EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES · PDF fileEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    13-Sep-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    214
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES · PDF fileEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES...

  • WT/DS397/AB/RW

    18 January 2016

    (16-0338) Page: 1/98

    Original: English

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA

    RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CHINA

    AB-2015-7

    Report of the Appellate Body

  • WT/DS397/AB/RW

    - 2 -

    Table of Contents

    1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11 2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................... 15 3 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS .............................................................. 15 4 ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL .............................................................................. 15 5 ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE BODY ......................................................................... 17 5.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 17 5.1.1 Overview of the original anti-dumping investigation .................................................... 17 5.1.2 Overview of the review investigation ........................................................................ 19 5.2 Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ................................................... 21 5.2.1 The Panel's terms of reference ................................................................................. 21 5.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the European Union acted inconsistently with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ................................................................... 25 5.2.2.1 The Panel's findings ............................................................................................. 25 5.2.2.2 The "good cause" requirement under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ......... 26 5.2.2.3 Whether the Panel erred in its treatment of Pooja Forge's request for confidential treatment of the information at issue ................................................................. 27 5.2.2.4 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the Commission "never" conducted an objective assessment of the good cause alleged by Pooja Forge .............................................. 31 5.2.2.5 Whether the Panel erred in finding that there was an inconsistency in the arguments put forward by the European Union ..................................................................... 33 5.2.2.6 Whether the Panel erred by not conducting its own analysis of the nature of the information at issue ......................................................................................................... 34 5.3 Articles 6.4 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement...................................................... 36 5.3.1 The Panel's terms of reference ................................................................................. 36 5.3.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the European Union acted inconsistently with Articles 6.4 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ...................................................... 38 5.3.2.1 The Panel's findings ............................................................................................. 39 5.3.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the information at issue was not confidential for the purposes of its analysis under Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ...................................................................................................................... 40 5.3.2.3 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the information at issue was "relevant" to the presentation of the Chinese producers' cases .............................................................. 42 5.3.2.4 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the information at issue was "used" by the Commission in the review investigation ......................................................................... 44 5.3.2.5 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the Chinese producers were not provided with "timely opportunities" to see the information at issue ........................................ 45 5.4 Article 6.1.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ................................................................ 46 5.4.1 The Panel's terms of reference ................................................................................. 46 5.4.2 Whether the Panel erred in rejecting China's claim under Article 6.1.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................................................................................................. 48 5.4.2.1 The Panel's findings ............................................................................................. 48 5.4.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Pooja Forge was not an interested party in the review investigation at issue ..................................................................................... 49

  • WT/DS397/AB/RW

    - 3 -

    5.5 Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................................................................. 52 5.5.1 The European Union's appeal under the last sentence of Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................................................................................................. 52 5.5.1.1 The Panel's findings ............................................................................................. 52 5.5.1.2 The procedural requirement of Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................. 54 5.5.1.3 The European Union's claims under the last sentence of Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................................................................................................. 55 5.5.1.3.1 Whether the Panel erred in suggesting that the obligation under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement differs based on the methodology used to determine normal values ................................................................................................................. 56 5.5.1.3.2 Whether the Panel erred by turning the last sentence of Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement into a procedural obligation requiring the disclosure of "raw data" ............................................................................................................................. 58 5.5.1.3.3 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the Commission deprived the Chinese producers of the opportunity to make informed decisions on whether to request adjustments .................................................................................................................... 59 5.5.1.3.4 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the confidential nature of the information should not have prevented the Commission from disclosing a summary of the information at issue ......................................................................................................... 62 5.5.2 China's appeal regarding the fair comparison requirement under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................................................................................................. 63 5.5.2.1 The Panel's findings ............................................................................................. 63 5.5.2.2 The fair comparison requirement under Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ...................................................................................................................... 65 5.5.2.3 Differences in taxation ......................................................................................... 67 5.5.2.3.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that adjusting for differences in taxation would undermine the Commission's right to have recourse to the analogue country methodology ................................................................................................................... 68 5.5.2.3.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the Chinese producers did not come forward with a substantiated request for an adjustment ........................................................ 69 5.5.2.3.3 New documents referred to by China on appeal .................................................... 71 5.5.2.4 Other cost differences .......................................................................................... 71 5.5.2.4.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that adjusting for differences in costs would undermine the Commission's right to have recourse to the analogue country methodology ................................................................................................................... 72 5.5.2.4.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that the Chinese producers did not come forward with substantiated requests for adjustments ............................................................. 74 5.5.2.4.3 Whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the facts as required under Article 11 of the DSU .................................................................................. 76 5.5.2.5 Differences in physical characteristics .................................................................... 77 5.5.2.5.1 The Panel's terms of reference ........................................................................... 77 5.6 Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ................................................................ 79 5.6.1 "[A]ll comparable export transactions" under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ...................................................................................................................... 80 5.6.2 Whether the Commission's exclusion of non-matching models from the dumping margin calculations is consistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement