WORLD TRADE WT/DS99/2
7November 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4915)
Original: English
UNITED STATES -ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON
DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY SEMICONDUCTORS (DRAMS)
OFONE MEGABYTE ORABOVE FROM KOREA
Request fortheEstablishment ofaPanel byKorea
Thefollowing communication, dated 6November 1997, fromthePermanent Mission ofKorea
totheChairman oftheDispute Settlement Body, iscirculated pursuant toArticle 6.2oftheDSU.
_______________
On14August 1997, theRepublic ofKorea (Korea) requested consultations withtheUnited
States pursuant toArticle 4oftheUnderstanding onRules andProcedures Governing theSettlement
ofDisputes (DSU), Article XXIII:1 oftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade 1994(GATT 1994)
andArticle 17.3oftheAgreement onImplementation ofArticle VIofGATT 1994(theADAgreement)
regarding the16July1997 finaldecision oftheUnited States Department ofCommerce (DOC) not
torevoke theanti-dumping dutyondynamic Random Access Memory semiconductors (DRAMs) of
onemegabyte orabove originating intheRepublic ofKorea. Thisrequest wascirculated totheMembers
oftheWTO on15August 1997 (WT/DS99/1).
Pursuant totherequest, Korea consulted withtheUnited States inGeneva on9October 1997,
inanattempt toreach amutually satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, theconsultations havefailed
tosettle thematter andthere arenoindications tosuggest thatfurther consultations arelikely tobe
productive.
KoreathereforerespectfullyrequeststhataPanelbeestablishedatthenextmeetingoftheDispute
Settlement Body pursuant toArticle 6oftheDSU, Article XXIII:2 ofGATT 1994 andArticle 17.5
oftheADAgreement.
TheMeasures atIssue
Theprincipal United States measures atissue inthisrequest include:
- the16July1997Final Determination oftheUnited States DOC nottorevoke theanti-
dumping duty(published asNotice ofFinal Results ofAntidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Determination NottoRevoke Order inPart: Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of
OneMegabyte orAbove From theRepublic ofKorea, 62Fed.Reg.39809-24 (24July1997)); and
- theUnited States Tariff Actof1930, asamended (19U.S.C. §1673etseq.),andthe
relevant DOC regulations (19CFRPart353(1997)), bothasapplied intheFinal Determination and
ontheirface.WT/DS99/2
Page2
TheLegal Basis fortheComplaint
Korea believes thatthemeasures referred toabove areinconsistent withseveral agreements
oftheWorld Trade Organization, including, butnotlimited to,thefollowing:
(a) DOC’sFinal Determination nottorevoke theanti-dumping duty, afterDOC, inthree
consecutiveannualreviews,foundnoordeminimisdumpingmarginsandrespondentcompaniescertified
thattheywould notdump inthefuture andagreed toimmediate reinstatement oftheorder intheevent
respondents were todump themerchandise inthefuture, isinconsistent withArticle 11oftheAD
Agreement andArticle VIofGATT 1994;
(b) The“notlikely”criterionunderDOCregulationsgivesDOCwidediscretionindeciding
onrevocation, andallows DOC tomaintain ananti-dumping order inanarbitrary andunjustifiable
manner despite anabsence ofdumping forseveral years, respondents ’certification nottodump in
thefuture, andtheiragreement toimmediate reinstatement oftheorder intheevent theydump DRAMs
inthefuture. Thus, thiscriterion bothasapplied intheFinal Determination andonitsface, is
inconsistent withArticle 11oftheADAgreement andArticle VIofGATT 1994andexceeds thescope
ofthose agreements;
(c) Thenegative standard ofthe“notlikely ”criterion andDOC’spractice asapplied in
theFinal Determination shifted theburden ofproof from theUnited States totherespondents in
contradiction toArticle 11oftheADAgreement;
(d) TheUnited States hasfailed topublish promptly, andinsuchamanner astoenable
governments andtraders tobecome acquainted withthem, objective andspecific factors regarding the
“notlikely ”criterion andDOC impermissibly accepted andrejected datainabiased fashion inconsistent
withArticle XofGATT 1994 andArticles 11and17oftheADAgreement;
(e) TheUnited States maintenance oftheanti-dumping dutyorder onDRAMs without
considering whether theinjury totheUnited States industry would belikely tocontinue orrecur if
thedutywere removed isinconsistent withArticle 11oftheADAgreement;
(f) DOC’sdecisionregardingtheproductssubjecttotheorderisinconsistentwithArticles2
and3oftheADAgreement because itincluded products thatwerenever found tohavebeendumped
ortohavecaused injury anditarbitrarily excluded products thatwerelikeproducts tothoseinvestigated;
(g) DOC’sFinal Determination nottorevoke theanti-dumping dutybased onunverified
informationfromthepetitioningcompanyandmereconjecturewithoutanysubstantialdata,whilefailing
togiveadequate consideration toinformation submitted bytheKorean respondents intheadministrative
review, isinconsistent withArticles 2,6and17.6(i) oftheADAgreement andArticle VIofGATT
1994;
(h) DOC’sselection oftheperiod ofreview forthe“notlikely ”criterion wasimproper
andnotobjective, andtherefore inconsistent withArticle 17.6(i) oftheADAgreement andArticle X
ofGATT 1994;
(i) DOC’sFinalDetermination isinconsistent withArticle IofGATT 1994inthatitdenied
totheKoreanrespondentstherevocationoftheanti-dumpingorderafterthreeconsecutiveannualreviews
finding noordeminimis dumping margins, andafterthose respondents certified thattheywould not
dump inthefuture, andaftertheyagreed tothereimposition oftheorder ifdumping occurred, even
though DOC revoked anti-dumping orders inthesame circumstances involving other Members;WT/DS99/2
Page3
(j) DOC’sstandard fordetermining whether torevoke anti-dumping duties isimpossible
tomeetinproceedings involving cyclical industries suchastheDRAM industry, andtherefore, both
onitsfaceandasapplied intheFinal Determination, isinconsistent withArticle 11oftheAD
Agreement;
(k) ThemarginofdumpingestablishedbytheUnitedStatestobedeminimisinadministrative
review proceedings isinconsistent withArticle 5.8oftheADAgreement; and
(l) Therefusal bytheUnited States torevoke theanti-dumping dutyinlightofKorea ’s
datacollection proposal isinconsistent withArticle 1ofGATT 1994, given theUnited States ’acceptance
ofsuchproposals andconsequent revocation ofanti-dumping duties insimilar cases involving other
Members.
Theabove summary isdesigned tobriefly describe thelegalbasis ofthecomplaint sufficient
topresent theproblem clearly, butisnottobetaken asrestricting thearguments which Korea may
develop before thePanel.
Korea requests theestablishment ofaPanel toexamine these matters andfindthat:
(i) theUSFinal Determination nottorevoke theanti-dumping dutyorder onDRAMs
fromKorea andtherelevant USstatutory andregulatory provisions, bothontheirface
andasapplied, areinconsistent withtheprovisions oftheWTO Agreements asset
forth above, and
(ii) theUSFinal Determination nottorevoke theorder andtherelevant USstatutory and
regulatory provisions, bothontheirfaceandasapplied, nullify orimpair benefits
accruing directly orindirectly toKorea under thecitedagreements.
Korea further requests thatthePanel recommend thattheDispute Settlement Body request
thattheUnited States revoke theanti-dumping dutyonDRAMS ofonemegabyte orabove fromKorea.
Korea asksthatthisrequest beplaced ontheagenda forthenextmeeting oftheDispute
Settlement Body scheduled for18November 1997andthatthePanel beestablished withstandard terms
ofreference assetoutinArticle 7oftheDSU.