RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/R/7
28 September 2000
(00-3933)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Ad Hoc Group on Implementation
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC GROUP
ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON
ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES, 1-5 MAY 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Ad Hoc Group on Implementation ("the Group") held substantive discussions concerning
the topics referred to it by the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices ("the Committee") over the
period 1-5 May 2000.1  The proposed agenda for the meeting, which had been circulated in
WTO/AIR/1249, dated 21 February 2000, was amended to include two documents submitted by
Egypt concerning items on the proposed agenda, which were circulated as room documents, and tochange the order of the agenda items by delaying discussion of the draft recommendations on the
proposed agenda to last instead of first.  As amended, the proposed agenda was adopted by the Group.
2. The Chairman (Mr. Milan Hovorka, Czech Republic) reminded the Group that the discussion
would follow the order in the adopted agenda.  Regarding the draft recommendations before the
Group for consideration, the Chairman reminded Members of the applicable procedures.  If the Groupcame to consensus on a recommendation, that recommendation would be sent forward to the
Committee for its consideration.  Given that the Membership of the Committee and the Membership
of the Group are coextensive, and the draft recommendations would have been before the Group for
consideration and discussion by all Members, there should not be a need for much discussion in the
Committee before deciding whether or not to adopt a recommendation of the Ad Hoc Group as a
Committee decision on an agreed understanding regarding a particular implementation issue.
Therefore, the Chairman expected, if any of the draft recommendations on the agenda were agreed toat this meeting, to put them before the Committe e at the Committee's meeting later in the week for
decision.  The Chairman noted that it was important to keep in mind that neither the Group nor the
Committee could modify the legal obligations set forth in the Agreement as such.  However, Members
could come to some agreement about practices in the conduct of anti-dumping investigations that they
believe are consistent with the Agreement‘s requirements.  The Chairman once again urged allMembers to make a real effort in the future to provide their submissions on time in order to avoid the
continuing problem of submissions not being availabl e in al three WTO official languages before the
meeting.
3. The Group then turned to item C on the agenda for this meeting, the topic of practical issues
and experience in applying Article 2.4.2.  During the Group's discussion it appeared that most
Members prefer the use of a weighted average to weighted average comparison methodology for
establishing the margin of dumping.  Nevertheless, some Members expressed a clear preference for a
transaction to transactions comparison.  In th eir view this methodology better allowed them to
distinguish between those transactions where dumping was present and those where it was not.  Also,
it was recognized that this methodology may be easier to apply in cases where the number oftransactions during the period of investigation was not too numerous, as could be the case for those
Members with smaller markets.  Other Members expressed the view that use of the transaction to
                                                     
1 The list of topics referred to the Ad Hoc Group was circulated to Members in document
G/ADP/W/410.G/ADP/AHG/R/7
Page 2
transaction methodology could lead to arbitrariness and even error in the choice of transactions used
in making the comparisons.  Some Members raised concerns with respect to the practice known as
"zeroing" in both the transaction to transaction and weighted average to transaction comparison
methodology.  Members who expressed concern about "zeroing" argued that this practice could lead
to artificially high margins, and in some cases could result in a determination of a margin of dumpingwhere it would not exist if, for instance, negative dumping margins were not zeroed or if a weighted
average to weighted average comparison methodology were used.  There was also some discussion
regarding the question of which of the methodologies better took into account the perceived problem
of excluding from the total volume of dumped imports those transactions where dumping was not
found, for purposes of applying the rule on negligible volume of dumped imports.
4. At the end of the discussion of this topic the Group requested the Secretariat to compile and
circulate a list of the questions posed by Members, either in their written submissions or orally at themeeting, as an aid to Members in preparing for the next meeting.  In this regard, the Chairman later
commented that in order to facilitate the work of the Secretariat, delegations should submit their
questions in writing in order to have them accurately reflected in the compilation.  In addition, given
the course of the discussions on this topic, the Group agreed to request Members who had not already
done so, and who undertook transaction-to-transaction comparisons, to provide specific examples oftheir practice in this regard.
5. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, termination of investigations under
Article 5.8 in cases of de minimis  import volume.  One Member expressed a preference for the use of
the term "negligible import volumes" instead of " de minimis  import volumes", suggesting that the
phrase " de minimis" should be reserved for use in connection with the margin of dumping.  The
discussion focused on issues concerning the point during the anti-dumping procedure at which it
could be determined that imports were negligible and the time-period to be taken into account in
determining whether imports from a particular source were negligible.  The question arose of how
Members applied the concept of potential dumped imports or whether it was necessary to assess if
there was an increasing trend in the volume of the dumped imports.  Some Members explained thatthey evaluated the negligibility of the imports for the period of investigation exclusively.  Other
Members mentioned that they would also consider, in  cases of threat of injury, whether the volume of
imports was likely to exceed the level of three per cent of total imports after the period of
investigation.  With respect to the timing for th e determination of negligible imports, some Members
mentioned that this could come at any time during the investigation up to the final determination.
Another Member highlighted its practice of considering the negligibility of the imports once it had
been determined that the dumping margin was not de minimis .
6. As the discussion seemed to be ending, the Chairman noted that it seemed to him that this
topic might merit further consideration.  No Member expressed interest in pursuing the possibility of
guidelines or recommendations on this topic at this time.  There was no further discussion under this
agenda item.
7. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, practical issues and experience in cases
involving cumulation under Article 3.3.  The discussion focused on the submission by one Member
proposing a set of guidelines of "conditions of competition for cumulation".  Some Members
expressed the view that the proposed guidelines were very similar to the analysis conducted for
purposes of an injury determination.  In the view of these Members, it was not practical to conduct the
same type of analysis when deciding if cumulation was appropriate.  Other Members also describedtheir practice with respect to what they regarded as useful elements to consider when conducting the
analysis of the "conditions of competition" prescribed in Article 3.3.  There was also some renewed
discussion about the relation between Article 3.3 and Article 5.8 on negligible imports.  This
discussion centered on the issue of what was the treatment to be given to those countries with exports
considered not to be negligible but whose exports did not exceed seven per cent of total imports.G/ADP/AHG/R/7
Page 3
8. In order to further advance the discussion on this topic at the next meeting, the Group
requested the Secretariat to compile and circulate a document setting forth possibly relevant criteria
regarding the conditions of competition for consideration in deciding whether a cumulative
assessment of the effects of imports is appropriate in light of those conditions.
9. The Group then turned to the next item on the agenda, practical issues and experience with
respect to questionnaires and requests for information under Articles 6.1 and 6.1.1.  The discussion
focused on the submission of one Member proposing a set of "draft guidelines for the extension of a
deadline for replying to a questionnaire".  A number of Members highlighted that in their practice
they were flexible in granting extensions for the deadlines for responding to questionnaires, and
especially in cases involving exporters from developing countries, gave sympathetic consideration to
requests for extension.  However, it was also pointed out that that any extensions for replies to
questionnaires had to be balanced against the need to complete the investigation within the timeframe
provided for in the AD Agreement.  Commenting specifically on the "draft guidelines for the
extension for a deadline for replying to a questionnaire", some Members expressed their view that the
proposed guidelines were a useful point of departure but that they needed some modification in order
to reflect the necessity to conclude the investigation within the prescribed deadlines.  One Member
raised a question with respect to practice and experience concerning data collection from non-marketeconomies, including relevant criteria and information for the purpose of determining whether non-
market economy treatment was warranted for the co untry investigated.  Some Members mentioned
that models of the questionnaires used by their investigating authorities were available for download
from their respective Internet sites or could be obtained in electronic format upon written request.
10. In order to further the discussions on this topic at the next meeting of the Group, the Group
agreed to request Members to submit their own proposals as to relevant considerations in deciding
whether to grant extensions of time to respond to questionnaires.
11. The Group turned to consideration of the next item on the agenda, practical issues and
experience in providing opportunities for industrial users and consumer organizations to provide
information under Article 6.12.  A question was raised regarding when or how Members took intoaccount comments supplied by industrial users and consumer organizations, and whether these
comments influenced the rate of the anti-dumping duty, especially in administrations which apply the
lesser duty rule.  In response, one Member observed that in at least one case its investigating authority
had concluded, based on a public interest inquiry regarding the anti-dumping duty potentially to be
imposed, to recommend a reduction of the duty on the subject good.  Subsequently, this
recommendation was accepted by the agency in charge of imposing and levying the anti-dumping
duty.  On another occasion where a public interest inquiry was requested, it was determined that therewere not sufficient elements to warrant the inquiry.  Another Member inquired further as to what
methodology was used to calculate the reduced duty.
12. The Chairman noted that this topic might merit further consideration.  No Member expressed
interest in pursuing the possibility of guidelines or recommendations on this topic at this time.  There
was no further discussion under this agenda item.
13. The Group turned to the next item on the agenda, practical issues and experience in
conducting "new shipper" reviews under Article 9.5.  Some Members pointed out that they have not
had any experience with this type of reviews but considered the topic very relevant and were
interested in hearing the experiences of other Members in this regard.  It was also mentioned that one
of the reasons why there was little experience with "new shipper" reviews was possibly the fact thatsince the new exporter was faced with a high country- wide or residual duty rate, it was difficult for it
to find importers, since these knew that they woul d have to pay the duties before a review was
conducted.G/ADP/AHG/R/7
Page 4
14. The Chairman noted that this topic might merit further consideration.  No Member expressed
interest in pursuing the possibility of guidelines or recommendations on this topic at this time.  There
was no further discussion under this agenda item.
15. The Group next turned to consideration of the draft recommendation concerning the period of
data collection for a dumping investigation, G/ADP/AHG/W/22/Rev.4.  Several Members madespecific suggestions regarding the text of the draft recommendation.  The Secretariat prepared a
revised version of the text to reflect the various options discussed.  After intensive discussion and
consideration of additional proposed revisions and drafting suggestions, the Group adopted a draft
recommendation on the periods of data collection for anti-dumping investigations. The Chairman
thanked the Group for its hard work and cooperative spirit, and noted that he would place the
recommendation of the Group before the Committee for adoption at its meeting.
2
16. The Group turned to the next item on its agenda, consideration of a draft recommendation
concerning matters to be included in preliminary affirmative determinations,
G/ADP/AHG/W/64/Rev.2.  A number of Members commented on the draft recommendation.  Some
Members had specific proposals concerning drafting, and additional suggestions clarifying the
relationship between the draft recommendation and the differing national practices in which it might
be applied.
17. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a revised version of the draft recommendation,
incorporating suggestions made at the meeting, for consideration at the Group's next meeting.
18. The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the October
regular meeting of the Committee, Monday and Tuesday, 30 and 31 October 2000.
19. The Group agreed that papers and other subm issions for the Group's next meeting should be
transmitted to the Secretariat no later than 18 September 2000.
__________
                                                     
2 The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices adopted the recommendation concerning the periods of
data collection for anti-dumping investigations on 5 May 2000, which was subsequently circulated as documentG/ADP/6, dated 16 May 2000.