Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:45:48.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States, Article 21.5 – US (China–GOES, DS414)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Geoffrey Carlson
Geoffrey Carlson*
Affiliation:
Works in the WTO Secretariat but writes in a wholly personal capacity
*
Email: gcarls@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This compliance proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU concerned measures taken by China to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in China – GOES. In China – GOES, the DSB found that the imposition by the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM) of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (GOES) from the United States violated certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. In response, MOFCOM issued a redetermination of the matter, pursuant to which China continued to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of GOES from the United States. That redetermination was the focus of this compliance proceeding.

Information

Type
Case Summaries
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 165 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Geoffrey Carlson 2016 

  • Adopted   31 August 2015

  • Complainant   United States

  • Respondent   China

  • Third Parties   Argentina; European Union; Honduras; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Viet Nam; Russian Federation

Measures at Issue

This compliance proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU concerned measures taken by China to implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in China – GOES. In China – GOES, the DSB found that the imposition by the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM) of countervailing and anti-dumping duties on grain-oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (GOES) from the United States violated certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. In response, MOFCOM issued a redetermination of the matter, pursuant to which China continued to impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of GOES from the United States. That redetermination was the focus of this compliance proceeding.Footnote 1

Main Adopted Findings of the Panel

ADA Articles 3.1 and 3.4/SCM Articles 15.1 and 15.4 (Adverse Impact)

The United States claimed that MOFCOM's redetermination failed to properly examine the impact of subject imports on the Chinese domestic industry and to evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices bearing on the domestic industry's condition. The compliance Panel declined to rule on these claims because they pertained to aspects of the redetermination that were ‘essentially unchanged’ from MOFCOM's original determination, and because the United States did not challenge such aspects of the original determination in the original dispute. Examining such claims in the context of this compliance proceeding, therefore, ‘would jeopardize fundamental principles of fairness and due process’.Footnote 2

ADA Articles 3.1 and 3.2/SCM Articles 15.1 and 15.2 (Price Effects)

The compliance Panel found that MOFCOM's redetermination was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement because MOFCOM's conclusion that subject imports had suppressive and depressive effects on the prices of the like domestic product was not based on an objective examination of positive evidence. In particular, the compliance Panel found that MOFCOM erred in analysing evidence underlying its finding that the increased volume of subject imports and the consequential loss in the domestic industry's market share had suppressive and depressive effects on the prices of the like domestic products.Footnote 3

ADA Articles 3.1 and 3.5/SCM Articles 15.1 and 15.5 (Causation)

The compliance Panel found that MOFCOM's redetermination was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 15.1 and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because it was not based on an objective examination and positive evidence. In particular, the compliance Panel found that MOFCOM relied on a defective price effects analysis in its causation findingsFootnote 4 and failed to properly consider the effects of other causes of injury (e.g. the effect of the Chinese domestic industry's expansion and increased production, and the effect of non-subject imports on the domestic industry).Footnote 5

ADA Article 6.9/SCM Article 12.8 (Disclosure of Essential Facts)

The compliance Panel found that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because: (1) insofar as it failed to attempt to provide a non-confidential disclosure of essential facts regarding domestic prices that formed the basis of its consideration of parallel pricing, MOFCOM failed to disclose essential facts regarding its finding on price effects;Footnote 6 and (2) MOFCOM's redetermination regarding causation did not contain the essential facts concerning the sales obstacles that MOFCOM considered the domestic industry faced.Footnote 7 The compliance Panel, however, rejected certain other US claims that MOFCOM had acted inconsistently with its relevant disclosure requirements.Footnote 8

Footnotes

Case Summaries: WTO Disputes

The following summaries provide a brief factual background and describe the key findings of recent WTO panel and Appellate Body reports.

References

1 Panel Report, China – GOES (Article 21.5 – US), para. 2.1.

2 Ibid. para. 7.25.

3 Ibid. para. 7.112.

4 Ibid. para. 7.124.

5 Ibid. paras. 7.145 and 7.153‒7.154.

6 Ibid. para. 7.173.

7 Ibid. para. 7.185.

8 Ibid. paras. 7.177, 7.180, 7.188, 7.190, and 7.192.