WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS318/1 
G/L/702 
G/ADP/D56/1 
1 November 2004 
 (04-4597) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
INDIA - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS 
FROM THE  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
 
Request for Consultations by the Separate Custom s Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
 
 
  The following communication, dated  28 Oct ober 2004, from the delegation of the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to the delegation of India and to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circ ulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
______________ 
 
  My authorities have instructed me to request c onsultations with India pursuant to Article 4 of 
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governi ng the Settlement of Disputes, Article XXIII:1 of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994") and Article 17.3 of the 
Agreement on Implementation of Ar ticle VI of the General Agreem ent on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the 
"Anti-Dumping Agreement") regarding the pr ovisional and definitive anti-dumping measures 
imposed by India on certain products as listed in the Annex.   
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that, in the 
cases mentioned in the Annex, the investigations were conducted and the dete rminations were made 
in violation of India’s obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the following aspects:  
- the Indian authorities seemed to reject quasi-s ystematically the information provided by our 
exporters, without providing reasons why they did not accept the submitted evidence or 
information and without providing the exporters  with the opportunity to provide further 
information; 
 
- the Indian authorities did not seem to satisfy th emselves during the course of the investigation 
as to the accuracy and reliability of information s upplied by interested parties, in particular by 
the domestic industry; 
 
- the Indian authorities initiated anti-dumping investigations and imposed anti-dumping duties 
while no imports of the product concerned appear ed to have been made from us into India 
during the Period of Investigation; 
 
- where the determination of the normal value a nd export price was based on the “best available 
information”, the Indian authorities did not see m to have established clearly the source and 
reliability of such information;  
 
- the Indian authorities did not correctly determine the normal value and export price; 
 WT/DS318/1 
G/L/702 G/ADP/D56/1 
Page 2 
  
- the determination of injury appears not to be based on positive evidence and not to involve an 
objective examination; 
 
- the Indian authorities did not examine all injury  factors mentioned by Article 3.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement; 
 
- the Indian authorities seemed to make its determination of the threat of material injury not  on 
facts but merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility;   
 
- the Indian authorities have not demonstrated that the dumped imports were causing the 
alleged injury, and failed to exam ine any other known factors and to  ensure that alleged injury 
caused by those other factors was not attributed to dumping; 
 
- the Indian authorities did not provide interested parties with the full opportunity for the 
defence of their interests; 
 
- provisional measures were imposed for more than the period of time allowed under 
Article 7.4; 
 
- the Indian authorities did not inform the in terested parties the essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis for  the decision whether to apply definitive measures; 
 
- the petitions for the initiation of investigations appear not to be sufficiently substantiated on 
the existence of dumping, injury and the estab lishment of the normal value and the export 
price; 
 
- the notice of initiation of investigations did no t contain all the grounds that support dumping 
and injury; 
 
- the notice of definitive findings did not contain all relevant information of facts and law and 
reasons which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures. 
 
For the above reasons, the anti-dumping measures at  issue appear to be inconsistent with 
India’s obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, thereby nullifying or impairing the benefits accrued to us under those Agreements. 
 
More specifically, we consider that the anti-dumping measures at issue are violating, inter 
alia, the following provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement: 
 
- Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994; 
- Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8,  4, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7.4, 12.1 and 12.2 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
We reserve the right to raise additional claims  and legal matters regarding the measures listed 
in the Annex and determinations dur ing the course of the consultations. 
 
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 
convenient date and venue  for consultations in this regard.  WT/DS318/1 
G/L/702  
G/ADP/D56/1 
 Page 3 
  
 
Annex: Indian anti-dumping measures imposed on certain products
 
originating in Chinese Taipei  
 
 
 Product Case number Date of imposition of 
definitive measures 
 
1  
Acrylic fibres 
  
No. 27/1/99-DGAD  
18/07/2000 
 
2 
  
Analgin  
No. 66/1/2000-DGAD  
08/10/2001 
 
3  
Potassium 
permanganate 
  
No. 46/1/2000-DGAD  
01/11/2001 
 
4  
Paracetamol  
No. 60/1/2000-DGAD 
  
27/03/2002 
 
5 
  
Sodium nitrite  
No. 54/1/2001-DGAD  
29/11/2002 
 
6 
  
Caustic soda  
No. 14/39/2002-DGAD  
14/11/2003 
 
7 
  
Green veneer tape  
No. 14/50/2002-DGAD  
9/02/2004 
 
 
 
 
__________