WT/DS602/1, G/L/1390  
G/ADP/D137/1, G/SCM/D132/1  
 
28 June 2021  
(21-5166) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
 
CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON WINE 
FROM AUSTRALIA  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY AUSTRALIA  
The following communication, dated 22 June 2021, from the delegation of Australia to the delegation 
of China, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
_______________  
 
 
My authorities have instructed me to request 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  ("DSU"), Article XXII:1  of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Articles 17.2 and 17.3  of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the Genera l Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti -Dumping 
Agreement")  and Article 30  of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
("SCM  Agreement") with respect to anti -dumping and countervailing measures on bottled wine in 
containers of 2 litres o r less imported from Australia, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the 
People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM"):  
• Notice No.  59 of 2020 (27 November 2020);  
• Notice No.  58 of 2020 (10 December 2020);  
• Notice No. 6 of 2021 (26 March  2021); and  
• Notice  No. 7 of 2021 (26 March 2021),  
including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof, and the initiation of and conduct of the 
investigations leading to the issuing of those notices .  
China's measures appear to be inconsistent with China's obliga tions including under the provisions 
of the GATT 1994, the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. In particular, China's anti -
dumping and countervailing measures on wine from Australia appear to be inconsistent with China's 
obligations under, among others, the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and the SCM Agreement:  
Interpretation and application of "like product ", "product under consideration " and 
"domestic industry " 
i. Articles 2.1, 2.6, 3.1 and 5.2 (i) and (iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 
Articles  11.2(i) and (iv), 15.1 and footnote 46 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , 
China incorrectly defined the "product under consideration" and the "like product", 
including, inter alia , by failing to account for the di fferent qualities of wine and product 
differentiation within the wine market.  
ii. Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 16.1 of the SCM Agreement 
because, inter alia , China erred in its interpretation and application of the definition of 
"dome stic industry".  WT/DS602/1 • G/L/1390 • G/ADP/D137/1 • G/SCM/D132/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Initiation of the investigations  
iii. Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 
11.4 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , China improperly initiated investigations 
on the basis of applications that were not made "by or on behalf of the domestic in dustry" 
and because, inter alia , China failed to determine, on the basis of an examination of the 
degree of support for, or opposition to, the application expressed by domestic producers 
of the like product, that the application has been made "by or on beh alf of the domestic 
industry", and because, inter alia , China failed to properly determine the production 
volume of the like products.  
iv. Articles 5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles 11.2, 11.3 and 
11.9 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , China initiated investigations without 
sufficient evidence, China failed to examine or review the accuracy and adequacy of the 
evidence provided in the application, and China failed to reject the application or 
terminate promptly the investigati on given the lack of sufficient evidence.  
Conduct of the investigations  
v. Articles 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and 6.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and 
Articles  12.1, 12.1.1, 12.1.2, 12.1.3 and 12.2 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , 
China did not provi de all interested parties and interested Members ample opportunity 
to present all relevant information and evidence, did not  ensure the prompt availability 
to known exporters the full text of the written application, and did not give due 
consideration to r equests for extensions and grant those extensions for which cause had 
been shown that it was practicable to grant.  
vi. Article 6.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , China did not provide all 
interested parties a full opportunity for the defenc e of their interests.  
vii. Article 6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 12.3 of the SCM Agreement 
because, inter alia , China failed to provide timely opportunities for all interested parties 
to see all information that was relevant to the presentation of their cases, and to prepare 
presentations on the basis of this information, notwithstanding that it was practicable to 
do so.  
viii. Articles 6.4 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and Articles 12.3 and 12.4.1 of 
the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , China failed to provide, or require the applicant 
and interested parties to provide, adequate non -confidential summaries of allegedly 
confidential information.  
ix. Articles 6.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles 12.5 of the SCM Agreement 
because China fa iled during the course of the investigation to satisfy itself as to the 
accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties, including inter alia  the 
accuracy of the domestic price of wine, and the accuracy of the statistics of various 
economic indi cators related to the state of China's wine industry.  
x. Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement 
because, inter alia , China failed to disclose to the interested parties the essential facts 
under consideration which form  the basis for the determinations, and because it failed 
to do so in sufficient time for the parties to defend their interests.  
The use of facts available  
xi. Article 6.8, and Annex II, of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 12.7 of the 
SCM Agreement becaus e, inter alia , China improperly based its determinations on the 
facts available and because, inter alia , it: 
a. failed to take into account information that was verifiable, appropriately 
submitted so that it could be appropriately used in the investigation without 
undue difficulties, which was supplied in a timely fashion, and, where WT/DS602/1 • G/L/1390 • G/ADP/D137/1 • G/SCM/D132/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  applicable, which was supplied i n a medium or computer language requested 
by China;  
b. improperly without adequate justification disregarded information provided by 
interested parties acting to the best of their abilities;  
c. failed to inform supplying parties forthwith for the reasons for not  accepting 
evidence or information or provide an opportunity to provide further 
explanations within a reasonable period;  
d. failed to give reasons for the rejection of such information in its published 
determination; and  
e. failed to exercise special circumspe ction in making its findings.  
xii. Article 6.13 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and 12.11 of the SCM Agreement because, 
inter alia , China failed to take due account of difficulties experienced by interested 
parties in supplying information requested and failed to  provide any assistance 
practicable.  
Imposition of provisional measures  
xiii. Article 7.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 17.1 of the SCM Agreement 
because, inter alia , China imposed provisional measures without an investigation having 
been properly in itiated in accordance with the provisions of, respectively, Article 5 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11 of the SCM Agreement.  
xiv. Article 7.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 17.5 of the SCM Agreement 
because, inter alia , China imposed prov isional measures without following the relevant 
provisions of, respectively, Article 9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article 19 of 
the SCM Agreement.  
xv. Article VI:5 of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia , China imposed both provisional anti -
dumping duties  and provisional countervailing duties to compensate for the same 
situation of alleged dumping and export subsidisation.  
Dumping determination  
xvi. Article 2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to determine the 
existence of dumping as defined i n Article 2.1.  
xvii.  Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , 
China (i) improperly and without proper justification disregarded sales of the like product 
in the Australian domestic market in determining normal val ue, including inter alia  
because China failed to establish that either there were no sales of the like product in 
the ordinary course of trade in the Australian domestic market, or that, because of the 
particular market situation or the low volume of the s ales in the domestic market of the 
exporting country, such sales did not permit a proper comparison; and because China 
failed to disclose its methodology for determining normal value; (ii) failed to base its 
calculation of costs on the records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation; 
and (iii) failed to base the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for 
profits on actual data or other reasonable method.  
xviii.  Article 2.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because, inter alia , China fa iled to determine 
export price on a reasonable basis, and because it failed to disclose its methodology for 
calculating export price.  
xix. Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , China failed to make a 
fair comparison between the export price and normal value including by failing to adjust 
for factors affecting price comparability and failing to indicate what information was WT/DS602/1 • G/L/1390 • G/ADP/D137/1 • G/SCM/D132/1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  necessary to make a fair comparison, and because it failed to disclose its methodology 
for determining both export price and normal value.  
xx. Article 2.4.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because, inter alia , China did not establish 
the margin of dumping on the basis of a comparison of all comparable export 
transactions.  
xxi. Article 6.10 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because,  inter alia , China did not determine 
individual margins of dumping for each known exporter or producer of wine concerned 
under investigation, and because, inter alia , China relied upon the use of samples that 
were not valid on the basis of the information available to the authorities at the time, 
and discouraged voluntary questionnaire responses.  
Countervailing determination  
xxii.  Articles 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , China 
improperly established, in respect of a range of p rograms, the existence of a subsidy, 
as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, including by improperly 
determining  that funding allocations in respect of the programs constituted a "financial 
contribution" conferring a "benefit" on Australian producers of wine; and improperly 
determined the alleged subsidies were "specific" to "certain enterprises" within Australia; 
and because it failed to disclose its methodology for calculating the rate of subsidization.  
Determination of injury an d causation  
xxiii.  Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and Articles 15.1, 15.2, 
15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement, because, inter alia , on the matter of the alleged 
injury, China's determination was not based upon positive evidence an d an objective 
examination, including in relation to: (i) the volume of dumped and subsidized imports 
including whether there was a significant increase in such imports; (ii) the effect of such 
imports on prices in the domestic market for like products inc luding whether there has 
been significant price undercutting, depression or suppression; (iii) the consequent 
impact of those imports on domestic producers of such products including an 
examination of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bear ing on the state 
of the industry; (iv) the causal relationship between those imports and the injury to the 
domestic industry including an examination of any known factors other than dumped 
imports, or an examination of all relevant evidence before the auth orities.  
Imposition of duties  
xxiv.  Article VI:2 of GATT 1994 and Article 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement because, inter alia , China: has imposed anti -dumping duties where all 
requirements for their imposition have not been fulfilled; has no t imposed anti -dumping 
duties in appropriate amounts; has not imposed anti -dumping duties on an individual 
basis; and has imposed anti -dumping duties in excess of the margin of dumping that 
should have been established under Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping A greement.  
xxv.  Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , 
China used an inadequate methodology to determine an amount of subsidization, and 
therefore improperly levied countervailing duties on imported Australian wi ne products 
in excess of the amount of subsidy found to exist.  WT/DS602/1 • G/L/1390 • G/ADP/D137/1 • G/SCM/D132/1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Transparency  
xxvi.  Articles 12.1 and 12.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles 22.1 and 22.2 of 
the SCM Agreement, because, inter alia , China failed to provide in its public notice of the 
initiation of the investigation, or in a separate report, adequate information on the basis 
on which dumping is alleged in the application and a summary of factors on which the 
allegation of injury is based; and a description of the subsidy practice or practices to be 
investigated and a summary of the factors on which the allegation of injury is based.  
xxvii.  Articles 12.2, 12.2.1 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles  22.3, 22.4 
and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , China failed to provide in sufficient 
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of  fact and law it considered 
material, and the reasons for acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments and claims.  
Consequential claims  
xxviii.  Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement and the SCM Agreement descri bed above.  
xxix.  Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement as a consequence of the breaches 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement described above.  
xxx.  Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement as a consequence of the breaches of the 
SCM Agreement and GATT 1994 desc ribed above.  
3. China's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Australia directly 
or indirectly under the cited agreements.  
4. Australia reserves the right to address additional measures and claims under other 
provisions of the WTO Ag reement regarding the above matters during the course of the 
consultations.  
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually convenient 
date for consultations.  
__________