RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/M/1
22May1995
ORGANIZATION(95-1334)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD
ON21FEBRUARY 1995
Chairman: Mr.Mohan Kumar (India)
1. TheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices heldaspecial meeting on21February 1995.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Election ofOfficers 2
B. Observers: Governments 2
C. Rules ofProcedure 3
D. Participation inMeetings byCertain Signatories oftheFinal ActEligible 3
toBecome Original Members oftheWTO (WT/L/27)
E. Observers: International Organisations 3
F. Coordination Between Committees (WT/L/29) 3
G. Decisions Already Taken BytheTokyo Round Committee on 4
Anti-Dumping Practices (ADP/122, 124,131,AND 132)
H. Informal Contact Group onAnti-Dumping, Subsidies and 4
Safeguards (PC/IPL/11)
I. Legislation (Article 18.5andG/ADP/N/1) 4
J. Semi-Annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Duty Actions (Article 16.4 9
andG/ADP/N/2)
K. Preliminary andFinal Anti-Dumping Actions (Article 16.4) 9
L. Notification ByMembers Regarding theAuthorities Competent to 11
Initiate andConduct Investigations, andtheDomestic Procedures
Governing theConduct ofInvestigations (Article 16.5)
M. Presentation andDiscussion ofNotifications 11G/ADP/M/1
Page2
Page
N. Procedures fortheAnnual Review 11
O. DateofMeetings 12
P. Other Business 12
A. Election ofOfficers
3. TheCommittee elected Mr.Mohan Kumar Chairman oftheCommittee.
4. TheChairman noted thattheAgreement didnotexplicitly provide fortheelection ofaVice-
Chairman. Thus, thequestion ofapossible ViceChairman fortheCommittee should bediscussed
inthecontext ofRules ofProcedure fortheCommittee, which would beraised under ItemC.
B. Observers: Governments
5. TheChairman stated thatcertain governments which wereintheprocess ofacceding tothe
WTO orhadinitiated negotiations todosoorhaddeclared theirintention todosointhenearfuture
hadbeeninvitedtoattendmeetingsoftheGeneralCouncilasObservers.Inaccordancewithparagraph6
oftheGuidelines forObserver Status forGovernments intheWTO, which appears inAnnex IIof
theRules ofProcedure oftheMinisterial Conference andtheGeneral Council, thesegovernments "may
participate asObservers atmeetings ofWorking Parties andother subsidiary bodies oftheGeneral
Council asappropriate withtheexception oftheCommittee onBudget, Finance andAdministration".
Hetherefore proposed thatsuchgovernments bewelcomed toattend meetings ofthisCommittee if
theysorequested, except ifandwhen itwasconsidered appropriate toholdaclose session withthe
participation ofMembers only. Hefurther proposed thattheCommittee proceed likewise withany
other governments which maybegranted Observer status intheGeneral Council infuture.
6. TheCommittee sodecided.
7. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee adopt aruleoninformation forObservers desiring
toparticipate intheworkoftheCommittee comparable tothatadopted bytheTokyo Round Committee.
Henoted thattheruleadopted bytheTokyo Round Committee inApril 1994 provides:
"AnObserver government should provide theCommittee withanyinformation the
Observergovernmentconsidersrelevanttomatterswithinthepreviewoftheagreement,
including thetextofitslaws andregulations regarding anti-dumping duties and
information regarding anyanti-dumping measures taken bytheObserver government.
Attherequest ofanyParty ortheObserver government, anymatter contained insuch
information could bebrought totheattention oftheCommittee aftergovernments have
beenallowed sufficient timetoexamine theinformation".
Heinvited delegates 'views onwhether acomparable ruleshould beadopted bythisCommittee.
8. Thedelegate ofJapan observed thatinlightofthelanguage ofParagraph 7oftheGuidelines
forObserver Status forGovernments intheWTO, which states thatanobserver government shallG/ADP/M/1
Page3
provide themembers withinformation, itmight beappropriate tochange theterm"should" inthefirst
sentence to"shall", andadopt therulewiththechanged wording.
9. Thedelegate ofHong Kong agreed.
10. TheCommittee sodecided.
C. Rules ofProcedure
11. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee authorize himtoenterintoinformal consultations
regarding thequestion ofrulesofprocedure fortheCommittee. Intheseconsultations, account would
betaken ofthefactthatotherCommittees werealsoconsidering thisquestion, andoftheappropriateness
ofco-ordinating efforts toensure ameasure ofconsistency withrulesofprocedure ofotherCommittees,
while recognizing thatitmight benecessary tohaveadditional ormodified rules insome areas for
thisCommittee. Inthemeantime, theChairman proposed thattheCommittee follow thecustomary
practice oftheTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices. TheChairman further proposed
thattheCommittee authorise himtoconduct informal consultations regarding theelection ofaVice-
Chairman andcandidates forthatposition withaviewtoelecting aVice-Chairman attheCommittee 's
firstregular meeting.
12. TheCommittee sodecided.
D. Participation inMeetings byCertain Signatories oftheFinal Acteligible tobecome Original
Members oftheWTO
13. TheChairman noted thattheGeneral Council haddecided thatduring aperiod ofseven months
following thedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement, signatories oftheFinal Actembodying
theresults oftheUruguay Round thatwereContracting Parties totheGATT 1947asof31January 1995
andwereeligible tobecome Members oftheWTO maybepresent andspeak atformal andinformal
meetings ofthebodies established under theWTO Agreement other thantheTextiles Monitoring Body
andshould haveaccess toalldocuments made available toMembers oftheWTO forsuchmeetings.
Thatdecision alsoprovides thatsuchsignatories shallnothavetherighttoparticipate inthedecision-
makingofthebodiesestablishedundertheWTOAgreement.TheChairmanproposedthattheCommittee
takenoteofthisdecision.
14. TheCommittee tooknoteofthedecision.
E. Observers: International Organizations
15. TheChairman noted thattheGeneral Council wasconsidering buthadnotyetadopted rules
regarding theparticipation ofintergovernmental organizations asObservers toWTO bodies. Inthe
interim, theHeads ofDelegations hadagreed thattheChairman oftheCouncil onTrade inGoods
would consult regarding whether toinvite certain organizations tothefirstmeetings oftheirrespective
subsidiary bodies (WT/GC/COM/2). TheChairman oftheCouncil onTrade inGoods hadstated at
thefirstmeeting oftheCouncil thatUNCTAD andtheIMFqualified forinvitation tothefirstmeeting
ofthisCommittee andtheyhad,therefore, beeninvited toattend.
16. TheCommitteetooknoteofthediscussionintheGeneralCouncilandthedecisionoftheCouncil
forTrade andGoods andagreed torevert tothismatter atitsnextmeeting.
F. Coordination between CommitteesG/ADP/M/1
Page4
17. TheChairman recalled that, inaccordance withtherecommendation ofthePreparatory
Committee,theGeneralCouncilhadadoptedaDecisionontheAvoidanceofProceduralandInstitutional
Duplication atitsmeeting on31January 1995 (WT/L/29). Thatdecision provides forcooperation
between theTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices andthisCommittee, including
notifications andtheholding ofjointorconsecutive meetings. ThePreparatory Committee hadalso
recommended thatTokyo Round Committees adopt suchadecision. TheChairman noted thatthe
matter wasontheagenda fortheTokyo Round Anti-Dumping Committee meeting tobeheldlater
intheday,andasimilar decision wasanticipated. Thedecision envisioned thatnotification ofameasure
totheWTO Anti-Dumping Committee shall, unless otherwise indicated inthenotification, bedeemed
tobeanotification under theTokyo Round Anti-Dumping Agreement.
18. TheCommittee tooknoteofthedecision.
G. Decisions already taken bytheTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
19. TheChairman noted thattheTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices hadtaken
twodecisions ontransitional arrangements relevant tothework ofthisCommittee. Thefirstdealt
with"Transitional Co-existence oftheAgreement onImplementation ofArticle VIoftheGeneral
Agreement onTariffs andTrade andtheMarakesh Agreement establishing theWorld Trade
Organization" (ADP/131), andthesecond dealt withthe"Consequences ofWithdrawal from or
Termination oftheTokyo Round Agreement onImplementation ofArticle VIoftheGeneral Agreement
ofTariffs andTrade" (ADP/132).
20. TheCommittee tooknoteofthese decisions.
H. Informal Contact Group onAnti-Dumping, Subsidies andSafeguards
21. TheChairman recalled thattheInformal Contact Group hadreached agreement onanumber
ofissues regarding notifications tothisCommittee (PC/IPL/11, Annexes 6&7).ThePreparatory
Committee hadapproved those recommendations indocument PC/R/Corr.1, andtheGeneral Council
referred them tothisCommittee atitslastmeeting. These recommendations include submissions of
semi-annual reports onanti-dumping actions under Article 16.4, andthenotification ofrelevant laws
andregulations under Article 18.5. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee adopt the
recommendations oftheInformal Contact Group.
22. TheCommittee sodecided.
23. TheChairman noted thattheSecretariat waspreparing tocirculate anairgramme toallMembers
which would identify allthenotification requirements in,interalia,theAnti-Dumping Agreement.
Heobserved thattheairgramme would notrepresent aninvitation tonotify persebutrather wasintended
toserve asauseful summary guide toallmembers tokeeptrackofthenumerous notification provisions
intheAnti-Dumping andother Agreements.
I. Legislation
24. TheChairman observed thattheCommittee hadadopted therecommendation ofthePreparatory
Committee thatthefirstnotification oflegislation andregulations tothisCommittee cover thefulltext
oftherelevant legislation andregulations. Anticipating thisresult, theSecretariat hadcirculated a
request forsuchnotifications (G/ADP/N/1). Therequest fornotifications didnotspecify adateby
which notifications should bemade, nordiditsuggest aprocedure oraschedule forreview ofthese
notifications bytheCommittee. Itseemed likely thatinatleastsome countries newlegislation and/or
regulations implementing WTO Agreement obligations intheanti-dumping areawerealready inplaceG/ADP/M/1
Page5
andbeing applied. Thus, therewasreason foracertain sense ofurgency inmaking ofthesenotifications.
Theprocessing ofthesenotifications bytheSecretariat andtheirtranslation would beatime-consuming
process, which made theneedforearlynotification allthemore pressing. Onthelatter point, itseemed
clearthattotheextent thattheCommittee desired toreview indetail these notifications, itwould need
toholdanumber ofspecial meetings. Itfurther seemed clearthatdelegations mustbegiven areasonable
period oftimetostudy thenotifications before themeeting atwhich theyaretobediscussed andby
preference havetheopportunity tosubmit written questions. Finally, itwasimportant thatinthemanner
ofselecting theorder inwhich notifications weretaken up,theCommittee didnotcreate adisincentive
forthetimely submission ofnotifications. Inthelightofthese considerations, theChairman opened
thefloor fordiscussion andtheviews ofdelegations.
25. Thedelegate ofHong Kong commented ontheimportance ofreviewing legislation ofMembers
inimplementing theAnti-Dumping Agreement, andurged theCommittee toplace toppriority onthe
examination oflegislation. Healsosuggested thatMembers highlight andexplain major changes in
theirlegislation, particularly those which arenotrequired bythenewAgreement. Itwasimportant
infacilitating thework ofthisCommittee inreviewing suchlegislation thattheCommittee agree on
atimelimitfornotification oflegislation. Hedidnotpropose aspecific date, butsuggested thata
deadline before thefirstregular meeting would beappropriate. Inaddition, hesuggested thatthe
Committee invite theSecretariat tohelpbyworking outaschedule, aswellasaprogramme ofreview,
asitwaslikely special meetings ofthisCommittee would beconvened toundertake suchreviews.
26. Thedelegate ofCanada agreed withHong Kong regarding theimportance oftheCommittee 's
review oflegislation andregulations. Heasked forclarification onwhether notifications oflegislation
would berestricted orunrestricted? Itappeared thatinmostifnotallcases legislation andregulations
would bepublicly available intheMember country, anditwould make theCommittee 'staskeasier
ifthese notifications were circulated asunrestricted documents.
27. TheChairman observed thattwopoints hadbeenraised, thetimeframe fornotifications, and
whether thelegislation would becirculated asunrestricted documents. Heproposed tocome back
tothese twoitems afterhearing theremarks ofthedelegates.
28. Thedelegate oftheUnited States supported Hong Kong'sstatement concerning theimportance
ofnotifying afullandintegrated textofrelevant legislation. Theprocess ofreviews would gomuch
more smoothly ifallamendments toexisting textwereintegrated. Secondly, heasked forapoint of
clarification. Heobserved thattheUnited States hadanintegrated textofitslegislation which itwas
prepared tonotify totheCommittee. However, theUnited States engages inatwo-stage process of
implementing legislation, andthenformulating regulations. TheUnited States wasstillengaged in
theprocess offormulating regulations. Therefore, should theCommittee decide onadatecertain by
which timelegislation should benotified totheCommittee, itwould havetobewiththeunderstanding
thatcountries whoengage insuchabifurcated process maynothavecompleted theirregulations in
time. Onthepoint oftiming, theUnited States believed thattheCommittee hadmuch work before
it,andthesooner itstarted, thebetter, inorder toensure thatallMembers arereceiving therights
andobligations thatwereanticipated intheAgreement. Heproposed 15March asasuitable datefor
Members tosubmit atleasttheirinitial legislation notifications totheCommittee. Inaddition, henoted
thatMembers could atthattimenotify theCommittee whatother steps theymaybetaking interms
ofconforming theirregulations, etc.Healsonoted thatbecause Article Xrequires members topublish
theirlawsandregulations, there wasnoreason tohave thelegislation notified tothisCommittee
circulated onarestricted basis.
29. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thatadeadline of15March was
acceptable, aswasadeadline ofthedateofthenextregular Committee meeting. Heobserved that
there wassome urgency, andlegislation which wasinplace should besubmitted assoonaspossible.G/ADP/M/1
Page6
Healsoagreed withtheUnited States thatthere wasabsolutely noneedtorestrict these documents.
Itwasexpected thatlegislation waspublished normally, andthusthere could beissuance without any
restriction. Certainly those countries which willtakesome timetodraftsecondary legislation would
submit thislegislation later, asevery change oflegislation would havetobesubmitted. Hesupported
therequest forintegrated text.
30. Thedelegate ofAustralia stated thatasageneral principal legislation could bereviewed at
regular meetings oftheCommittee, butthatthisyeartheCommittee wasinaposition ofhaving a
lottoexamine andaccordingly, there would likely tobeaneedforspecial meetings. However, the
process ofthereview ofanyparticular piece oflegislation should notbedragged out.Perhaps one
country 'slegislation might besubject toexamination atjustonespecial meeting rather thanseveral,
thereby avoiding theneedforpeople from capitals totravel backandforth. Sheexpressed support
foreither amid-March orbefore thenextmeeting deadline fornotification. Regarding theorder in
which theCommittee should takeuptheconsideration ofthelegislation shesuggested thatperhaps
theSecretariat should draftaschedule onthebasis ofamixture ofthemajor andtheminor users of
anti-dumping measures. Even iftheCommittee didnotreceive notifications fromsome countries and
thuscould notreview theirlegislation, thatshould notbeareason fordelaying review oftheothers '
legislation.
31. Thedelegate ofNew Zealand alsorecognized theimportance oftheprocess ofreview of
legislation, observing thatNewZealand would beinaposition tomeeteither ofthetwodateline which
hadbeensuggested. Asapractical matter, asufficient interval should beprovided between receipt
ofthelegislation andthemeeting atwhich itwould bereviewed, inorder toallow fortheanalysis
andevaluation necessary tomake thereview process auseful one.Second, wherever possible meetings
toreview legislation should bebacktobackwithregular meetings, orregular meetings should be
extended toreview legislation, inorder tolessen theneedforMembers 'experts totravel backand
forth tocapitals.
32. Therepresentative ofBrazil agreed withthetime-frame being proposed. Heobserved that
there aredifferences between countries resulting from different legalsystems. Some countries have
specific legislation onAnti-Dumping andSubsidies, andsome othercountries, likeBrazil, simply adopt
theAgreement asaninternal lawthatbecomes thelegislation onAnti-Dumping. Forsuchcountries,
notificationoflegislationwouldsimplybeareferencetothenumberofthelawwhichpublishedinternally
thetextoftheAgreement. Regarding secondary legislation orregulation, ifcountries arestilldrafting
secondary legislation, thiswould benotified induecourse.
33. Therepresentative ofMexico stated thatMexico alsoattached greatimportance totheprocess
ofnotification oflegislation. Concerning dates, heexpressed noparticular preference, andsuggested
thatthereview might becarried outintheorder notifications arereceived. Anyspecial meeting would
havetobeclose totheregular meetings, before orafter, soexperts fromcapitals could berelied on.
Finally, theTokyo Round Anti-Dumping Committee quite recently haddiscussed certain bodies of
legislation, andthisshould betaken intoaccount when looking atlegislation inthisCommittee.
34. Thedelegate oftheUnited States, referring tothecomments made bythedelegate ofBrazil,
observed thatforthesystem towork andforthere tobeasmuch transparency aspossible, itwas
important forcountries thatenact theAgreement itselfstilltonotify theCommittee oftheaction that
theyhavetaken, sothattheCommittee would haveacomplete reference ofalltheMembers 'laws.
35. TheChairman returned totheissueofwhether notifications oflegislation should berestricted.
Hestated thatitwaspossible fortheCommittee tomake adecision regarding derestriction, butatthe
same timetheWTO itself wascarrying outahorizontal discussion onderestriction. TheChairman
proposed putting offaformal decision onderestriction untilthenextmeeting.G/ADP/M/1
Page7
36. Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated thattheissue wasnotreally oneofderestriction, as
inorder toderestrict there mustbearestricted document tobegin with. Theissue herewaswhether,
inanewseries ofdocuments theCommittee wasabout tocreate, itintended toinstruct theSecretariat
tocirculate documents onarestricted orunrestricted basis. Heagreed withCanada 'spoint thatthese
documents wereinthepublic domain already, sothequestion wasnotabout releasing something that
isnotpublic. Inaddition, Article XofGATT 1994makes clearthatMembers areobligated tomake
legislation public. Given theimportance oftheprocess ofreview oflegislation andofmaking ita
quick andefficient process, circulation oflegislation onanunrestricted basiswould certainly facilitate
thattremendously.
37. TheChairman observed thattherewasanemerging consensus infavour ofissuing notification
oflegislation onanunrestricted basis. Heproposed thattheCommittee agree thatlegislation notified
totheCommittee shallbemade available onanunrestricted basis.
38. TheCommittee soagreed.
39. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee hadalready taken adecision thatthefirstnotification
byaWTO member ofAnti-Dumping Legislation would cover thefulltextofrelevant lawsand
regulations. Consequently, thatwasnotanissue fordiscussion inspiteofdiffering legal systems,
anddifferent procedural problems thatcountries might have. Inorder tohaveanefficient examination,
thefulltextofrelevant lawsandregulations wasnecessary. Thequestion wastheestablishment of
atime-frame thatwould allow anexamination tostartasearly aspossible. TheChairman proposed
thatthefulltextofrelevant lawsandregulations should besubmitted by15March 1995. TheChairman
further proposed thatspecial meetings toreview legislation beheldbacktobackwiththeregular
meetings oftheCommittee.
40. Thedelegate ofColombia suggested thattohavetheorder inwhich legislation wassubmitted
indicate when itwasgoing tobereviewed might beadisincentive toprompt notification.
41. Therepresentative ofThailand stated thatthetranslation ofThailand 'slegislation might not
beready by15March. Shesuggested thattheCommittee exercise some flexibility ifaMember could
notmeetthetimetable of15March.
42. TheChairmanobservedthatwhileheunderstoodthepleaforflexibility,hestoodbyhisproposal,
which wasthatthefulltextofavailable legislation benotified by15March. Forthose whocould
notsubmit thefulltext,theycould explain whytheywere unable tonotify.
43. Thedelegate ofthePhilippines stated thatheunderstood theChairman ashaving saidthat
implementing regulations could besubmitted assoonastheywereavailable, iftheywerenotavailable
by15March. ThePhilippines shared theviewthatthetiming ofthesubmission oflegislation should
notbetheprimary determinant ofwhen suchlegislation would beexamined, andsupported Australia 's
suggestion thattheSecretariat prepare anequitable schedule forreviewing legislation.
44. Thedelegate ofSwitzerland supported theviews expressed bythedelegate ofBrazil concerning
theproblem ofnotification bycountries, including Switzerland, thathavenoparticular legislation for
implementation, buttakethetextoftheAgreement asdomestic law. IfSwitzerland were required
tonotify theentire textofitslaw,itwould simply notify theentire textoftherelevant WTO Agreement.
Hequeried whether, insuchcases, itwould beenough tomerely toindicate thatnational legislation
isinfacttheAgreement itself. Finally, henoted thatSwitzerland hadnotyetratified theWTO
Agreements, butwould, ofcourse, comply withtheCommittee 'sdecision onprovision ofinformation
byobservers andmembers thatareabout toratify.G/ADP/M/1
Page8
45. Therepresentative ofArgentina supported thedateof15March. However, heagreed with
theconcern expressed byThailand concerning translations. Heobserved thatacertain flexibility would
benecessary, buttheCommittee should notmodify thedeadline itestablished fornotifications of
legislation. Criteria fortheorder ofreview oflegislation might bedifficult toestablish. Perhaps the
Chairman, theSecretariat, andinterested Members could prepare aproposal concerning thisissue.
46. Thedelegate ofHong Kong supported theChairman 'sproposal ofadeadline of15March
andafirstreview meeting backtobackwiththefirstregular meeting oftheCommittee. Hong Kong
recognized thatdifferent judicial systems maygivedifficulties tosome Members andwasprepared
toaccord flexibility inthisregard. Howe3ver, theWTO Agreement cameintoforceon1January 1995.
There isaspecific obligation under Article 18.4oftheAnti-Dumping Agreement which provides that
"Each Member shalltakeallnecessary steps, ofageneral orparticular character, toensure, notlater
thanthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement forit,theconformity ofitslaws, regulations
andadministrative procedures...". Sowhile Hong Kong wasprepared toaccord flexibility, atthesame
timeitexpected Members tofulfil theobligations spelled outintheAgreement. Healsoasked for
clarification whether, forthosedelegations which hadstated thattheyhavelegislation butnotregulations
inforce, itwaspossible fortheMember toconduct anti-dumping investigations andimpose preliminary
andfinalduties?
47. TheChairman stated thatthelastpointraised bythedelegate fromHong Kong wasanimportant
one.Henoted thatsomeMembers mayhavenotyetenacted legislation and/or regulations implementing
theAgreement. HewassurethatallMembers were aware thatinvestigations initiated pursuant to
complaints made afterthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement foraMember weresubject
totheprovisions oftheAgreement. Keeping inmindthatnational legalsystems differ andthatdifferent
steps maytherefore berequired toimplement theAgreement, hetrusted thatMembers thatdidnot
haveanadequate legalbasistoconduct investigations inamanner consistent withtheAgreement would
refrain from initiating investigations untilsuchanadequate legalbasis existed.
48. Thedelegate ofBrazil sought toclarify thelegal situation inBrazil regarding anti-dumping
legislation. TheAgreement itselfisincorporated intonational lawunder theBrazilian system. There
might beregulatory legislation, orthere might notbe.Thisdoesnotmean thattheauthorities are
notabletoconduct investigations. TheAgreement, incorporated intonational legislation, isitself a
sufficient legalbasis forconducting investigations. Consequently, there isnoquestion ofhaving to
refrain from conducting investigations, since thelegalbasis fordoing soexists. Heagreed withthe
delegateofSwitzerlandconcerningthesubmissionoftexts.Heproposedthatcountrieswhichincorporate
theAgreement intodomestic lawnotify thenumber ofthelawbywhich suchaction wastaken.
49. ThedelegateoftheUnitedStatesstatedhisunderstandingthattherewasnodisagreementbetween
what theChairman hadproposed andthecomments ofthedelegate ofBrazil. Heagreed withthe
delegate ofHong Kong thateachMember hasaprimary responsibility asof1January 1995toconform
theirlawsandregulations totheAgreement. Inthereview process, atleastthose countries whowere
actively engaged inanti-dumping investigations would needtoshow theyhavedoneso.Presumably,
anycountry thathadananti-dumping lawwould submit it.Thatcountries mayatalatertimeelaborate
onthatlawandhavetonotify changes didnotdetract from theneedforinitial notification. There
wasanother category thattheChair might consider forthesakeofcompleteness. There wereafair
number ofcountries thatdonothaveananti-dumping laworprogramme. Hewondered iftherequest
fornotification oflegislation should notalsorequest anindication from those countries thatdonot
havelegislation. Thiswould giveacomplete picture ofthesituation.
50. TheChairman pointed outthattheessence ofthereview process wastounderstand thefull
legalbasis ofhowMembers implement theAgreement andimpose measures, requiring notification
byaWTO Member ofthefulltextofallrelevant lawsandregulations. IfitwasjusttheAgreementG/ADP/M/1
Page9
thatprovides thefulllegal basis, thentheChairman wasinclined toaccept theBrazilian delegate 's
explanation ascorrect. Theproposal ofnotifications wasthatthere hastobefulltransparency sothat
allrelevant lawsandregulations which provide thelegalbasisforacountry 'sactions canbeexamined.
Regarding countries thatdonothave legislation inplace, theChairman 'ssuggestion wasthatby
15March 1995Members either notify theirlegislation, orprovide areason astowhynotification can
notbemade. Hetherefore proposed thatallmembers which hadenacted newlegislation and/or
promulgated newregulations regarding anti-dumping duties tonotify allrelevant lawsandregulations
totheCommittee by15March 1995. TheSecretariat would endeavour totranslate andcirculate this
legislation promptly. TheCommittee would holditsfirstspecial meeting toreview thesenotifications
inconjunction withandimmediately following itsfirstregular meeting which wasexpected tobeheld
attheendofApril orbeginning ofMay. TheCommittee would endeavour atleasttobegin itsreview
ofallsuchnotifications atitsfirstspecial meeting. Ifinthelightofthenumber ofnotifications received
thiswasnotfeasible, theChairman would consult withdelegations toestablish aschedule forareview
ofthesenotifications through aseries ofmeetings. IfMembers werenotabletonotify theirlegislation
orregulations, theywould provide areason astowhynotification cannotbemade.
51. TheCommittee soagreed.
J. Semi-Annual Reports ofAnti-Dumping Duty Actions
52. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee hadearlier adopted therecommendation ofthe
Informal Contact Group thatthese reports should cover themost recent sixmonth period, January
toJuneorJulytoDecember, prior toentry intoforce foraMember. Thismeant thatthisWTO
notification obligation wasnotlimited tomeasures arising outofinvestigations covered bythenew
AgreementArequestfortheSemi-AnnualReportforthesecondhalfof1994hadalreadybeencirculated
toMembers bytheSecretariat (G/ADP/N/2). Consistent withthepractice oftheTokyo Round
Committee, Members were requested tosubmit theirnotifications nolaterthan24February 1995.
Henoted thatafewMembers hadindicated thattheydidnottakeanyaction during thereporting period,
andurged allMembers tosubmit theirreports promptly. Inview ofthedecision onAvoidance of
Procedural andInstitutional Duplication which theTokyo Round Committee wasanticipated totake
laterintheafternoon, these notifications could alsoserve asnotifications under theTokyo Round
Agreement. Article 16.4oftheAgreement provides thattheSemi-Annual Reports shallbesubmitted
onanagreed standard form. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee adopt thestandard form
adopted bytheTokyo Round Committee, found inADP/122, forusebymembers oftheCommittee,
andcontinue todiscuss theformat forreview investigations asnoted inFootnote 3ofthatdocument.
53. Thedelegate ofHong Kong supported theChairman 'sproposal. Inaddition, heobserved
thattheformat ofreports wasdrawn uponthebasis oftheTokyo Round Code. Under thenew
Agreements, there could beareas which involve obligations notcovered inthatformat. Hesuggested
thattheCommittee reconsider theformat assoonaspossible withaviewtoreviewing itagainst the
requirements ofthenewAgreement.
54. Therepresentative ofJapan expressed support fortheview expressed bytheHong Kong
representative.
55. TheCommittee adopted theproposal oftheChairman.
K. Preliminary andFinal Anti-dumping Actions
56. TheChairman stated thatArticle 16.4oftheAgreement provides thatMembers report without
delay totheCommittee allpreliminary orfinalanti-dumping actions taken. InADP/124 theTokyo
RoundCommitteeonAnti-DumpingPracticeshadadoptedGuidelinesregardingtheminimuminformationG/ADP/M/1
Page10
tobeprovided inthereports ofpreliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions. Heproposed thatthe
Committee adopt thesame Guidelines forthese reports.
57. Therepresentative ofBrazil supported theChairman 'sproposal. Hereminded theCommittee
oftheproblem theTokyo Round Committee hadsought tosolve byadopting theguidelines, regarding
lackofnotification from many members. Heobserved thatsome countries provide more thanthe
minimum information required inthatdocument, byforwarding copies ofpublications. Thefactthat
notifications contain more thantheminimum information wastobewelcomed. Heexpressed concern,
however, forhowtheCommittee would process alltheinformation thatwould benotified, notonly
because thenewAgreement imposed different obligations butalsobecause ofthenumber ofMembers
whichwerenotintheTokyoRoundCommittee.Hesuggestedthatitwouldgreatlyincreasetransparency
ifnotifications weremade inauniform way,andfurther suggested thatinduecourse theCommittee
reviewdocumentADP/124toreflectanychangesthatmighthavebeenintroducedbythenewAgreement,
andifpossible agree onaformat forthese notifications.
58. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
59. TheChairman stated thatanother question withrespect tothesereports arose outofthetransition
fromtheTokyo Round Agreement tothenewAgreement. Article 18.3ofthenewAgreement provided
thatitsprovisions apply toinvestigations andreviews ofexisting measures initiated pursuant to
applications made onorafterthedateofentry intoforce oftheAgreement. Thus, thequestion arose
whether thereports tobefiledunder Article 16.4should encompass allactions, oronlythose covered
bytheAgreement, andwhether atthesame timeParties totheTokyo Round Agreement would still
berequiredtonotifypreliminaryandfinalactionsunderthatAgreementaswell.TheChairmanproposed
thatthisconfusion could beavoided andimplementation oftheDecision oftheAvoidance ofProcedural
andInstitutional Duplication would befacilitated iftheCommittee decided thatnotifications tothis
Committee would encompass allpreliminary andfinalactions taken afterthedateofentry intoforce
oftheAgreement. Thisdecision would besimilar tothattaken upontherecommendation oftheInformal
Contact Group regarding Semi-Annual Reports. Ifthisproposal wereaccepted, inviewoftheDecision
onAvoidance ofProcedural Institutional Duplication, thesenotifications could alsoserveasnotifications
under theTokyo Round Agreement.
60. Therepresentative oftheUnited States observed thatthere maybeconfusion astothe
Committee 'sjurisdiction ifactions thatweretaken under theTokyo Round Agreement werenotified
tothisCommittee. Hesuggested thatactions taken under theTokyo Round Agreement butnotified
tothisCommittee should indicate thattheyare"Tokyo Round Actions" asopposed to"Uruguay Round
Actions," toclarify that,eventhough notified tothisCommittee, theaction wasasubject fortheTokyo
Round Committee toconsider.
61. TheChairman observed thattheUnited States 'delegate hadraised avalid point.
62. TherepresentativeofColombiapointedoutthattheCommitteehadtodrawadistinctionbetween
three situations: first,ameasure adopted before theWTO came intoforce byaTokyo Round Party,
second ameasure adopted before theWTO came intoforce byanon-Tokyo Round Party, andthird
ameasure adopted after1January 1995. Shesuggested thattheCommittee needed tomake aclear
distinction between these three, because different legalprovisions apply tothem, andastoonethere
wasnoreview procedure applicable.
63. Thedelegate ofMexico noted thatthere wasalsothesituation ofmeasures taken withrespect
tocountries whoarenotWTO members.G/ADP/M/1
Page11
64. TheChairman pointed outthatArticle 16.4says"Members shallreport without delay tothe
Committee allpreliminary orfinalanti-dumping actions taken." Itdoesnotspecify actions against
WTO members ornon-WTO members. Thus, itwasperfectly possible foraWTO member tonotify
theCommittee ofpreliminary orfinal anti-dumping actions taken against anon-WTO member.
65. Thedelegate ofArgentina stated thatwhere theAgreement provides thatMembers shallinform
theCommittee ofallpreliminary orfinalanti-dumping measures, itshould beunderstood asreferring
tothose which fallwithin thecompetence oftheCommittee. Forstatistical purposes orinorder to
enhance follow-up theremaybeadecision toseekinformation regarding different actions. However,
theCommittee canonlydiscuss actions falling within itsmandate. Itwasneither reasonable nor
acceptable todiscuss within thecontext ofoneCommittee activities thatfallunder themandate ofanother
Committee oranother Organization. Thedistinction wasclear, andcould notbeavoided.
66. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee adopt hisproposal withtheaddition suggested
bytheUnited States, inorder toavoid confusion andfacilitate implementation oftheDecision onthe
Avoidance ofProcedural andInstitutional Duplication, anddecide thatnotifications tothisCommittee
would encompass allpreliminary andfinalactions taken after thedateofentry intoforce ofthe
Agreement, andcould indicate whether theaction fallsunder theTokyo Round Agreement ortheWTO
Agreement.
67. TheCommittee sodecided.
L. Notification byMembers Regarding theAuthorities Competent toInitiate andConduct
Investigations, andtheDomestic Procedures Governing theConduct ofInvestigations
68. TheChairman recalled thatthisnotification isrequired ofmembers under Article 16.5ofthe
WTO Agreement onAnti-Dumping. There maybesome overlap between thenotification requirements
ofArticle 16.5andthoseunder Article 18.5. Heexpected thatnotification oflegislation andregulations
pursuant toArticle 18.5would satisfy thisprovision aswell.
69. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheChairman 'sstatement.
M. Presentation andDiscussion ofNotifications
70. TheChairman stated that,inview ofthelarge number ofMembers oftheCommittee, the
Committee maywanttoconsider whether therewasaneedtoalterthewayinwhich certain notifications
werepresented totheMembers andwhether some short cutscould betaken interms ofthediscussion
ofdifferent notifications inmeetings. Heproposed tosolicit theviews oftheSecretariat onthisscore
andtoconsult informally withdelegations toexplore thismatter further andtoreport backtothe
Committee atafuture meeting. Heencouraged delegations withsuggestions tocontact himorthe
Secretariat.
71. Therepresentative ofBrazil noted thatthematter offormats forreports ofpreliminary and
finalactions andsemi-annual reports could betaken upinsuchdiscussions.
72. TheCommittee adopted theChairman 'sproposal.
N. Procedures fortheAnnual Review
73. TheChairmanrecalledthatpursuanttoArticle18.6oftheAgreement,theCommitteeisrequired
toreview annually theimplementation andoperation oftheAgreement taking intoaccount theobjectives
thereofandtoinformannuallytheCouncilforTradeinGoodsofdevelopmentsduringtheperiodcoveredG/ADP/M/1
Page12
bysuchreview. Under theTokyo Round Agreement, theCommittee hadfulfilled thisobligation in
thefollowing manner. First, theSecretariat prepared adraftreport totheCONTRACTING PARTIES
which report wascirculated totheMembers oftheCommittee either inadvance ofthesecond regular
meeting oftheyearoratthatmeeting. TheCommittee reviewed thedraftreport attheendofthe
meeting andinstructed theSecretariat regarding anymodifications thatshould bemade taking into
account anyevents which occurred atthemeeting. TheSecretariat thenfinalized thereport andconveyed
ittotheCONTRACTING PARTIES. TheChairman proposed that,intheabsence ofanycontrary
indication between nowandthesecond regular meeting oftheCommittee, itfollow thesameprocedure
astheTokyo Round Committee.
74. TheCommittee soagreed.
O. Other business
75. Noissue wasraised under thisitem.
P. DateofMeetings
76. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 16.1provides thattheCommittee shallmeetnotlessthan
twice ayear. Under theTokyo Round Agreement, theCommittee hadheldtworegular meetings,
oneinthelastweek ofApril andanother inthelastweek ofOctober. TheChairman proposed that
theCommittee decide thatitstworegular meetings normally would beheldonthesame schedule.
Thisstandard schedule would provide ameasure ofpredicability forMembers andfortheSecretariat,
andwould alsoallow theholding ofjointorconsecutive meetings oftheCommittee andtheTokyo
Round Committee, asenvisioned bytheDecision ontheAvoidance ofProcedural andInstitutional
Duplication. Under hisproposal, thefirstregular meeting would normally beheldintheweek of
24April. However, theChairman hadbeeninformed thatnomeeting room wasavailable thatweek,
andtherefore, exceptionally, heproposed thatthefirstregular meeting beheldinthefirstweek of
May. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee haddecided thataspecial meeting toreview legislation
should beheldimmediately following thefirstregular meeting, andhisproposal encompassed aspecial
meeting toreview legislation tobeheldtowards theendofthefirstweek ofMayorinthefollowing
week. Finally, herequested thattheCommittee authorize himtocallaspecial meeting before the
firstweek ofMayshould hebelieve thatadditional matters should bediscussed asaresult ofinformal
consultations onissues authorized bytheCommittee today.
77. TheCommittee sodecided.