WT/DS601/1  
G/L/1389  
G/ADP/D136/1  
 
15 June 2021  
(21-4904) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
CHINA  - ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN  
The following communication, dated 11 June 2021, from the delegation of Japan to the delegation 
of China, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
_______________  
Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby request, on behalf of the Government of Japan 
("Japan"), consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant 
to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes, Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and 
Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on Imple mentation of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement").  
These consultations are with respect to China's measures imposing anti -dumping duties on stainless 
steel billets, hot -rolled coils, and hot -rolled plates  from Japan.1  These measures are set forth in the 
Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") Announcement No. 9 of 20192 and Announcement No. 31 of 
20193, including any and all annexes and amendments thereto.  
These measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with  China's obligations under the following 
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping Agreement, in particular, but not limited to:   
1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's injury determination was 
not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the effect of 
the imports under investigation ("subject imports") on prices in the domestic market for like 
products.  Specifically, i n its price effects analysis, China acted inconsistently  with Articles 3.1 
and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement due to, inter alia , the following reasons : 
(a) China failed to conduct proper analyses with respect to three different products (i.e. 
stainless steel billets, hot -rolled coils, and hot -rolled plates) inc luded within the subject 
imports and the like domestic products, the different series of steel grades based on 
 
1 These measures are identified in China's semi -annual report for the period 1 July -31 December 2019 
submitted to the WTO Committee on Anti-dumping Practices (G/ADP/N/335/CHN, dated 21 April 2020).  In this 
same report, China also identifies the subject import products of the anti -dumping duties as "Stainless steel 
billet and hot -rolled stainless steel plate (Coil)", which is an English t ranslation of " 不锈钢钢坯和不锈钢热轧板 /卷".  
Japan therefore uses the word "billet" hereafter in this document; however, Japan may use the word "slab" 
when it refers to the product corresponding to " 钢坯" in its future communications/submissions that may follow.  
2 商务部公告 2019年第9号 关于对原产于欧盟、日本、韩国和印度尼西亚的进口不锈钢钢 坯和不锈钢热轧板 /卷反倾销调
查初步裁定的公告  (MOFCOM Announcement No.9 of 2019 on the Preliminary Ruling of Anti -dumping 
Investigation into Imports of Stainless Steel Billets and Hot -rolled Stainless Steel Plates/Coils Originating in the 
EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Indonesia), available at 
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/c/201903/20190302845525.shtml  
3 商务部2019年第31号公告  关于对原产于欧盟、日本、韩国和印度尼西亚的进口不锈钢钢 坯和不锈钢热轧板 /卷反倾销
最终裁定的公告  (MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019 on Final Ruling of Anti -dump ing Investigation into 
Imports of Stainless Steel Billets and Hot -rolled Stainless Steel Plates/Coils Originating in the EU, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea and Indonesia ), available at 
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/e/201907/20190702883527.shtml  WT/DS601/1 • G/L/1389 • G/ADP/D136/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the products' chemical compositions, and the subject imports as a whole. China 
improperly concluded that the subject imports as a whole had a sig nificant effect on the 
prices of the like domestic products as a whole, but reached this conclusion erroneously, 
as China failed to appropriately consider the  differences among the three distinct 
products included in the subject imports and the like domest ic products. China also 
failed to appropriately consider , inter alia , the different series of steel grades.  
Furthermore, China failed to properly analyze the price trends of the subject imports 
and the like domestic products ; and  
(b) China failed to provi de any reasonable explanation and analysis of how and to what 
extent the prices of the like domestic products were affected, given the situation that 
the prices of subject imports were generally significantly higher than those of the like 
domestic products .  
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's cumulative assessment 
of the effects of subject imports from the European Union, Japan, Indonesia, and Korea was 
inappropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the im ported products and the 
conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic products, due 
to, inter alia , the following reasons :  
(a) The product mixes were different, both in terms of the proportion of three different 
products (i .e. stainless steel billets, hot -rolled coils, and hot -rolled plates ) and the 
proportion of different series of steel grades based on their chemical compositions, (i) 
between the subject imports from different countries and (ii) between the subject 
imports  and the like domestic products; and  
(b) The price levels were different between the subject imports from different countries and 
between the subject imports and the like domestic products.  
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's analysis of the impact 
of the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry:  
(a) failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the impact 
of subject import s on the domestic industry based on the volume of such imports and 
their effect on prices;  
(b) failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of all relevant 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domest ic industry; 
and  
(c) failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the determination of material 
injury to the domestic industry by failing to objectively determine the relative 
importance and weight to be attached to relevant economic factors and indices, and 
improperly disregarding the majority of those factors and indices indicating that the 
domestic industry did not suffer material injury.  
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because:  
(a) China failed to demonstrate, based on p ositive evidence and an objective examination, 
that the subject imports were, through the effects of dumping, as set forth in Articles  3.2 
and 3.4, causing injury to the domestic industry. In particular, China determined that 
the allegedly dumped imports w ere causing injury based on its flawed analysis of price 
effects under Article 3.2 and its flawed analysis of impact under Article 3.4;  
(b) China failed to demonstrate the required causal relationship between the subject 
imports and the injury to the domestic  industry based on an objective examination of 
all relevant evidence before the authorities, including , inter alia,  the fact that the 
allegedly dumped imports had limited market shares in the Chinese market; and  
(c) China failed to conduct an objective examin ation, based on positive evidence, of factors 
other than the subject imports which were at the same time injuring the domestic WT/DS601/1 • G/L/1389 • G/ADP/D136/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  industry, and therefore improperly attributed the injury caused by those other factors 
to the subject imports. The other factors include , inter alia,  rise of raw material nickel 
prices, strict environmental protection, excessive stainless steel production capacity and 
competition with other domestic producers.  
5. Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China 's use of cumulative 
assessment in its analyses of the effect of allegedly dumped imports on prices, the impact of 
the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry, and  the causal relationship between 
the allegedly dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry, respectively, was 
inconsistent with Article 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
6. Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement:  
(a) because China, in defining the domestic industry, relied on sales volume of billets 
instead of production volume of billets, and did not define the domestic industry as 
domestic producers whose output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the 
total domestic production of those products; and  
(b) in conjunction with Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because China 
improperly defined the domestic industry and, as a result, failed to base its 
determination on positive evidence and conduct an objective examination of the facts 
with respect to the domestic industry producing the like produc ts. 
7. Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because:  
(a) China treated the information provided by the applicant and the domestic industry as 
confidential information without good cause shown; and  
(b) China failed to require the applicant and the domestic industry either (i) to furnish non -
confidential summaries of confidential information which are in sufficient detail to permit 
a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in 
confidence; or (ii) to provide explanations as to why they were not able to furnish such 
summaries.   
8. Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to inform the interested 
parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to 
impose definit ive anti -dumping measures, including, inter alia , the essential facts underlying: 
(a) the definition of the domestic industry, and (b) the determinations of injury and causation.  
9. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide in 
sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered 
material by the investigating authorities, as well as all relevant inf ormation on the matters of 
fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures, including, inter 
alia, with respect to (a) the definition of the domestic industry, and (b) the determinations of 
injury and causation.  
China's measures  imposing anti -dumping duties on stainless steel billets, hot -rolled coils and hot -
rolled plates from Japan also appear to be inconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
described above.  
China's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly 
under the cited agreements.  
Japan reserves the right to address further factual claims and legal issues under ot her provisions of 
the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.  
Japan looks forward to receiving China's reply to the present request in due course. Japan is ready 
to consider with China mutually convenient dates an d venue for consultations.  
__________