RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/ADP/M/2
26September 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-2826)
Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices
DRAFT MINUTES OFTHE MEETING HELD
ON12JUNE 1995
Chairman: Mr.Mohan Kumar (India)
1. TheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices helditsfirstregular meeting on12June1995.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Observers: International organizations 1
B. Election ofVice-Chairman 2
C. Rules ofprocedure 2
D. Notifications oflegislation (Article 18.5andG/ADP/N/1 andSuppl.1 3
andaddenda)
E. Semi-annual reports ofanti-dumping actions: formats (ADP/122, 6
G/ADP/M/1, paragraph 53)
F. Semi-annual reports ofanti-dumping actions (G/ADP/N/2 and 8
addenda
G. Preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions: format (ADP/124, 10
G/ADP/M/1, paragraph 57)
H. Preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions: notifications (G/ADP/N/3) 11
I. Proposal tomake notifications unrestricted 12
J. Anti-circumvention 13
K. EUenlargement andautomatic application ofanti-dumping duties 15
tothenewMembers oftheEU-Itemrequested byJapan
L. Other business 19G/ADP/M/2
Page2
A. Observers: International Organizations
3. TheChairman recalled thattheCouncil forTrade inGoods decided atitsmeeting on
3April 1995 thatpending theadoption ofcriteria andconditions forobserver status ofinternational
organizations intheWTO, eachsubsidiary bodywould decide which intergovernmental/international
organizations should beinvited toitsnextmeeting. Onthebasis ofinformal consultations, andno
delegation having expressed anyobjections, theIMF, OECD, UNCTAD andtheWorld Bank were
invited toattend thismeeting. Heproposed thattheCommittee continue tooperate inthesamefashion
andinvite thesefourorganizations toitsnextmeeting asobservers, andthatwhen thenecessary criteria
forobserver status ofinternational andintergovernmental organizations willhavebeenestablished the
Committee could revert tothismatter.
4. TheCommittee sodecided.
B. Election ofVice-Chairman
5. TheCommittee elected Mr.JohnMcNab ofCanada Vice-Chairman oftheCommittee.
C. Rules ofProcedure
6. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee atitsmeeting of21February 1995hadauthorized
himtoenterintoinformal consultations regarding thequestion ofRules ofProcedure fortheCommittee,
takingintoaccountthefactthatotherCommitteeswerealsoconsideringthisquestion,andthedesirability
ofensuringameasureofconsistencybetweentheRulesofProcedureofthevariousCommitteesoperating
under theauspices oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Henoted thatalthough theCouncil forTrade
inGoods hadadopted Rules ofProcedure those Rules hadnotyetbeenapproved bytheGeneral Council.
Consequently, hedidnotbelieve thattheCommittee should actwithrespect tothismatter untilRules
ofProcedure fortheCouncil forTrade inGoods hadbeenfinally approved bytheGeneral Council.
Hetherefore proposed thattheCommittee authorize himtocontinue toconsult informally asnecessary
withregard toRules ofProcedure fortheCommittee, withaviewtoward preparing draftRules and
presenting them totheCommittee atanappropriate time.
7. TheCommittee sodecided.
8. Intheinterim, theChairman proposed thattheCommittee continue tofollow thecustomary
practice oftheTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices.
9. TheCommittee agreed.
D. Notifications ofLegislation
10. TheChairman recalled thatatitsmeeting of21February 1995, theCommittee haddecided
thatallMembers would notify thefullandintegrated textofallrelevant lawsandregulations regarding
anti-dumping duties totheCommittee by15March 1995. Ifsuchlegislation and/or regulations did
notexistorifMembers were notabletonotify theirlegislation orregulations theywere toprovide
areason totheCommittee astowhynotification could notbemade. Todate, of97Members and
22countries eligible tobecome original Members, 45hadeither notified thetextoflegislation and
regulations orhadindicated whysuchanotification hadnotyetbeenmade, andinmostcases provided
anindication astowhen suchnotification canbemade. Those countries are:Argentina, Australia,
Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Dominican
Republic, ElSalvador, Egypt, European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mauritius, Malaysia, Mexico, NewZealand, Nicaragua, Norway,G/ADP/M/2
Page3
Paraguay,Peru,Poland,Romania,SlovakRepublic,Slovenia,SriLanka,Switzerland,Thailand,Trinidad
andTobago, Turkey, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela andZambia. TheChairman noted thatJapan,
Norway,andThailand,whichhadindicatedthatlegislationexistedandwouldbenotifiedoncetranslations
wereprepared, hadindeed submitted legislation totheSecretariat, which would circulate these texts
assoonaspossible.
11. TheChairman observed thatinformal consultations regarding theschedule ofmeetings toreview
thenotified legislations, andtheorder inwhich legislations would bereviewed, hadbeenheldduring
themonth ofApril. Duetodifficulties intranslating thenotified legislations intoallworking languages
oftheWTO anddelays inreceipt ofnotifications fromMembers, heandtheChairman oftheCommittee
onSubsidesandCountervailingMeasureshadconcludedthatthefirstspecialmeetingtoreviewlegislation
could notbeconducted inconjunction withthefirstregular meetings oftheCommittees. Theytherefore
proposed, inWTO/AIR/78 (10May1995), thatajointspecial meeting ofthisCommittee andthe
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures beheldtoreview legislation, tostarton17July
1995andcontinue asnecessary during thatentire week. Thelegislations ofAustralia, Chile, Korea,
Mexico, theUnited States andVenezuela hadbeenscheduled tobereviewed atthatmeeting. Those
legislations would becirculated toMembers inallWTO working languages nolaterthan16June1995.
Inorder tohavethemostefficient meeting possible, theChairman urged Members tosubmit written
questionsconcerningthelegislationsunderreviewtotheMemberwhoselegislationwastobeconsidered,
andtotheSecretariat forcirculation totheCommittee, notlaterthantwoweeks before thedateof
themeeting. TheChairman recognized thatthisschedule wastight, butnoted hisbelief thatwritten
questions would enable Members whose legislations werebeing reviewed toanswer asfullyaspossible
thequestions ofother Members, andenable theCommittee tomake thebestpossible useofitstime.
12. TheChairman opened thefloortodelegations forcomments onthenotifications oflegislation,
including anycomments withrespect toadequacy ofnotifications received todateinterms ofcompliance
withtheCommittee 'sdecision of21February orambiguities innotifications oranyother matter that
delegations might wishtoaddress.
13. Thedelegate ofHong Kong thanked theChairman forhisreport onthesituation. Herecalled
thatatthefirstspecial meeting oftheCommittee, hehadstressed thatoneofthetoppriorities ofthe
Committee wastocarry outcomprehensive reviews ofnational anti-dumping legislation. Healso
supported theviewthatlegislation should bemade available inallthree WTO languages before being
reviewed bytheCommittee, andexpressed appreciation fortheefforts andadditional resources which
theSecretariathadputintothetranslationexercise.HeexpressedappreciationfortheeffortsofMembers
thathadalready notified theirlegislation andregulations totheCommittee. However, healsoregretted
thatsome Members hadnotyetbeenabletodoso,andhoped thatMembers would usetheirbestefforts
tomake thisexercise asuccess byproviding therequested notifications forthepurpose ofreview.
14. Therepresentative ofKorea asked theChairman toclarify theexact schedule ofthelegislation
review forspecific countries, andenquired whether there would beinformal consultation withthe
countries concerned.
15. TheChairmanreiteratedthatforthemeetingtheweekof17July,theMemberswhoselegislation
would bereviewed wereAustralia, Chile, Korea, Mexico, theUnited States andVenezuela. Hestated
hisbelief thatitwasunnecessary todecide thespecific schedule atthistime, andthattheschedule
forsubsequent reviews would beaddressed afterthatmeeting.
16. Therepresentative ofKorea restated hisquestion, asking whether there wasanyspecific date
forspecific country forthereview.G/ADP/M/2
Page4
17. Therepresentatives ofJapan, theUnited States, Mexico, andNewZealand, allcommented
about thescheduling oflegislations forreview, andtheneedtoestablish theschedule forthesecond
meeting soon.
18. Therepresentative oftheUnited States commented thatitwasimportant thatMembers receive
thewritten questions twoweeks before themeeting ifanswers were tobeexpected, andnoted that
itwould facilitate theprocessing ofthose questions if,inaddition tobeing provided directly tothe
Secretariat forcirculation, thequestions could beprovided directly tothedelegation whose legislation
wasconcerned, tofacilitate transmitting thequestions tocapital forreview. Heobserved thatwhile
itwould bepractical tohavethese meetings coincide withmeetings oftheCommittee, inviewofthe
largenumber ofnotifications, suchaschedule would extend thefirststageofreview overseveral years.
19. TheChairman tooknoteofallthecomments made bydelegations andindicated theywould
betaken intoaccount incontinued informal consultations onplanning theschedule. Hepointed out
thatthecountries tobereviewed inthesecond meeting wereknown, thatis,Argentina, Brazil, Canada,
European Union, India andNewZealand.
20. TheChairman observed thatthiswasagoodopportunity fortheCommittee toconsider what
hadbeenaccomplished intheareaofnotifications oflegislations sofar.Itwasnoteworthy thatmost
oftheWTO Members known tomake useofanti-dumping measures hadnotified theirlegislation to
theCommittee. Infact,most ofthose Members respected the15March indicative datesetbythe
Committee. Ontheother hand, 74Members andcountries eligible tobecome original Members had
notyetnotified theCommittee regarding thestatus oftheirlegislation. Ifthese Members didnothave
anyrelevant legislation, itshould beeasyenough forthem tonotify theCommittee ofthatfact. If
theydohavesuchlegislation, theChairman emphasized thatitwasimportant thatitbenotified, or
ifitisnotpossible tonotify immediately, atleastnotify theCommittee ofanindicative datewhen
suchnotification would bemade. Heurged Members thathadnotyetnotified legislation and/or
regulations todosoattheearliest possible dateandiftheywereunable tonotify thelegislation, notify
thisCommittee ofthereason andprovide anindicative datewhen suchnotification ispossible.
21. TheChairman reiterated thatthenotification oflegislation wasofvitalimportance tothe
Committee 'sability tocarry outitsfunctions under theAgreement. Hereminded Members thatanti-
dumping legislation isnotrequired bytheAgreement, butifaMember hasanti-dumping legislation
inforce applicable toinvestigations andreview covered bytheWTO Agreement, itmustconform to
theAgreement andmust benotified tothisCommittee.
22. TheCommittee tooknoteofthecomments ofdelegations andtheChairman 'sremarks inthis
regard.
E. Semi-annual reports ofanti-dumping actions: formats
23. TheChairman recalled thatatitsmeeting on21February 1995, theCommittee adopted the
guidelines forsemi-annual reports contained inADP/122 andagreed tocontinue todiscuss those
guidelines. Itwassuggested atthatmeeting thattheCommittee reconsider those formats inlightof
thenewAgreement which mayimpose different oradditional requirements. NoMember hadmade
anyspecific suggestions concerning suchdifferent oradditional requirements. TheChairman observed
thathewasbringing thismatter totheCommittee 'sattention inorder toascertain whether infact
Members wished toreconsider theformats forsemi-annual reports atthisstage, andopened thefloor
forcomments.
24. Thedelegate ofAustralia reminded theCommittee ofdiscussions onthistopicintheSubsidies
Committee. Henoted thatAustralia hadraised some points inrespect oftheformat inthatCommitteeG/ADP/M/2
Page5
thatwould beequally applicable totheanti-dumping format. Hequeried whether these points should
bereiterated here, orwhether itwasmore likely thatrevision oftheformat would takeplace firstin
theSubsidies Committee, andthenbecarried overtotheanti-dumping context.
25. Therepresentative ofHong Kong thanked theAustralian delegate forrecalling thedeliberations
intheSubsidies Committee. Henoted thathehadspoken atthelastmeeting onthisitem, because
Hong Kong feltitmight benecessary toreview thisformat, which wasagreed uponintheTokyo Round
Committee, against thebackground oftheWTO Agreement. Among Hong Kong'sconcerns wasthe
exclusion ofreviews from thereports. InHong Kong'sview, itwasveryimportant forMembers
tohaveinformation regarding reviews sothattheycould monitor allcases. Henoted thatduring the
informal discussions intheSubsidies Committee, there hadbeenaproposal topartially address that
concern byincluding reviews initiated after1January 1995, thatis,reviews covered bytheWTO
Agreement. There appeared tobeanemerging consensus onthatproposal intheSubsidies Committee
discussions. Heenquired whether theCommittee would consider adapting theanti-dumping format
inthisregard soastoinclude reviews initiated after1January 1995. Hemade itclear, however, that
Hong Kong wasnotentirely comfortable withthatproposal because itdidnotaddress allconcerns.
Nonetheless, inthespirit offacilitating thework oftheCommittee, andtaking intoaccount theviews
ofother delegations, Hong Kong would behappy togoalong withthatproposal ifitwere made in
thisCommittee.
26. Therepresentative ofCanada returned tothepoint made bythedelegate ofAustralia, noting
thatfrom Canada 'sperspective itwould bedesirable ifanyformat adopted forsemi-annual reports
inoneCommittee, whether theSubsidies Committee orthisCommittee, wasalso,totheextent possible,
adopted intheother Committee. Henoted that,given thatthemembership ofbothCommittees is
essentially thesame, there wasnoneedtohaveasimilar discussion inbothCommittees which would
beaduplication ofeffort. Unless therewassome overriding reason tohaveadifference inthereporting
format, heurged thatwhatever discussions andagreements weremade inoneCommittee beadopted
intheother.
27. TheChairman noted thathewasaware ofthediscussions intheSubsidies Committee, and
suggested thattheCommittee adopt thedecision oftheinformal group working onsemi-annual report
formats inthatCommittee. Heproposed thatthetextoftheanti-dumping format, thatis,paragraph
19ofdocument ADP/122, beamended toreadasfollows:
"Forfurtherimprovingthetransparencyoftheanti-dumpinginvestigations,information
onallcases pending attheendoftheperiod should bereported evenifthere wasno
action taken during theperiod forwhich thereport isprovided."
TheChairman stated thatitwould beunderstood thatparagraph 19applied tocases covered bythe
WTO Agreement.
28. TherepresentativeofAustralianotedthattheChairman'ssuggestionwasacceptabletoAustralia.
However, hewondered whether theCommittee would nowrevisit theentire format, orwastheproposal
thattheCommittee amend ADP/122 onalimited basis. Forexample, henoted thatthere wasan
omission intheTokyo Round Code format, which didnotexplicitly contain aprovision regarding
confidentiality. Theissueofconfidentiality, inAustralia 'sview, affected columns 4to6oftheformats
forsemi-annual reports ofbothAnti-Dumping andCountervailing actions. There wereinstances where
margins andduties levied canbeconfidential, andthecurrent format wasnotclear regarding
confidentiality. Thisissue arose bothwithrespect tosemi-annual report formats andtheguidelines
forminimum information forpreliminary andfinalreports. However, forthelatter, itwasclearfrom
theCommittee 'sminutes when theywereadopted thatconfidentiality would berespected. InAustralia 'sG/ADP/M/2
Page6
view itwasimportant thatitbeclear thatconfidential information isnotrequired under anyofthe
headings oftheformat.
29. Thedelegate ofAustralia continued byenquiring whatthestatus ofamended ADP/122 would
be.ADP/122 wasadopted bytheTokyo Round Code Committee rather thantheWTO Committee,
andAustralia would prefer toseeaformat adopted bytheWTO Committee which incorporated
provisions withrespect toconfidentiality. Henoted Australia hadraised other issues regarding semi-
annual reports formats intheSubsidies Committee. Onematter concerned hownegative preliminary
findings should bereported. Australia notified such findings under theheading of"Provisional
Measures," which hadcaused some confusion inthepast. Australia hadexplained thereasons for
itsaction intheTokyo Round Committee, noting thatanegative preliminary determination bythe
Australian Customs Service isreviewable bytheAustralian Anti-Dumping Authority. There were
frequent requests forsuchreview, andtherefore preliminary negative findings arenotfinal. Thedelegate
ofAustralia wondered whether theCommittee wished todealwiththesesortsofissues, orwould prefer
them tobelefttodiscussion intheSubsidies Committee.
30. TheChairmanobservedthathehadnotintendedtopushtheCommitteetotakeadecisionwithout
knowing itsfullimport. Thedelegate ofAustralia hadraised some important issues meriting
consideration. Heobserved thattheissueofconfidential information hadbeendiscussed intheSubsidies
Committee. Based onthose discussions, anewparagraph 21could beadded toADP/122, stating that
"Nothinginthisformatrequiresthenotificationofconfidentialinformationincludingconfidentialbusiness
information." However, theChairman proposed thatthebestcourse would betoholdinformal
consultationsincoordinationwithwhatwasbeingdiscussedintheSubsidiesCommittee.TheCommittee
could revert tothismatter andtakeadecision atalaterdate.
31. Thedelegate ofHong Kong stated thatHong Kong hadnodifficulty withtheChairman 's
proposals. Hepointed outthatitwould bedesirable ifthesemi-annual formats fortheanti-dumping
andcountervailing measures wereassimilar aspossible. Heappreciated theneedtorevisit theformat
inthelightofthenewobligations under theWTO Agreement, butdidnotexpect torenegotiate the
entire format theTokyo Round Committee hadadopted inthose areas which entail exactly thesame
obligations under theWTO Agreement.
32. TheChairmanremindedtheCommitteethatithadadopteddocumentADP/122atthelastmeeting
on21February 1995. Heproposed thattheCommittee revert tothequestion ofamending theformat
atafuture meeting.
33. TheCommittee sodecided.
F. Semi-annual reports onanti-dumping actions
34. TheChairman recalled thatarequest forsemi-annual reports forthesecond halfof1994was
circulated tomembers indocument G/ADP/N/2 dated 30January 1995. Austria, Costa Rica, Czech
Republic, Dominican Republic, Egypt, ElSalvador, Finland, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong,
Hungary,Indonesia,Malaysia,Malta,Nicaragua,Norway,Paraguay,Poland,Romania,SlovakRepublic,
Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland andTrinidad andTobago hadnotified totheCommittee thattheytook
noactions during theperiod. Noreports hadbeenreceived from thefollowing Members: Antigua
andBarbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,
Central African Republic, Côted'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
Iceland, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Macau, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, St.Lucia, SaintVincent and
Grenadines, Senegal, South Africa, SriLanka, Surinam, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda,
Uruguay, Zambia andZimbabwe.G/ADP/M/2
Page7
35. TheChairman recalled that,asinthepast,theSecretariat would becirculating by1Julyan
addendumtoG/ADP/N/2whichwouldsummarizethestateofnotificationsandincludealistofMembers
which hadnotmade notifications. Those Members which hadnotyetnotified could avoid being
identified inthislistbymaking anotification bythatdate. Inthisrespect, theChairman noted that
most oftheMembers identified asnothaving submitted areport hadprobably taken noactions. In
thiscase, asingle sentence notification tothateffect wasallthatwasrequired.
36. TheChairman observed thatofthe17reports andactions received bytheCommittee allbut
fourhadbeencirculated toMembers inallthreeworking languages. Thereports ofBrazil, India and
theUnited States hadnotyetbeentranslated buthadbeencirculated inatleastEnglish. Thereport
ofMexico wasonlyreceived bytheSecretariat within thepastweek andhadnotyetbeencirculated
toMembers andtherefore could notbeconsidered atthistime. TheChairman emphasized thatthe
non-submission andlatesubmission ofreports wasregrettable. Inparticular, ifaMember submitted
neither anotification oflegislation noranotification ofanyactions taken, theCommittee wascompletely
unable todetermine whether theMember wascomplying withitsobligations under theAgreement.
37. TheChairman noted thatanti-dumping actions taken inthesecond halfof1994wereobviously
taken pursuant totherequirements oftheTokyo Round Agreement. Pursuant tothedecision ofthe
Committee atits21February 1995 meeting andforpurposes oftransparency, semi-annual reports
forthatperiod were tobesubmitted tothisCommittee. They were therefore ontheagenda for
consideration atthismeeting. However, hereminded Members thattheTokyo Round Anti-Dumping
Committee would bemeeting laterthatday. Actions taken inthesecond halfof1994 might perhaps
bemostappropriately discussed inthatforum. Keeping thisinmind, heenquired whether anydelegation
wished toaddress anyofthese notifications.
38. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities agreed withtheChairman 'scomments
concerning theneedforreports onanti-dumping measures tobesubmitted inatimely fashion. Itwas
veryimportant thatthesereports bereceived sufficiently inadvance sothattheycould begiven attention
during Committee meetings.
39. Hethenraised several questions regarding thereport ofArgentina. Forsome ofthedecisions
inthereport, nodumping margin wasnoted, andincolumn 14,thebasis forthedetermination was
stated byusing initials. IntheEnglish text,theletters usedwere notinkeeping withtheformat as
presented. Perhaps itwasdifferent intheSpanish text.
40. Therepresentative ofArgentina apologized fortheconfusion. Heobserved thatthiswasfirst
submission byArgentina, andthatitmaybethatthere wasanerror. InthecaseofSpain, the
representative oftheECwascorrect thattherewasnoreference tothedumping margin. Heobserved
thathewould givetheinformation totherepresentative ofSpain.
41. Noother delegation wishing totakethefloor, theCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
G. Preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions: format
42. TheChairman recalled thatitsmeeting of21February, theCommittee adopted theguidelines
adopted bytheTokyo Round Committee onAnti-Dumping Practices andcontained indocument
ADP/124, concerning minimum information tobeprovided innotifications ofpreliminary andfinal
anti-dumping actions. Itwassuggested atthatmeeting thattheCommittee might wish toreview
document ADP/124 andifnecessary modify orrevise ittoreflect anychanges thatmight havebeen
introduced bythenewAgreement. Itwasalsosuggested atthatmeeting thattheCommittee might,
ifpossible, agree onaformat forthese notifications. NoMember hadmade anyspecific suggestions
concerningmodificationsorrevisionstoADP/124andnosuggestionshadbeenmadeconcerningformatsG/ADP/M/2
Page8
forsuchnotifications. TheChairman observed thathebrought thismatter totheCommittee 'sattention
merely inorder toascertain whether infactMembers wished toreconsider theminimum information
guidelines orconsider apossible format forreports ofpreliminary andfinalactions, andopened the
floor forcomments.
43. Thedelegate ofBrazil agreed withtheChairman 'sassessment ofthediscussions which took
place atthelastmeeting oftheCommittee. Heobserved thatBrazil indeed hadsuggested thataformat
could beagreed upon forthese notifications. However, heclarified thatBrazil wasnotthinking of
presenting adifferent format thanwasalready inADP/124. Herecognized thatthetitleofdocument
ADP/124 referred to"minimum information required," butindicated thatbylisting those minimum
information requirements, theCommittee hadessentially established aformat. Henoted thathehad
discussed thismatter withsomedelegations, andrecognized thatsome delegations would havedifficulty
inagreeing toaformat forthese notifications, because theyhavebeenfollowing forsome timetheir
ownformat bynotifying, inaWTO working language, thetextoftheirorders. Hedidnotinsist on
havingdocumentADP/124adoptedasaformatwhichwouldberequiredofalldelegations.Nonetheless,
hereiterated thesuggestion thatwhenever possible notifications follow atleast theorder ofthe
information requested indocument ADP/124. Inhisview, thiswould greatly increase transparency
innotifications andwould beforthebenefit ofthisCommittee.
44. TheChairman suggested, noother delegation having asked forthefloor, thattheCommittee
takenoteofthestatement made, andrevert tothismatter atafuture dateifdelegations sowish.
45. TheCommittee sodecided.
H. Preliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions: notifications
46. TheChairman observed thatalistofthenotifications ofpreliminary andfinalanti-dumping
actions received bytheCommittee wascirculated totheCommittee inG/ADP/N/3. Copies ofthe
official notices ofsuchactions taken byAustralia, Canada, theEuropean Communities, NewZealand,
Singapore andtheUnited States hadbeenmade available intheSecretariat forreview. Since thattime,
further notifications hadbeen received from Australia, theEuropean Community, Korea andthe
United States. Adocument identifying thesenotifications would becirculated shortly. TheChairman
reminded Members thatpursuant totheCommittee 'sdecision of21February 1995, allpreliminary
andfinalactions taken afterthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement 'sshould benotified
tothisCommittee. Members could indicate intheirreports whether intheirviewactions weretaken
under theTokyo Round Agreement ortheUruguay Round Agreement. Some Members didthiswhile
others didnot.Totheextent thatanaction reported wastaken under theTokyo Round Agreement,
theChairmannotedthatitmightbemoreappropriatelydiscussedduringthemeetingoftheTokyoRound
Anti-Dumping Committee which would beheldlaterthatday.
47. Nodelegation having asked forthefloor, theCommittee tooknoteoftheChairman 'sstatement.
I. Proposal tomake notifications unrestricted
48. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee hadagreed atitsmeeting of21February 1995that
notifications oflegislation andregulations under Article 18.5oftheAgreement would becirculated
asunrestricted documents. Itwasalsosuggested thattheCommittee maywishtoconsider whether
other types ofnotifications should becirculated asunrestricted documents. Thisissuewasalsobeing
discussed horizontally within theWTO. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee postpone any
decision onthetreatment ofnotifications tothisCommittee untilthebroader, horizontal issuehadbeen
resolved. However, heurged Members tokeepinmind thequestion ofwhether notifications tothis
Committee should betreated asunrestricted inthecontext ofthediscussions ofthebroader issue.G/ADP/M/2
Page9
49. Thedelegate oftheUnited States observed thatthenotifications received intheCommittee
werebasically compilations ofpublic information, andtherewasnothing sensitive inthesedocuments.
IntheUnited States 'view, itdidnotseem sensible totreatasrestricted documents which were on
theirfacenon-sensitive, andsuggested thattheCommittee takeadecision onderestriction now.
50. TheChairman stated hisunderstanding thattheUnited States wasproposing thattheCommittee
takeadecision thatsemi-annual reports andreports ofpreliminary andfinalanti-dumping actions when
notified totheCommittee would betreated asunrestricted.
51. Thedelegate ofArgentina noted thatthismatter hadalready beendiscussed among anumber
ofdelegations,andwhilenosubstantiveobjectionshadbeenraisedregardingtheUnitedStates'proposal,
itwasgenerally feltthatthetreatment tobegiven todocuments andother instruments intheWTO
should bedealtwithatthehorizontal level.
52. Thedelegate ofNorway supported theChairman 'sproposal topostpone theconsideration of
thematter inview ofthehorizontal discussions taking place, butnoted Norway 'ssupport forthe
substance oftheproposal putforward bytheUnited States.
53. Therepresentative ofCanada appreciated thatthedetermination ofwhether documents should
berestricted ornotrestricted should bedoneinanorderly fashion. However, theUnited States 'proposal
didnotundermine thatpurpose. Heurged theCommittee, bothintheinterests oftransparency and
ofavoiding bureaucratic delays, todeem these reports tobeunrestricted. Henoted thatthiswould
notinanywayinterfere withfurther discussions related toother documents, which weremuch more
complicated, andwhere there wasperhaps aneedformore general discussions across theboard.
54. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thattheCommunities wereinagreement
withtheposition oftheUnited States thatamajor partofthisinformation wasofapublic nature.
Nonetheless, hebelieved itprudent toawait theconclusion ofconsultations atthehorizontal levelbefore
taking anydecision.
55. Therepresentative ofAustralia noted hisunderstanding thatdelegations hadinformally agreed
toleave thisissue untilthehorizontal discussions wereconcluded. Heunderstood thatthehorizontal
difficulties related tothedispute settlement arearather thantheinformation area, suchasthereports
atissuehere. Hefurther observed thatthesemi-annual reports dobecome derestricted quiteregularly,
anditwould donoharm tobring thatprocess forward.
56. Therepresentative ofMexico supported theChairman 'sproposal thattheCommittee postpone
adecision onthisissue. While Mexico hadnosubstantive objection totheUnited States 'proposal,
inprinciple, Mexico believed itwould bemore efficient todealwiththequestion ofthederestriction
ofdocuments inhorizontal discussions.
57. Thedelegate ofJapan agreed withthesuggestion thattheCommittee postpone adecision on
theissue untilthehorizontal discussion wasfinished.
58. TheChairman observed thatthere wasnodisagreement insubstance withtheproposal put
forward bythedelegate oftheUnited States, butdelegations appeared tobeinclined toawait theoutcome
ofdiscussions onahorizontal level ontheissue ofderestriction. Heproposed thattheCommittee
takenoteofthestatements made, andrevert totheissue atalaterdate.
59. TheCommittee sodecided.
J. Anti-circumventionG/ADP/M/2
Page10
60. TheChairmanrecalledthattheMinisterialDecisiononAnti-circumventionof15December1993
noted thatthenegotiators hadbeenunable toagree onaspecific textdealing withtheproblem ofanti-
circumvention, thattheyrecognized thedesirability ofapplying uniform rulesinthisareaassoonas
possible, andreferred thematter totheCommittee forresolution. NoMember hadmade anyproposal
concerning howtheCommittee could bestundertake thetaskreferred toitbytheMinisters andthe
Chairman himself didnothaveanyspecific proposal tomake concerning thematter atthistime. He
did,however, urgeMembers toturntheirattention tothismatter sothattheCommittee could revert
toitonamore substantive basis inthefuture.
61. Thedelegate ofCanada noted thatanti-circumvention wasacritical issue forCanada during
theMTN negotiations, andCanada wascertainly disappointed withthefinalresult which sawthespecific
provisions which hadbeennegotiated removed from thefinalUruguay Round textonanti-dumping.
While Canada hadnotyetproposed anyspecific wayinwhich theCommittee could move thisitem
forward, hethough itimportant thattheCommittee actsooner rather thanlater. Henoted thatCanada
would liketobeinvolved inanyactivity onthepartoftheCommittee thatwould dealwiththismatter.
Heforesaw thepossibility thattheCommittee might havetoestablish some kindofworking group.
Hequestioned whether thisissue could really bedealtwithinthecontext ofthebroader Committee,
andsuggested itmayneedtobedealtwithinasmaller context given thetechnical nature oftheissue.
62. Hewentontopropose thattheChairman holdinformal consultations onhowtheCommittee
couldmovethisissueforward.Withoutthat,theCommitteemightendupattheOctoberregularmeeting
withnofurther progress onthisissue. Heexpressed thedesire toseesomething undertaken between
nowandthenwhich would result insome agreement onhowtheCommittee could move thismatter
forward, which could perhaps bestbedonethrough theChairman 'sgood offices.
63. Hedrew theattention oftheCommittee tothework oftheTechnical Committee onRules of
Origin which wastaking place under theauspices oftheWCO andnoted thatthistechnical committee
onrules oforigin hadbeentasked withtheharmonization ofrules oforigin forallnon-preferential
commercial policy instruments including anti-dumping measures. Itwould befairtosaythatthework
ofthistechnical committee, andultimately anydecision thatmight beadopted bytheRules ofOrigin
Committee oftheWTO, based inthisexercise, would haveimplications forthewhole question of
anti-circumvention andtheapplication ofcircumvention rules. Given theMinisterial mandate, however,
questionsrelatingtoanti-circumventionshouldbediscussedanddecidedinthisCommittee.Hereiterated
thatitwasimportant thattheCommittee startthiswork sooner rather thanlater, andarrive atan
understanding onhowbestthatcould bedone.
64. TheChairman, observing thatnoother delegation wished totakethefloor, proposed thatthe
Committee takenoteofthestatement. Heindicated hiswillingness toholdinformal consultations on
thissubject, andsuggested thattheCommittee revert tothissubject atalatermeeting.
65. TheCommittee sodecided.
K. EUenlargement andautomatic application ofanti-dumping duties tothenewMembers ofthe
EU
66. TheChairman recalled fortheMembers that,asnoted inWTO/AIR/95, thisitemwasplaced
ontheAgenda attherequest ofthedelegation ofJapan, andgavethefloortothedelegation ofJapan.
67. Therepresentative ofJapan observed that,duetotheenlargement oftheEU,anti-dumping
duties hadbeenautomatically extended toimports intothenewmember States without thenecessary
investigations. Japan thought thisinconsistent withGATT Article VIandArticle IoftheAnti-DumpingG/ADP/M/2
Page11
Agreement. Japan strongly requested thattheEUcarry outnewinvestigations orreport onthenature
oftheimports intonewmember States. Japan requested thattheEUgiveanexplanation onthismatter.
68. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities observed thattheenlargement oftheEUtook
effect on1January thisyear. Itisafactthatintheoperation oftheCustoms Union itisanecessity
tohaveaunified external duty. Asaconsequence ofthat,theCommunity 'sinternal legislation provides
thattheanti-dumpingdutiesinoperationintheCommunityoftwelveshouldbeappliedtotheCommunity
offifteen. Ontheotherhand, theanti-dumping duties which thethreenewmember States wereapplying
wererepealed andarenolonger applied. TotheCommunity, theenlargement oftheCommunity and
theapplication oftheanti-dumping duties tothethree newmember States wasmore amatter offact
thanamatter oflaw. TheCommunity disagreed withthedelegation ofJapan thatnoinvestigation
hadbeencarried out.Actually, whathadhappened wasthataninvestigation wascarried outatthe
timeoftheoriginal investigation. Atthistime, because oftheenlargement oftheterritory ofthe
Community, duties werenowapplied tothefifteen member States. Inthatrespect, thesituation was
similar tothatofexporters which engage inbusiness intheCommunity market orthatofproducers
which joined theCommunity industry afterduties hadbeenimposed. Forthattypeofsituation the
Community 'slegislation provided forachanged circumstances review under Article 11:3.
69. Hecontinued tonotethatatthetimeoftheentry intoeffect oftheenlargement, theCommunity
hadexamined allthepossibilities todealwiththesubject, andchose whatwasthought tobethemost
pragmatic approach. Notice waspublished intheOfficial Journal oftheCommunity inFebruary 1995
inviting allinterested parties torequest areview onthebasis ofchanged circumstances, taking into
consideration thatthechanged circumstance wastheenlargement oftheCommunity. TheCommunity
wasready toopenareview foranyparty which requested it.Hestressed thattodate,norequest for
review hadbeenmade byanyexporters.
70. Hethenaddressed themanner inwhich theCommunity would carry outthese reviews ifany
requests weremade. TheCommunity would clearly beflexible ontheinitiation ofthereviews, and
thestandard ofevidence required would berather limited. Itcould be,forexample, simple evidence
thatsales hadbeenmade tothethree newmember States atthetimeoftheoriginal investigation.
Atthechoice oftheexporter, there would beeither afullreview including dumping andinjury, or
areview limited tore-examination ofthedumping margin based oninformation provided concerning
export salestothethreenewmember States. Inthatmanner, theCommunity considered thattheburden
onexporters waslimited. Heobserved thatthere hadbeenanumber ofbilateral discussions onthis
point withthedelegation ofJapan, andsome other delegations hadraised theirconcerns aswell. He
assured theCommittee thattheCommunity would discuss thisissue bilaterally withanydelegation.
71. Therepresentative ofHong Kong thanked thedelegation ofJapan forrequesting thatthisitem
beputontheAgenda, because Hong Kong shared thesame concerns andwanted toregister them at
thismeeting. InHong Kong'sview, theautomatic application ofexisting anti-dumping measures to
newmember States fromtheiraccession intotheCommunity wasinconsistent withArticle VIofthe
GATT andtheWTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Paragraph 1ofArticle VIoftheGATT stipulates
thatdumping istobecondemned ifitcauses orthreatens material injury toadomestic industry or
retards materially theestablishment ofadomestic industry. Paragraph 6stipulates thatanti-dumping
duties maynotbeimposed unless theimporting country determines thattheeffect ofdumping isto
cause orthreaten material injury toanestablished domestic industry orissuchastoretard materially
theestablishment ofadomestic industry.
72. Heobserved thatupontheaccession ofAustria, Finland andSweden intotheEU,theexport
prices ofproducts imported intotheenlarged EUmayhavechanged. Themarket anddomestic industry
intheenlarged EUwasdifferent. Heexpressed regret thatneither theEUnortheacceding countries
hadmade anyattempt todetermine ifdumping stillexisted, ifthere wasanyinjury tothedomesticG/ADP/M/2
Page12
industry, andifthere wasanycausation effect intheenlarged EU,before theEUstarted tocollect
anti-dumping duties onimports ofproducts intoAustria, Finland andSweden. Thefailure oftheEU
oracceding countries tomake thenecessary determinations wasablatant violation ofArticle VI.The
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement setsoutclearly onhowtoimplement Article VI.TheEU'sautomatic
imposition ofanti-dumping duties tothethree newmember States without proving dumping, injury
andthecausal linkwas,inHong Kong'sview, inconsistent withtheCode. Even byvirtue oftheEU's
anti-dumping regulation itself, referring toArticles 11(1) and12(2)(b), anti-dumping duties could only
beimposed onimports which were dumped andwhich caused injury totheCommunity industry.
73. Heobserved that,fortheabove reasons, Hong Kong could notagree withtheEUthatthis
wasnotalegalmatter before theCommittee. Headded thattheintroduction ofthewaiver bytheEU
toreview theanti-dumping duties earlier thanthenormal one-year timelagcould notaddress Hong
Kong'sconcerns because itdidnotaddress theobjection against automatic extension. Moreover, it
wasunfair tolaytheburden ofrequesting review ontheexporters, whowerealready victims ofanti-
dumping actions. Thirdly, itwasalsoimpractical forproducers orexporters toacquire thenecessary
information onthethreenewmember States toprove thattheanti-dumping measures would havebeen
different hadtheinformation concerning thethree countries beenincluded. Finally, theextension of
anti-dumping measures would haveatrade-distorting effect which thewaiver could noteliminate.
74. Hestated Hong Kong'sunderstanding that,under itsterms ofreference, theworking party
established under theCouncil forTrade inGoods concerning EUenlargement might notbeableto
determine whether anindividual dutyorregulation existing orintroduced uponthepoint enlargement
wasconsistent withallprovisions oftheWTO Agreement. Aproper forum todiscuss theanti-dumping
issue, Hong Kong believed, wasthisCommittee. TheCommittee should address theissues notonly
forinconsistencies withtheGATT andtheAnti-Dumping Agreement, butalsofortheimplications
onfuture enlargement exercises. Hong Kong urged Members andtheCommittee tostudy thecase
carefully andassess thepossible implications. Healsourged theCommittee todecide onhowthis
Committee could haveaneffective examination ofthecase.
75. Therepresentative oftheUnited States joined Japan andHong Kong intheir comments
concerning thenature oftheaction thattheEUhadtaken asinconsistent withArticle VI.Inaddition,
headded thatArticle IV:3oftheTokyo Round Code specifically addressed thequestion ofintegrated
markets, providing that"Where twoormore countries havereached ...suchalevel ofintegration
thattheyhavethecharacteristics ofasingle unified market, theindustry intheentire areaofintegration
shallbetaken tobetheindustry referred toinparagraph 1",meaning forinjury anddumping purposes.
Inaddition tothisgeneral concern about thenature oftheaction, theUnited States hadamore specific
concern thatneither Japan orHong Kong hadraised, which wastheenlargement ofanorder inapending
investigation afterthethree newmember States joined on1January. TheUnited States faced this
situation inthecaseofsoda ash. Thecasewasinitiated inAugust 1993, andthepreliminary
determination wasnotmade untilApril 1995. YettheEUmade noattempt togobackandlookat
industry withrespect tothe15member EU.Heobserved thatthiswasaparticularly egregious situation.
Itwasasituation inwhich theEUcould havegonebackandcollected additional dataanddonethe
proper injury anddumping analysis based ontheentire enlarged EU.
76. Therepresentative ofCanada echoed thepoints made bythethree previous delegations. He
appreciated thattheECwastrying toaddress thesituation byinviting parties torequest areview on
thebasisofchanged circumstances. However, hefound italittlepuzzling thattheEUwould notitself
undertake areview onthebasisthatthemarket hadbeenchanged andtherefore thequestion ofinjury
andtosome degree thequestion ofdumping should bebased ontheenlarged market. Heurged the
European Union toundertake thisreview. Hestated hisbelief thattheissuecould notbetreated purely
asafactual matter, butrather wasaquestion ofthelegal basis onwhich theEUextended existing
anti-dumping orders totheenlarged market.G/ADP/M/2
Page13
77. Therepresentative ofKorea alsojoined theother speakers toexpress concern about theEU
enlargement andautomatic extension ofanti-dumping duties tothenewmember States. Henoted that
Korea hadspecific concerns onthatmatter, andwould liketohaveabilateral consultation withthe
European Commission.
78. Therepresentative ofSingapore stated thattheASEAN members shared theconcern expressed
bytheprevious speakers.
79. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated theCommunity 'sbelief thattheactual
impact ofenlargement onanyreview inthiscasewasverysmall inlightoftherelative sizeofthe
markets ofthenewmember States andtheCommunity asawhole. While theCommunity waswilling
tocarry outanyreview requested, itdidnotthink thatautomatic review ofallmeasures wasnecessary,
andwould impose ahugeburden, notonlyontheCommunity butonallexporters. Anyexporters
whothink theircasewould bedifferent iftheexports tothethree newmember States weretaken into
consideration hadthepossibility torequest areview. Ashehadpreviously stated, thestandard for
initiation ofsuchreviews would beextremely flexible. TheCommunity would, ifrequested, carry
outareview anddetermine whether theinclusion oftheexports tothethree newmember States had
animpact onthefindings. Hestressed again thatnorequest forreviews hadbeenreceived astodate.
80. Heconcluded byexpressing theCommunity 'sdisagreement withthedelegation ofHong Kong.
TheCommunity believed thattheextension ofduties tothethree newmember States wasconsistent
withArticle VIandwiththeAnti-Dumping Agreement, asitwasamatter offactrather thanoflaw.
81. Therepresentative ofPakistan thanked thedelegation ofJapan forbringing upthisissue, and
echoed theviews expressed bythedelegation ofCanada thatreview should notbeonacase-by-case
basis butitshould beatotalreview andshould beinitiated bytheEUitself rather thanonrequest
ofaMember thathasbeenaffected bytheanti-dumping duties. Pakistan believed thattheeffect on
textiles andclothing items especially would notbenegligible because insome countries, forexample,
Sweden, theexports ofcertain textile items wereprobably morethantheentire imports fromonecountry
intotheentire European Union.
82. TheChairman proposed thattheCommittee takenoteofthestatements made andtheCommittee
could revert tothismatter ifdesired byanydelegation.
83. TheCommittee sodecided.
L. Other Business
84. Therepresentative ofHong Kong spoke ontheobligations ofMembers under Article 12of
theAgreement. Hong Kong wished tounderline theimportance oftheArticle 12obligation that
investigatingauthoritiesshallnotifyandprovidenoticetoMembersandotherinterestedpartiesconcerned
oftheinitiation ofanti-dumping investigations andreviews aswellasanypreliminary andfinal
determinations. Hong Kong considered thatitwasessential thatMembers subject toanti-dumping
investigations andmeasures havesufficient opportunity todefend theirinterests inaccordance with
theprovisions oftheAgreement. Article 12wasanimportant safeguard ofthatright. Hong Kong
looked forward toallMembers taking these obligations seriously.
85. Therepresentative ofJapan echoed theviewexpressed byHong Kong.
86. Therepresentative ofSingapore observed thattheASEAN countries alsoshared theviews of
thedelegation ofHong Kong.G/ADP/M/2
Page14
87. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
88. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee agreed atitsmeeting on21February 1995 that
regular meetings normally would beheldinthelastweek ofApril andthelastweek ofOctober.
Accordingly, heproposed thatthenextregular meeting ofthisCommittee beheldintheweek of
30October 1995. Aspreviously noted, aspecial meeting oftheCommittee tobeheldjointly with
aspecial meeting oftheCommittee onSubsidies would beheldtheweek beginning 17Julyforreview
oflegislations. Atthattime, theCommittee would alsodecide onthefuture schedule ofspecial meetings
toreview legislations.
89. TheCommittee sodecided.
90. Themeeting wasadjourned.