WT/DS605/1  
G/ADP/D139/1  
G/L/1393  
 
27 July 2021  
(21-5823) Page: 1/4 
  Original: Spanish  
 
  
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED  
STEEL  BARS  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY COSTA RICA  
The following communication, received on  23 July 2021, from the delegation of Costa Rica to the 
delegation of the Dominican Republic , 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 Dominican Republic  under  
Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes 
(DSU), Article 1 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade  1994 (Anti-Dumping  Agreement), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), with respect to measures imposing anti -dumping duties on 
imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcemen t originating in the 
Republic of Costa Rica . 
The anti-dumping investigation was initiated on 30 July 2018 in response to an application that had 
been submitted by a Dominican producer and that, in Costa Rica's opinion, did not meet the 
minimum requirements of the Anti-Dumping  Agreement . Following  an investigation containin g 
innumerable flaws, on 27 December 2019, the Regulatory Commission on Unfair Trade Practice s and 
Safeguard Measures of the Dominican Republic ( CDC) issued a final determination providing for the 
application of definitive anti-dumping measures notwithstanding  the absence of dumping and injury . 
Costa Rica considers this determination and the appli cation of definitive duties to be inconsistent 
with the Dominican Republic's obligations under the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994 . 
I. Measures at issue  
The measures that Costa Rica  would like to address in the consultations ("measures at issue") are 
the anti -dumping measures  imposed on imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for 
concrete reinforcement originating in the Republic of Costa Rica . The measures at issue inc lude and 
are reflected in, inter alia , the following documents : 
- Resolution No . CDC -RD-AD-001-2020 of 17 March  2020 ruling on the appeal for 
reconsideration filed by  Arcelor Mittal Costa Rica, S.A. against Resolution No.  CDC-RD-AD-
007-2019 of 27 December  2019;  
- Resolution No . CDC -RD-AD-007-2019 of 27 December  2019 providing for the application of 
definitive anti -dumping duties on imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for 
concrete reinforcement originating i n the Republic of Costa Rica ; 
- Final Technical Report of 20 December 2019;  
- Essential Facts Report  of 31 October  2019;  
- Resolution  No. CDC -AD-001-2018 of 30 July 2018 providing for the initiation of the 
investigation into the alleged existence of dumping practices in respect of exports of WT/DS605/1 • G/ADP/D139/1 • G/L/1393  
 
- 2 - 
 
  corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in the 
Republic of Costa Rica ; 
- Initial Technical Report  of 20 July 2018; and 
- any other resolution, instru ment, report or determination issued in the anti -dumping 
investigation or in relation thereto . 
This request for consultations covers, in addition to the above -mentioned measures, any other 
measure that prolongs, replaces, amends, implements, extends or app lies, or otherwise maintains, 
the measures  described above . 
 
II. Legal basis for the complaints  
The measures described in Section I of this request for consultations appear to be inconsistent with 
the following obligations assumed by the Dominican Republic under the WTO covered agreements : 
1. Articles  2.1 and 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , amongst other reasons  because  the 
investigating authority, in its dumping  determination, failed to  rely on the correct export 
prices  and included transactions made outside the period of investigation  in the dumping 
margin calculation . 
2. Article  2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , amongst other reasons  because the 
investigating authority, in its dumping determination , excluded transactions  made in the 
ordinary course of trade for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting 
country.  
3. Article  2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  because , amongst other things,  the 
investigating authority excluded  sales of the like product in the domestic market of the 
exporting country allegedly made below cost , without first having properly determined that 
those  sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and at 
prices which did not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time . 
4. Article  2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , amongst other reasons  because  the 
investigating authority excluded sales of the like product in the domestic market of the 
exporting country without having properly considered whether prices were below per unit 
costs at the time of sale . 
5. Articles  2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because 
the investigating authority  improperly considered financing expenses in the analysis of 
below -cost sales . 
6. Article  2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because the 
investigating authority failed to make a fair comparison between the export price and the 
normal value , including failing to make a comparison in respect of sales made at as nearly 
as possibl e the same time . 
7. Articles  3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  because,  amongst other things, the 
investigating authority's analysis of the volume of the dumped imports and the effect s of the 
imports under investigation on prices in the domestic marke t for like products  was not based 
on an objective examination on the basis of  positive evidence or an examination of all 
relevant evidence before the authorities . 
8. Articles  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the 
investigating authority  failed to properly evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices 
that had  a bearing on the state of the domestic industry and to conduct an objective 
examination, on the basis of positive evidence, of the impact of the dumped i mports on the 
domestic industry . 
9. Articles  3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the 
investigating authority failed to properly determine a genuine and substantial relationship of WT/DS605/1 • G/ADP/D139/1 • G/L/1393  
 
- 3 - 
 
  cause and effect between the allegedly dumped imports and the threat of injury to the 
domestic industry and, in addition, failed to ensure that injury caused by other factors was 
not attributed t o the allegedly dumped imports. Most notably, but not exclusively, the 
investigating authority failed to adequately examine the volume and prices of imports not 
sold at dumping prices , developments in technology , and the export performance of the 
domestic industry . 
10. Article  3.7 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the investigating 
authority based the  determination of a threat of material injury not on facts but merely on 
allegation, conjecture or remote possibility , and failed to properly determine that t he change 
in circumstances which would create a situation in which the alleged dumping would cause 
injury was clearly foreseen and imminent . In addition, the investigating authority  failed to 
properly consider : 
- whether there was  a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into the domestic 
market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation ; 
- whether there was  sufficient freely disposable  capacity indicating the likelihood of 
an imminent, substantial increas e in dumped exports to the Dominican Republic , 
taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional 
exports ; 
- whether imports were entering at prices that w ould have a significant depressing 
or  suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for 
further imports;   and 
- whether the totality of the factors considered led to the conclusion that further 
dumped exports were imminent and that, un less protective action was taken, 
material injury would occur . 
11. Article  5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  because the investigating authority  failed to 
properly examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to 
determine wheth er there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation .  
12. Article  5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to 
reject the domestic industry's application and did not terminate the investigation promptly 
as soon as it was  satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of 
injury to justify proceeding with the case . 
13. Article  6.1.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to  
provide the full text of the written application for the initiation of  the investigation  to the 
known exporters as soon as the investigation was initiated . 
14. Articles  3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.9 and 12.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, 
among st other reasons because the investigating authority examined the existence of a 
threat of injury despite the fact that the domestic industry's application alleg ed the existence 
of material injury .  
15. Article  6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the inv estigating authority failed to 
provide timely opportunities for all interested parties to see all information relevant to the 
presentation of their cases  and to prepare presentations on the basis of th at information . 
The relevant information that the investigating authority failed to provide timely 
opportunities to see includes, inter alia , the domestic industry's application for the initiation 
of an investigation  and the results of the verification visit to the domest ic industry .  
16. Articles  6.4, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because 
the investigating authority afforded, without good cause shown, confidential treatment to 
information provided by the domestic industry. Furthermore, the  non-confidential 
summaries furnished  to the  interested parties are not in sufficient detail to permit a 
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted  in confidence . WT/DS605/1 • G/ADP/D139/1 • G/L/1393  
 
- 4 - 
 
  17. Article  6.7 and Annex I of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because 
the investigating authority failed , prior to the visit , to advise the firms concerned of the 
general nature of the information to be verified and of any further information which need ed 
to be provided . 
18. Article  VI:2 of the  GATT 1994 and A rticle 9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, 
amongst other things , the Dominican Republic has imposed anti -dumping duties where all 
requirements for their imposition have not been fulfilled; has not imposed anti -dumping 
duties in appro priate amounts; and has imposed anti -dumping duties in excess of the margin 
of dumping that should have been established under Article 2 .  
19. Article  VI of the  GATT 1994 and Article  1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , as a consequence 
of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above .  
Furthermore, the measures described in Section I of this request appear to nullify or impair the 
benefits accruing to Costa Rica, directly or indirectly, under the Anti-Dumping  Agreement and the 
GATT 1994.   
Costa Ri ca reserves its right to raise other matters, whether factual or legal, during the course of 
the consultations.  This request also covers any other amendments, replacements, extensions, 
related measures or implementing measures that relate to the inconsistent measures at issue here . 
Costa Rica looks forward to receiving the Dominican Republic 's reply to this request and to setting 
a mutually convenient date for consultations, with a view to resolving this dispute . 
 
__________