WT/DS601/2  
 
20 August 2021  
(21-6324) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
 
CHINA  - ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY JAPAN  
The following communication, dated  19 August 2021 , from the delegation of Japan  to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________  
 
 
My authorities have instructed me to request the establishment of a panel with respect to the 
measures by the People's Republic of China ("China") imposing anti -dumping duties on stainless 
steel products from Japan.  Japan submits this request pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Article 17.4 of the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
("Anti -Dumping Agreement").  
On 11 June 2021, Japan requested consultations with China1.  Japan and China held consultations 
on 19 July 2021, with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the 
consultations failed to settle the dispute.  
China's measures are set forth in the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") Ann ouncement No. 9 of 
20192 and Announcement No. 31 of 20193, including any and all annexes and amendments thereto, 
and are also identified in China's semi -annual report for the period 1 July 2019 through 31 December 
2019 submitted to the WTO Committee on A nti-dumping Practices.4 
In the above public announcements and semi -annual report, China has continuously stated the 
import products subject to the anti -dumping duties to be "stainless steel billet and hot -rolled 
stainless steel plate (coil)", which is an English translation of " 不锈钢钢坯和不锈钢热轧 板/卷" 
(emphasis  added). However, the detailed descriptions of the subject import products in its 
announcements, such as "[h]ot -rolled stainless steel plates/coils are made of stainless steel billets  
after the stainless steel billets undergo hot rolling and other processes, and they are made into coils 
or plates, regardless of their width and thickness",5 indicate that the word "billets" refers to stainless 
steel "slabs" (in Chinese, " 板坯") instead of  "billets" or " 钢坯".  This inference can be made because 
the products from which hot -rolled stainless steel plates/coils are made are slabs and not billets.  
Japan therefore uses the word "slabs" when it refers to the product corresponding to " 钢坯" in its 
communications/submissions in the present dispute, but in no way intends to exclude any of the 
 
1 WT/DS601/1, G/L/1389, G/ADP/D136/1, circulated on 15 June 2021.  
2 商务部公告 2019年第9号 关于对原产于欧盟、日本、韩国和印度尼西亚的进口不锈钢钢 坯和不锈钢热轧板 /卷反倾销调
查初步裁定的公告  (MOFCOM Announcement No.9 of 2019 on the Preliminary Ruling of Anti -dumping 
Investigation into Imports of Stainless Steel Billets and Hot -rolled Stainless Steel Plates/Coils Originating in the 
EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Indonesia), available at 
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/c/201903/20190302845525.shtml  
3 商务部2019年第31号公告  关于对原产于欧盟、日本、韩国和印度尼西亚的进口不锈钢钢 坯和不锈钢热轧板 /卷反倾销
最终裁定的公告  (MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019 on Final Ruling of Anti -dumping Investigation into 
Imports of Stainless Steel Billets and Hot-rolled Stainless Steel Plates/Coils Originating in the EU, Japan, the 
Republic of Korea and Indonesia ), available at 
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/e/201907/20190702883527.shtml  
4  G/ADP/N/335/CHN, dated 21 April 2020.  
5 English translation of the product description in MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019 (" 不锈钢热轧 板
/卷是由不 锈钢钢坯经过热轧 等工序后制得，呈卷状或板状，不分 宽度和厚度") (emphasis added), available at 
http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/buwei/201908/20190802887274.shtml  WT/DS601/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  subject import products from this dispute.6 
Japan considers that these measures are inconsistent with China's obligations under the following 
provisions of the GA TT 1994 and the Anti -Dumping Agreement:  
1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's injury determination was 
not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the effect of 
the imports under investigat ion ("subject imports") on prices in the domestic market for like 
products.  Specifically, i n its price effects analysis, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 
and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement due to, inter alia , the following reasons : 
(a) China fa iled to conduct proper analyses with respect to three different products (i.e. 
stainless steel slabs, hot -rolled coils, and hot -rolled plates) included within the subject 
imports and the like domestic products, the different series of steel grades based on  
the products' chemical compositions, and the subject imports as a whole. China 
improperly concluded that the subject imports as a whole had a significant effect on the 
prices of the like domestic products as a whole, but reached this conclusion erroneousl y, 
as China failed to appropriately consider the  differences among the three distinct 
products included in the subject imports and the like domestic products. China also 
failed to appropriately consider , inter alia , the different series of steel grades. 
Furthermore, China failed to properly analyze the price trends of the subject imports 
and the like domestic products ; and  
(b) China failed to provide any reasonable explanation and analysis of how and to what 
extent the prices of th e like domestic products were affected, given the situation that 
the prices of subject imports were generally significantly higher than those of the like 
domestic products.  
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's cumulative a ssessment 
of the effects of subject imports from the European Union, Japan, Indonesia, and Korea was 
inappropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the 
conditions of competition between the imported products and t he like domestic products, due 
to, inter alia , the following reasons :  
(a) The product mixes were different, both in terms of the proportion of three different 
products (i.e. stainless steel slabs, hot -rolled coils, and hot -rolled plates ) and the 
proportio n of different series of steel grades based on their chemical compositions, (i) 
between the subject imports from different countries and (ii) between the subject 
imports and the like domestic products; and  
(b) The price levels were different between the su bject imports from different countries and 
between the subject imports and the like domestic products.  
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's analysis of the impact 
of the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry:  
(a) failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the impact 
of subject imports on the domestic industry based on the volume of such imports and 
their effect on prices;  
(b) failed to conduct an objective examination, based on p ositive evidence, of all relevant 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry; 
and  
(c) failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the determination of material 
injury to the domestic industry by failin g to objectively determine the relative 
 
6 Japan also notes that the above public announcements (e.g. MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019) 
refers to the HS codes for the subject import products, "72189100, 7218990 0, 72191100, 72191200, 
72191312, 72191319, 72191322, 72191329, 72191412, 72191419, 72191422, 72191429, 72192100, 
72192200, 72192300, 72192410, 72192420, 72192430, 72201100 and 72201200", which includes 72189100 
(covering stainless steel slabs) as well as 7 2189900 (covering stainless steel billets).  WT/DS601/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  importance and weight to be attached to relevant economic factors and indices, and 
improperly disregarding the majority of those factors and indices indicating that the 
domestic industry did not suffer material injur y. 
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because:  
(a) China failed to demonstrate, based on positive evidence and an objective examination, 
that the subject imports were, through the effects of dumping, as set forth in Articles  3.2 
and 3.4, ca using injury to the domestic industry. In particular, China determined that 
the allegedly dumped imports were causing injury based on its flawed analysis of price 
effects under Article 3.2 and its flawed analysis of impact under Article 3.4;  
(b) China failed to demonstrate the required causal relationship between the subject 
imports and the injury to the domestic industry based on an objective examination of 
all relevant evidence before the authorities, including , inter alia , the fact that the 
allegedly dumped imports had limited market shares in the Chinese market; and  
(c) China failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of factors 
other than the subject imports which were at the same time injuring t he domestic 
industry, and therefore improperly attributed the injury caused by those other factors 
to the subject imports.  The other factors include , inter alia,  rise of raw material nickel 
prices, strict environmental protection, excessive stainless stee l production capacity and 
competition with other domestic producers.  
5. Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's use of cumulative 
assessment in its analyses of the effect of allegedly dumped imports on prices, the impact of  
the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry, and  the causal relationship between 
the allegedly dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry, respectively, was 
inconsistent with Article 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
6. Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement:  
(a) because China, in defining the domestic industry, relied on sales volume of slabs instead 
of production volume of slabs, and did not define the domestic industry as domestic 
producers whose output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total 
domestic production of those products; and  
(b) in conjunction with Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because China 
improperly defined the domestic industry and, as a result, failed to base its 
determination on positive evidence and conduct an objective examination of the facts 
with respect to the domestic industry producing the like products.  
7. Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because:  
(a) China treated the information provided by the applicant and the domestic industry as 
confidential information without good cause shown; and  
(b) China failed to require the applicant and the domestic industry either (i) to furnish non -
confidential summaries of confidential information which are in sufficie nt detail to permit 
a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in 
confidence; or (ii) to provide explanations as to why they were not able to furnish such 
summaries.   
8. Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to inform the interested 
parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to 
impose definitive anti -dumping measures, including, inter alia , the essential facts underlying: 
(a) the definition of the products  under investigation, (b) the definition of the domestic 
industry, and (c) the determinations of injury and causation.  
9. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide, in 
sufficient detail, the findings and conclus ions reached on all issues of fact and law considered WT/DS601/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  material by the investigating authorities, as well as all relevant information on the matters of 
fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures, including, inter 
alia, with respect to (a) the definition of the products under investigation, (b) the definition of 
the domestic industry, and (c) the determinations of injury and causation.  
China's measures imposing anti -dumping duties on stainless steel slabs, hot -rolled coils and  hot-
rolled plates from Japan are also inconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and 
Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the inconsistencies with the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement described above.  
China's measures also nullify or impai r the benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly under the 
cited agreements.  
Accordingly, Japan respectfully requests that, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII 
of the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, th e Dispute Settlement Body 
establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article  7.1 
of the DSU.  
*** 
Japan asks this request to be placed on the Agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body 
to be held  on 30 August 2021.  
 
__________