluding anti-circumvention investigations -against exports fromJapan. Ofthese, five(including
fourreviews) hadalready exceeded 18months, andanother onehadbeenunder wayfor12months.
Inthemost extreme case, theinvestigation intoadvertising matches wasbegun 32months ago.
Furthermore, thetwomostrecently concluded investigations (oneofthemareview) eachlasted more
than18months, andinneither caseweremeasures imposed ontheexporters. These statistics show
that,evenconsidering onlyproceedings involving Japanese exporters, theEuropean Community was
seriously falling down onitsobligations under theAgreement. Japan believed thatMembers ofthe
Committee wereentitled toanexplanation bytheEuropean Community astothereason forthesedelays,
andanaccount ofhowitintended toremedy thesituation. InJapan'sview, oneofthemainpurposes
oftheWTO timelimits wastoprotect exporters from harassment byinvestigating authorities. The
European Community waspresently guilty ofaserious failure initsresponsibilities.
149. Headded thatdelay wasalsoafeature inthecurrent European Community anti-dumping
investigation ofDRAMs fromJapan. However, therewereother aspects ofthiscasewhich weregiving
risetoconcern, notably themethod bywhich theEuropean Community waspurporting todetermine
thelikelihood ofrecurrence ofdumping andinjury should theexisting measures beterminated. Japan
hadseriousreservationsabouttheEuropeanCommunity'sapproachtotheseissues,andwouldbekeeping
theprogress ofthecaseunder close review.
150. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Community emphasised thesignificant changes resulting
fromtheintroduction offirmdeadlines intotheEuropean Community legislation, inrespect ofboth
internal procedures andcase-handling. Heacknowledged thatasmall number ofcases opened under
pre-WTO legislation continued tocause problems, andassured Members thatsuchsituations would
notrecur. Inrespect oftheadvertising matches proceeding, heconfirmed thatprovisional measures
were recently imposed. Concerning allofthereviews mentioned byJapan, conclusions would be
forthcoming inamatter ofweeks.
151. Thedelegate ofKorea shared theconcerns expressed byJapan regarding delayed investigations
bytheEuropean Community. Hisdelegation therefore proposed toplace theissue ofdelayed
investigations ontheagenda fortheCommittee 'snextmeeting, inthecontext ofreviews ofsemi-annual
reports.G/ADP/M/10
Page22
152. TheCommittee tooknoteofKorea 'sproposal andofthestatements made.
(iii) India -South Africa anti-dumping andcountervailing dutyactions
153. Therepresentative ofIndia sought clarification concerning aninvestigation allegedly initiated
bySouth Africa. Whereas itwasreported thataninvestigation hadbeeninitiated, nonotice ofinitiation
hadbeensenttoeither theGovernment ofIndia ortoIndian exporters.
154. Thedelegate ofSouth Africa stated thatitwasnotcustomary forhiscountry tofailtocomply
withitsWTO obligations, andstated thathewould passonIndia'scomments totherelevant South
African authorities. Thedelegate alsoexplained totheCommittee thatanylapse bySouth Africa in
thisregard demonstrated theneedforcontinued technical assistance tocertain Members.
(iv) United States -Philippines investigations offloatglass from Thailand
155. Thedelegate oftheUnited States sought clarification onaninvestigation bythePhilippines
intoimports offloatglassfromThailand. Sheexplained thatanoldorder imposed bythePhilippines
hadapparently beenreviewed under domestic legislation aftertheentry intoforce oftheAnti-Dumping
Agreement, butthatnoinformation hadbeenforthcoming from thePhilippines. AUnited States
company concerned hadstated thatanegative injury finding hadbeenmade, together withanegative
recommendation foraction.
156. Thedelegate ofPhilippines stated thathehadonlysecond-hand knowledge ofthisissue, since
noinformation hadbeenreceived fromhiscapital. Heexplained thatthisinvestigation wasinitiated
priortotheentry intoforce oftheWTO, andthattherehadbeennoreview ofthemeasure inquestion,
astheinvestigation hadnotbeencompleted. Although theTariff Commission recently recommended
thetermination oftheinvestigation, thefinaldecision restswiththeDepartment ofFinance. Assoon
astheDepartment reached itsdecision, itwould becommunicated totheUnited States.
157. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thatpreliminary measures hadbeeninforce for
overtwoyears, imposing anextreme burden oncommercial operators.
158. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
J. Election ofofficers
159. TheCommittee elected Mr.KajitSukhum ofThailand asChairman, andMs.Michelle Slade
ofNewZealand asViceChairperson, oftheCommittee.
K. Dateofnextregular meeting
160. TheChairman noted thattheCommittee hadagreed atitsmeeting of21February 1995 that
regular meetings normally would beheldinthelastweek ofApril andthelastweek ofOctober.
Accordingly, thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee would beheldintheweek of27October 1997.
161. Themeeting wasadjourned.