WT/DS605/2  
 
19 November 2021  
(21-8693) Page: 1/4 
  Original: Spanish  
 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED  
STEEL BARS  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY COSTA RICA  
The following communication, dated 15 November 2021, from the delegation of Costa Rica to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 23 July 2021, Costa Rica requested consultations with the Dominican Republic unde r Articles  1 
and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), 
Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement), and Article  XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), with respect to measures imposing anti -dumping duties on imports of 
corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in the 
Republic  of Costa Rica.  
 
The consultations between the two countries were held on 20 September  2021. However, these 
consultations failed to settle the dispute. Accordingly , Costa Rica respectfully requests the 
establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles  4.7 and  6 of the DSU, Art icle 17.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping  Agreement, and Article  XXIII of the GATT  1994, in order to examine the matter.  
 
The anti -dumping investigation was initiated on 30 July 2018 in response to an application that had 
been submitted by a Dominican producer and tha t, in Costa Rica's opinion, did not meet the 
minimum requirements of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  Following an investigation containing 
innumerable flaws, on 27 December 2019, the Regulatory Commission on Unfair Trade Practices and 
Safeguard Measures of the  Dominican Republic (CDC) issued a final determination providing for the 
application of definitive anti -dumping measures despite the fact that , in Costa Rica's view, there was 
no evidence of dumping, injury or causation.  Costa Rica considers this determina tion and the 
application of definitive duties to be inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's obligations under 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.   
 
I. Measures at issue  
The measures at issue are the anti -dumping measures imposed on imports of corrugated or 
deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in the Republic of Costa Rica. 
The measures at issue include and are reflected in, inter alia, the following documents : 
- Resolution No. CDC -RD-AD-001-2020 of 17 March  2020 ruling on the appeal for 
reconsideration filed against Resolu tion No. CDC -RD-AD-007-2019 of 27 December  2019;  
- Resolu tion No. CDC -RD-AD-007-2019 of 27 December  2019 providing for the application of 
definitive anti -dumping duties on imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for 
concrete reinforcement originating in the Republic of Costa Rica ; 
- Final Technical Report  of 20 December  2019;  
- Essential Facts Report  of 30 October  2019;  WT/DS605/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  - Resol ution No. CDC -AD-001-2018 of 30 July 2018 providing for the initiation of the 
investigation into the alleged existence of dumping practices in respect of exports of 
corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in the 
Republic of Costa Rica;  
- Initial Technical Report of  20 July 2018; and 
- any other resolution, instrument, report or determination issued in the anti -dumping 
investigation or in relation thereto . 
This request covers, in addition to the aforementioned measur es, any other measure that prolongs, 
replaces, amends, implements, extends or applies, or otherwise maintains, the measures described 
above.  
 
II. Brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint  
 
The measures described in Section I of this request are inc onsistent with the following obligations 
assumed by the Dominican Republic under the WTO covered agreements : 
 
1. Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  because , among other reasons , the 
investigating authority, in its dumping determination, failed to rely on the correct export 
prices and included transactions made outside the period of investigation in the dumping 
margin calculation.  
2. Article 2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  because , among other reasons , the investigating 
authority, in its dumping determination, excluded transactions made in the ordinary course 
of trade for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country.  
3. Article 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter ali a, the investigating authority 
excluded sales of the like product in the domestic market of the exporting country allegedly 
made below cost, without first having properly determined that those sales were made within 
an extended period of time in substantia l quantities and at prices which did not provide for 
the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.  
4. Article 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among other reasons, the 
investigating authority excluded sales of the like product i n the domestic market of the 
exporting country without having properly considered whether prices were below per unit 
costs at the time of sale.  
5. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among other reasons, 
the investigating aut hority improperly considered financing expenses in the analysis of 
below -cost sales for the purposes of identifying sales allegedly not made in the ordinary 
course of trade.  
6. Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among other reasons, the inv estigating 
authority failed to make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value, 
including failing to make a comparison in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the 
same time.  
7. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreeme nt because, inter alia , the investigating 
authority's analysis of the volume of the dumped imports was not based on an objective 
examination on the basis of positive evidence or an examination of all relevant evidence 
before the authorities.  
8. Articles 3 .1 and 3. 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , the investigating 
authority 's analysis of the effects of the imports under investigation on prices in the domestic 
market for like products was not based on an objective examination on the basis  of positive 
evidence or an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities.   
9. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , the investigating 
authority failed to properly evaluate all relevant economic factors and i ndices that had a 
bearing on the state of the domestic industry and to conduct an objective examination, on 
the basis of positive evidence, of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry.  
10. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  because, inter alia , the investigating 
authority failed to properly determine a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and 
effect between the allegedly dumped imports and the threat of injury to the domestic WT/DS605/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  industry and, in addition, failed to ens ure that injury caused by other factors was not 
attributed to the allegedly dumped imports. Most notably, but not exclusively, the 
investigating authority failed to adequately examine the volume and prices of imports not 
sold at dumping prices, development s in technology, and the export performance of the 
domestic industry . 
11. Article 3.7 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , the investigating authority 
based the determination of a threat of material injury not on facts but merely on allegatio n, 
conjecture or remote possibility, and failed to properly determine that the change in 
circumstances which would create a situation in which the alleged dumping would cause 
injury was clearly foreseen and imminent. In addition, the investigating authorit y failed to 
properly consider : 
- whether there was a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into the domestic 
market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation ; 
- whether there was sufficient freely disposable capacity indicat ing the likelihood of 
an imminent, substantial increase in dumped exports to the Dominican Republic, 
taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional 
exports ;  
- whether imports were entering at prices that would have a  significant depressing or 
suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for further 
imports; and  
- whether the totality of the factors considered led to the conclusion that further 
dumped exports were imminent and that, unless pr otective action was taken, 
material injury would occur.  
12. Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
properly examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to 
determine whether there was sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link 
between the dumped imports and the alleged injury to justify the initiation of an 
investigation.  
13. Article 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority fa iled to 
reject the domestic industry's application and did not terminate the investigation promptly 
as soon as it was satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of 
injury to justify proceeding with the case.  
14. Article 6.1.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
provide the full text of the written application for the initiation of the investigation to the 
known exporters as soon as the investigation was initiated.  
15. Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.5,  3.7, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.9 and 12.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
because, among other reasons, the investigating authority examined and based the final 
determination on the existence of a threat of injury despite the fact that the domestic 
industry's  application alleged the existence of material injury  and that the investigation was 
initiated on the basis of the alleged existence of material injury . 
16. Article 6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
provide tim ely opportunities for all interested parties to see all information relevant to the 
presentation of their cases and to prepare presentations on the basis of that information. 
The relevant information that the investigating authority failed to provide timel y 
opportunities to see includes, inter alia , the domestic industry's application for the initiation 
of an investigation and the results of the verification visit to the domestic industry.  
17. Articles 6.4, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  becaus e, among other reasons , 
the investigating authority afforded, without good cause shown, confidential treatment to 
information provided by the domestic industry. Furthermore, the non -confidential 
summaries furnished to the interested parties are not in suff icient detail to permit a 
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.  
18. Article 6.7 and Annex I of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among other reasons, the 
investigating authority failed, prior to the visit,  to advise the firms concerned of the general 
nature of the information to be verified and of any further information which needed to be 
provided.  WT/DS605/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  19. Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article s 9.1, 9.2, and  9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
because, inter alia , the Dominican Republic has imposed anti -dumping duties where all 
requirements for their imposition have not been fulfilled; has not imposed anti -dumping 
duties in appropriate amounts; and has imposed anti -dumping duties in excess of the margin 
of dumping that should have been established under Article 2.  
20. Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, as a consequence 
of the breaches of the Anti -Dumping Agreement described above.  
 
Given the inconsistencies described above, pursuant to Article 3 .8 of the DSU , Costa Rica consider s 
that the measures at issue nullify or impair the advantages accruing to Costa Rica under the various 
provisions mentioned in this request .  
 
Costa Rica request that, pursuant to Arti cle 6 of the DSU , the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) 
establish a panel to ex amine this matter. Costa Rica also requests that the panel be given the 
standard terms of reference provided in Article 7.1 of the DSU . 
 
Costa Rica asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be included in the agenda of the 
DSB meeting planned for 29 November  2021 
 
__________