WORLD TRADE WT/DS89/7
7November 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4923)
Original: English
UNITED STATES -IMPOSITION OFANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
ONIMPORTS OFCOLOUR TELEVISION RECEIVERS FROM KOREA
Request fortheEstablishment ofaPanel byKorea
Thefollowing communication, dated 6November 1997, fromthePermanent Mission ofKorea
totheChairman oftheDispute Settlement Body, iscirculated pursuant toArticle 6.2oftheDSU.
______________________
On10July1997, Korea requested consultations withtheUnited States pursuant toArticle 4
oftheUnderstanding onRules andProcedures Governing theSettlement ofDisputes (DSU),
Article XXIII:1 oftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade 1994 (GATT 1994) andArticle 17
ofthe1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement (theAgreement) withrespect tothecontinuing imposition of
anti-dumping measures sensu latoonKorean Color Television Receivers (CTVs) (WT/DS89/1 and
Corr.1).
Consultations were heldon7August 1997 andon8October 1997. However, nomutually
satisfactory solution wasreached.
Korea therefore requests theestablishment ofaPanel, withstandard terms ofreference, to
examine thematter, inaccordance withArticle XXIII:2 ofGATT 1994, Article 6oftheDSU and
Articles 17.4and17.5oftheAgreement.
Measures atIssue
On30April 1984, theUnited States imposed anti-dumping duties onCTVs exported from
KoreatotheUnitedStates.SamsungElectronicsCo.,Ltd.(SEC)isoneoftheKoreanproducersaffected
bythisanti-dumping dutyorder which remains inforce untilthisday.
Since issuance oftheorder, theUnited States hasdetermined thatSECdidnotsellCTVs in
theUnited States atdumped prices from1April 1985 through 31March 1991. Since 1April 1991,
SEChasceased toexport CTVs from Korea totheUnited States.
Thus, forthepasttwelve years, theUnited States hasmaintained theanti-dumping dutyorder
onCTVs withrespect toSEC, despite theabsence ofdumping andtheabsence ofexports, buthas
never examined whether thecontinued imposition ofthedutyisnecessary tooffset dumping, whether
theinjury would belikely tocontinue orrecur ifthedutywereremoved orvaried, orboth. SEC’s
repeated requests forrevocation based onitshistory ofnodumping, made infourseparate administrative
review requests, were eachtimerejected onprocedural rather thansubstantive grounds.WT/DS89/7
Page2
SECmostrecently requested revocation on20July1995. TheUnited States eventually decided
toinitiate areview on24June1996. Apreliminary decision torevoke hasstillnotbeentaken asof
thisday.
Before initiating thereview, theUnited States initiated ananti-circumvention investigation on
19January 1996, onlyfivemonths afterreceiving the10August 1995petition byseveral labour unions
(i.e., theInternational Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers, theInternational Union ofElectronic,
Electrical, Salaried, Machine andFurniture Workers, andtheIndustrial Union Department). No
determination inthisanti-circumvention investigation hasyetbeenmade, while theUnited States is
taking theposition thatthereview determination must await theoutcome oftheanti-circumvention
investigation.TheUnitedStateshasimproperlyreliedontheinitiationandpendencyofthisinvestigation
asabasis forrefusing torevoke theanti-dumping dutyorder onCTVs withrespect toSEC.
Legal Basis fortheComplaint
1. Failure torevoke theanti-dumping dutyorder onCTVs applicable toSEC
Korea isoftheopinion thattheongoing imposition bytheUnited States ofanti-dumping duties
onKorean CTVs exported1bytheKorean producer SECconstitutes aviolation oftheUnited States
obligations under GATT 1994 andtheAgreement, andaccordingly aprima facie nullification or
impairment ofKorea ’sbenefits under theAgreement.
(1) Thefailure oftheUnited States toreview, ontheirowninitiative, dumping andinjury
respectively andtorevoke theorder under theabove circumstances constitutes aviolation ofArticle 11.1
combined withArticle 11.2, aswellasArticle 5.8oftheAgreement.
(2) TheUnited States ’rejection ofSEC’srequest forrevocation review ontheground
oftheUnited States concern about lackofcurrent dataasaresult of“noshipment ”violates Article 11.2
oftheAgreement, which doesnotprovide suchastandard.
(3) Thefailure oftheUnited States torevoke theorder, coupled withtheUnited States
position thattheoutcome oftherevocation review isdependent ontheoutcome oftheanti-circumvention
investigation, isinviolation ofArticle 11.1combined withArticle 11.2andArticle 11.4ofthe
Agreement because itintroduces considerations notmentioned inArticles 11.1and11.2, andbecause
thereview exceeds theArticle 11.4timelimitandtherequirement thatreview investigations mustbe
carried outexpeditiously.
(4) TheUnited States ’requirement (19CFR §353.25(b)) thatapplicants filerevocation
requests onlyin“thethirdandsubsequent anniversary months ”isinviolation ofArticle 11.2, which
stipulates notimelimitwhatsoever forsuchrequests. Accordingly, Korea finds theUnited States ’
rejection ofSEC’srevocation requests alsoinviolation oftheaforementioned Article.
2. Anti-circumvention investigation
Korea isoftheopinion thattheanti-circumvention investigation initiated on19January 1996
isinviolation ofArticle VIofGATT 1994 andseveral provisions oftheAgreement.
1Theterm“exported ”isusedinatechnical sense because SEChasnotexported CTVs fromKorea
totheUnited States since 1April 1991.WT/DS89/7
Page3
Asanexception tothemost-favoured-nation principle, thenational treatment principle and
thetariff bindings, Article VIofGATT 1994 andtheAgreement mustbeconstrued restrictively. In
theabsence ofamultilateral agreement onthepropriety ofanti-circumvention legislation, theUnited
States mustfollow thenormal procedures ofGATT 1994andtheAgreement and,ifitsowishes, may
initiate anormal anti-dumping proceeding against Mexico andThailand.
Inthisregard, theinitiation oftheanti-circumvention proceeding violates Article VIofGATT
1994andArticles 1,2.1and3.1oftheAgreement, because itmayleadtotheimposition ofanti-dumping
duties onimports ofCTVs fromMexico andThailand without findings ofdumping andresulting injury
everhaving beenmade.
Therefusal bytheUnited States toconduct astanding inquiry before initiating itsanti-
circumvention investigation violates Articles 3.1,3.6,4.1and5.4oftheAgreement.
Failure tomake adetermination intheanti-circumvention investigation formorethan22months
violates Article 5.10oftheAgreement.
3. Failure toconduct aproper andunbiased review/investigation
Korea isoftheopinion thattheconduct oftheUnited States intherevocation review andthe
anti-circumvention investigation, when examined andcompared, violates Article X.3ofGATT 1994
andArticle 17.6(i) oftheAgreement, because theUnited States hasnotestablished thefactsproperly
norhasitevaluated thefactsinanunbiased andobjective manner.
(1) TheUnitedStatesinitiatedtheanti-circumventioninvestigationrequestedbythedomestic
industry within fivemonths. SEC, ontheother hand, hadtowaitnearly oneyearbefore theUnited
States initiated therevocation review.
(2) TheUnited States cannot tenably taketheposition thattherevocation review mustawait
theoutcome oftheanti-circumvention investigation. There canonlybecircumvention ifthere isan
anti-dumping dutyorder inplace tobecircumvented. Therefore, theUnited States mustfirstdetermine
whether there aregrounds torevoke theanti-dumping dutyorder; onlyiftheanswer isnegative can
ananti-circumvention investigation, evenifitwere tobejustified under Article VIofGATT 1994
andtheAgreement, quod non,beinitiated. Conversely, adecision bytheUnited States torevoke
theanti-dumping dutyorder withrespect toSECwould remove thelegalbasisfortheanti-circumvention
investigation, asfarasSECisconcerned, asaresult ofwhich theinvestigation would havetobe
terminated forthwith.
(3) Theinitiation oftheanti-circumvention investigation waspremised inasignificant part
oninformation pertaining toatimeperiod preceding theeffective dateofthelawunder which the
investigation wasauthorized. Accordingly, theUnited States hadnolawful basis torelyonthis
information assupport foritsdecision toinitiate theinvestigation.
(4) SEChadsufficient special reasons tojustify itsdelays inrequesting revocation review,
including, butnotlimited to,theUnited States ’consistent andexcessive delays inissuing results of
theadministrative reviews. TheUnited States, however, determined thatitsuntimeliness wasexcusable,
while SEC’suntimeliness wasnot.
(5) WhileKoreabelievesthatinitialinvestigationandreviewareproceedingsforassessment
ofbasically thesame circumstances, theUnited States applies different standards fordetermining de
minimis dumping margins andnegligible imports intwoproceedings.WT/DS89/7
Page4
Korea would appreciate thisrequest fortheestablishment ofaPanel being inscribed onthe
agenda ofthemeeting oftheDSBscheduled tobeheldon18November 1997. Korea reserves the
righttoputforward additional claims regarding thepreliminary andfinaldecisions tobetaken bythe
United States which should beaddressed under thePanel.