WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/R/11
29 July 2002
(02-4198)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Working Group on Implementation
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES,
22-23 APRIL 2002
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Working 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 22-23 April 2002.1  The Group adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting, which
had been circulated in WTO/AIR/1772, dated 12 April 2002.
2. The Chairperson (Ms. Ana Novik, Chile) noted that the Group would take up the topics for
discussion in the order set forth in the agenda.  She observed that there were only two topics on the
agenda of the meeting – the draft recommendation concerning cumulation issues, and the draft
decision on the status of adopted decisions.  No new papers on any of the topics currently before theGroup had been submitted for consideration at the meeting.  The Chairperson observed that this raised
a question concerning the future work of the Group.  As Members were aware, the Group was
considering two implementation items referred to the Committee by the Ministers at Doha.  These
would be addressed in informal meetings over the course of the year, as needed, in order to complete
the task given to the group.  She appreciated that, in light of all the other pressing business involved inthe implementation discussions, beginning negotiations, and the regular work of the organization,
Members might have few resources to spare for the regular work of the Group.  She raised this point
in order to suggest that Members begin to think abou t the future course of work in this Group, so that
it could be discussed at the Group's next regular meeting in the autumn.  In particular, Members might
consider whether the Group should continue to schedule regular meetings of several days inconjunction with the regular meetings of the Committee, and what matters should be on the agenda of
such meetings.
3. Regarding the draft recommendation on cumulation, the Chairperson reminded Members of the
applicable procedures.  If the Group came to a consensus on the draft recommendation, it would be sent
forward to the Committee for its consideration.  Given that the membership of the Committee and themembership of the Group are coextensive, and all Members would have had an opportunity to consider
the draft recommendation, and discuss it in this Group, there should be little need for discussion at the
                                                     
1 The list of topics referred to the Working Group was circulated to Members in document
G/ADP/W/410.This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own
responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Members
and to their rights and obligations under the WTOG/ADP/AHG/R/11
Page 2
Committee before deciding whether to adopt a recommendation of the Group as a Committee Decision.
Therefore, if a draft recommendation was agreed to by the Group, and sent forward to the Committee at
the end of the meeting, she would put it before the Committee at its meeting later in the week, and
propose that a decision be made at that meeting.
4. The Group then turned to the consideration of the draft recommendation concerning
conditions of competition that may be relevant to a decision whether a cumulative assessment of the
effects of imports is appropriate, which had been circulated as a room document following the
meeting of October 2001. 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.
5. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a revised version of the draft recommendation,
incorporating suggestions made at the meeting and reflecting tentative agreements and areas of
disagreement, and circulate it to Member as a working document as a basis for continued discussion at
the Group's next meeting.2
6. The Group then turned to consideration of the draft decision on the status of adopted
recommendations.  The Chairman recalled that at the meeting of the Committee in October 2001, shehad proposed that the Committee consider adopting a decision on the status of adopted
recommendations, and had circulated a draft text prepared on her own authority.  Although the
Committee had a useful discussion on the basis of the proposed text, Members were unable to reach a
consensus, and a revised version of the draft text was circulated as a room document.  She recalled
that this discussion arose from Members' concern that the Committee had adopted severalrecommendations, without any formal statement regarding their status or effect.  Several Members
had expressed concern that some outside the Committee would misunderstand the status or effect of
adopted recommendations.  While the Committee could not, of course, control the actions of others, a
formal decision would at least make clear the Committee's own view of the status of the
recommendations it adopts.
7. She reiterated, as a starting-point for the discussion, that a recommendation adopted by the
Committee could not add new rights or obligations, nor could it detract from existing rights and
obligations of Members, under the Agreement.  As had been repeatedly noted, neither the Working
Group nor the Committee could modify the legal obligations set forth in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
8. Nonetheless, the Committee had established the Working Group on Implementation
(originally as the Ad Hoc Group on Implementation) in the belief that it would be useful, where
possible, for Members to come to a common understanding about practices in the conduct of anti-dumping investigations that they consider to be consistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.  Thus, the Committee adopts recommendations agreed to by Members after discussion in
the Working Group.  These recommendations reflect the common understanding of Members and set
out non-binding indicative guidelines on implementation of the Agreement.
9. With those comments as introduction, the Group turned to a disucssion of the draft text as
revised, reflecting comments and suggestions made at last October's meeting.  A number of Members
expressed concern that the repeated reference to the non-binding nature of adopted recommendations
was excessive, and might dilute the value of any adopted recommendation.  Other Members, however,
considered it important to stress that while adopted recommendations might reflect agreement of
Members as to "best practice", they did not compel that practice or prohibit other practices. SomeMembers also referred to the fact that the situati on facing the Group with regard to this issue was
                                                     
2 Subsequently issued as document G/ADP/AHG/W/121/Rev.1.G/ADP/AHG/R/11
Page 3
different now, in light of the fact that Member s were now engaged in negotiations on anti-dumping
issues.  While there did not appear to be disagreement on the basic principles expressed in the draft
decision, Members were unable to come to an agreement on the specific text. Some Members
considered that the form of any decision was of less concern than its substance, while others
considered that the form affected the substance, as well as perceptions of the decision.  Membersagreed to reflect further on this matter, and return to the discussion at a future meeting, as appropriate.
10. The Group agreed that its next meeting would be scheduled in conjunction with the next
regular meeting of the Committee, commencing Monday 21 October 2002.
11. The Group agreed that papers and other subm issions for the Group's next meeting should be
transmitted to the Secretariat no later than Monday, 9 September 2002.
__________