WT/DS454/4  
 
12 April 2013  
(13-1976)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON  
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")  
FROM JAPAN 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHM ENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN 
 The following communication, dated 11 April 2013, from the delegation of Japan to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with the Government of the People’s 
Republic of China (“China”) pursua nt 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”), and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement 
on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (“Anti-
Dumping Agreement”) with regard to China’s measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-
performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from Japan.1  These measures are set 
forth in Ministry of Commerce of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] (the “Preliminary Determination notice”) and Notice No. 72 [2012] (the “Final Determination notice”), including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof. 
 
Japan held consultations with China on 31 January and 1 February 2013.  Unfortunately 
these consultations did not resolve the dispute. 
 
Japan considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with, at least, China’s 
obligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: 
 
1. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 because China’s injury determination was not based on 
positive evidence and did not involve an ob jective examination of the volume of the 
dumped imports under investigation, the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic 
market for like products, and the consequent impact of those imports on domestic 
producers of such products.  Specifically:  
(a) In its price effects analysis, China failed to conduct proper analyses with respect to 
the three different grades of HP-SSST products under investigation and the HP-SSST products as a whole, and China impr operly concluded that the imports under 
investigation had an overall significant effect on the prices of like domestic 
products.  Accordingly, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
(b) China’s analysis of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry: 
(i) failed to make an objective examinat ion, 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; (ii) failed to evaluate the magnitude of the 
margin of dumping; and (iii) failed to objectively determine the relative importance and weight to be attached to relevant economic factors and indices, and 
improperly disregarded the majority of those factors and indices indicating that the 
                                               
1 WT/DS454/1, circulated 7 January 2013. WT/DS454/4 
 
- 2 - 
 
  domestic industry did not suffer material injury.  Accordingly, China acted 
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
(c) China’s demonstration of the alleged causal relationship between the imports 
under investigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry was not based 
on an objective examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities.  In particular, China determined that the allegedly dumped imports are causing injury 
despite an absence of a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, and 
based on its flawed price effects and impact analyses.  Accordingly, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
(d) China failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of 
factors other than the imports under investigation which are at the same time injuring the domestic industry, and therefore improperly attributed the injury 
caused by those factors to the imports under investigation.  Accordingly, China 
acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
2. Article 6.5 because China treated information supplied by the applicants as confidential 
without good cause shown. 
 3. Article 6.5.1 because China failed to require the applicants to furnish non-confidential 
summaries of information that was treated as confidential or explanations as to why 
furnishing such summaries was not possible.  Furthermore, where such summaries were provided, they were not in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the 
substance of the information submitted in confidence. 
 
4. Article 6.8 and Paragraph 1 of Annex II because China improperly relied on facts available 
to calculate the dumping margin for all Japanese companies other than Sumitomo Metal 
Industries, Ltd. (“SMI”) and Kobe Special Tube Co., Ltd. (“Kobe”). 
 5. Article 6.9 because China failed to disclose adequately to all interested parties the 
essential facts underlying: 
 
(a) the determination of the existence of dumping and the calculation of dumping 
margins for SMI and Kobe, including relevant data; 
 (b) the determination and the calculation of the dumping margins for all Japanese 
companies other than SMI and Kobe; and 
 (c) China’s determinations of injury and causation, including the import prices and 
domestic prices used therein. 
 
6. Article 7.4 because China applied provisional measures on the imports under investigation 
for a period exceeding four months. 
 
7. Article 12.2 because China’s Final Determination notice fails to set forth, or China does not 
otherwise make available through a separate report, in sufficient detail China’s findings 
and conclusions reached on all material issues of fact and law with respect to:  
 (a) the determination and the calculation of the dumping margins for all Japanese 
companies other than SMI and Kobe; and 
 
(b) China’s determinations of injury and causation, including the import prices and 
domestic prices used therein. 
 
8. Article 12.2.2 because China’s Final Determination notice does not contain, or China does 
not otherwise make available through a separate report, all relevant information on the 
matters of fact and law and reasons with respect to: 
 
(a) the determination and the calculation of the dumping margins for all Japanese 
companies other than SMI and Kobe; and 
 WT/DS454/4 
 
- 3 - 
 
  (b) China’s determinations of injury and causation, including the import prices and 
domestic prices used therein.  
 
As a consequence of the apparent breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described 
above, China’s anti-dumping measures on HP-SSST from Japan are also inconsistent with Article 1 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
China’s measures, therefore, nullify and impair benefits accruing to Japan under the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.  
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, the 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 that this request be placed on the Agenda for the meeting of the Dispute 
Settlement Body to be held on 24 April 2013. 
 
 
__________