WT/DS538/2  
 
18 May 2018  
(18-3027) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
PAKISTAN – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED  
POLYPROPYLENE FILM F ROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIR ATES 
The following communication, dated 15 May 2018 , from the delegation of the United Arab Emirates  
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. On 24 January 2018, the Government of the United Arab Emirates ("UAE") requested 
consultations with the Government of Paki stan 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"), and Articles  17.2 and 17.3 of the 
Agreement on Imp lementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement"), with 
regard to Pakistan's anti -dumping measure s on imports of biaxially oriented polypropylene 
("BOPP") film from, among others, the UAE dated 9 April 2015, imposing definitive anti -dumping 
duties,1 as well as any amendments  thereto or extensions thereof, and any related measures,2 
including the sunset review determination published in the Official Gazette on 1  December 2016 by 
which the anti -dumping measure s were extended.3 
2. The imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties on BOPP film from the UAE, and the 
continuation of such duties following the sunset review determination appear to be inconsistent 
with Pakistan's obligations under certain provisions of the GATT 1994 and the An ti-Dumping 
Agreement.  
3. Consultations were held on 27 March 2018 with a view to reaching a mutually  satisfactory 
solution. However, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute.  
4. Therefore, the UAE respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU , Article XXIII of 
the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body 
                                                
1 Notice of Final Determination and Levy of Definitive Antidumping Duties on Import s of Bixially [sic] 
Oriented Poly Propylene Film into Pakistan Originating In and/or Exported from the People 's Republic of China, 
Sultanate of Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (9 April 2015 ), publication reference 
22/2012/NTC/BOPP /UAE, imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports from, among others, the UAE, with 
effect from the date of issuance of the notice till Au gust 14, 2015. As stated in the above referenced Notice of 
Final Determination, the investigation was initiated on 23 April 2012 . In th is decision of 9 April 2015, the 
National Tariff Commission has  "maintained " the previous final determination dated 4 February 2013 imposing 
definitive anti -dumping duties with effect from 14 August 2012.  
2 The Pakistan National Tariff Commission has published online the "Investigation Notices " which it 
considers to relate to the BOPP film investigation . See website of National Tariff Commission, 
https://ntc.gov.pk/antidumping -investigation -notices/ . In addition, it is noted that an earlier investigation by 
Pakistan on BOPP Film was aborted following a  challenge  in the Islamabad High Court . See, Notice of Initiation 
Anti-dumping Investigation against Alleged Dumping of BOPP Film Originating In and/or Exported from the 
People 's Republic of China, Sultanate of Oman,  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (27 
September 2010, publicati on reference 22/2010/NTC/BOPP).  
3 Notice of Conclusion of Sunset Review and Continuation of Anti -dumping Duties Imposed on Dumped 
Imports of Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene (BO PP) Film Imported from China, Oman, KSA and UAE (1 
December 2016; publication reference 16/2008/NTC/BOPP Film/SR/14); Report on the Conclusion of Sunset 
Review and Continuation of Anti -dumping Duties Imposed on Dumped Imports of Biaxially Oriented 
Polyprop ylene (BOPP) Film Imported from China, Oman, KSA and UAE (28 November 2016; publication 
reference 16/2008/NTC/BOPP FILM/SR/14).  WT/DS538/2  
 
- 2 - 
 
  establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in 
Article  7.1 of the DSU.  
5. Pursuant to Article 6.2 o f the DSU, the UAE proceeds below to provide a brief summary of 
the legal basis of the complaint. The measures at issue are the definitive anti-dumping duties 
imposed by Pakistan on BOPP film from the UAE and their continuation as per the legal 
instruments  referenced above.  
6. The UAE considers that the anti -dumping measure s on BOPP film appear to be inconsistent 
with at least the following provisions:  
 Articles 5.2, 5.3 , and 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because there was insufficient 
accurate and adequat e evidence to justify the initiation of the anti -dumping investigation 
and the application should therefore have been rejected. In particular, the investigation 
was initiated on 23 April 2012 based on an application that was dated 12 April 2010 and 
which w as based on outdated dumping and injury data which related to a period that 
ended in December 2009. The application therefore did not contain reasonably available 
relevant evidence on dumping, injury and causation. The Pakistan investigating authorities 
failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the information contained in the 
application for purposes of initiating the investigation on 23 April 2012. The application 
should have been rejected since it did not contain sufficient relevant evidence of eith er 
dumping or injury to ju stify proceeding with the case.  
 Articles 1, 2.1, 3.1, 9.1, 9.3 , and 11.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the 
determination of dumping and resulting injury was not based on relevant and "positive" 
evidence justifying the imp osition of the anti -dumping measure s at the time of their 
adoption, and because the measure s remained in force without positive evidence that it 
was necessary to counteract dumping that was causing injury. In particular, since the 
period of investigation f or dumping and injury ended in June 2010, the evidence on which 
the final determination was based was not informative of the situation at the time of the 
imposition of the duties. The absence of a real -time link between the imposition of the 
measure s and t he data on which the determination was made means that the measures 
were imposed without "positive " evidence of dumping, injury and the causal link and that 
there was therefore also no basis for maintaining the measure s. 
 Article 5.10 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigation was not concluded 
within 18 months after its initiation. In particular, the investigation was initiated on 23 
April 2012 but the investigation was only concluded with the final determina tion on 9 April 
2015, almost three years later. Alternatively, if the investigation should be considered to 
have been concluded with the first "final" determination dated 4 February 2013, the 
investigation was also not concluded within 18 months since the investigation was first 
initiated on 27 September 2010, and the investigation thus took more than 28 months to 
conclude.   
 Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating 
authorities unduly rejected cost information which was verifiable, appropriately submitted 
so that  it could be used without undue difficulties and supplied in a timely manner by the 
exporter acting to the best of its ability and because the authorities never gave the 
reasons or explained the basis of their  conclusion that such information could not be used 
in the investigation and failed to give the exporter an opportunity to provide further 
explanations in this respect. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities rejected 
the cost information pro vided by the UAE exporter that specifically related to the cost to 
make and sell BOPP film in the UAE and instead relied on general make and sell data  for 
worldwide sales .  
 Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the normal value was 
determined by relying on cost data that did not reasonably reflect the costs associated 
with the production and sale of the product under consideration and because the amounts 
for administrative, selling and general costs were not based on actual data pertaining to 
the production and sale of the like product. In particular, the Pakistan investigating 
authorities disregarded the specific cost data that were provided by the UAE exporter, 
despite the fact that the provided data were the actual data as refl ected in the records of WT/DS538/2  
 
- 3 - 
 
  the producer which were kept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting 
principles of the UAE and reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and 
sale of the product under consideration, based on the prod ucer's historically utilized 
allocation of costs.  
 Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the improper rejection and 
replacement of verifiable cost data resulted in the unwarranted finding that certain sales 
were not made in the ordi nary course of trade which, in turn, resulted in the erroneous 
construction of normal value based on inflated cost information. In particular, the finding 
that sales were made below cost and the construction of the normal value was based on 
inflated cost d ata that did not accurately reflect the costs associated with the production 
and sale of the product under consideration  in the UAE and instead relied on general make 
and sell data  for worldwide sales .  
 Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of  the failure to make due allowance 
for a difference in the level of trade which was required to ensure a fair comparison 
between the export price and the normal value. In particular, since domestic sales were 
made to end -users while export sales were made to distributors, the Pakistan investigating 
authorities failed to make the comparison between normal value and export price at the 
same level of trade and failed to indicate what information was necessary to ensure a fair 
comparison, should the evidence of  sales at different levels of trade not have sufficed.  
 Article s 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5  of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to make 
a determination of injury based on positive evidence and involving an objective 
examination. In particular, the determination of injury and causation was based on data 
that covered a period of in vestigation which ended in June 2010, and such outdated 
information therefore did not constitute "positive evidence " as it was not relevant or 
probative of the state of the domestic industry at the time of the imposition of the 
measures.   
 Article s 3.1 and  3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to properly 
consider whether there was a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, either 
in absolute terms or relative to domestic production or consumption. In particular, the 
Pakistan investigating authorities ' determination fails to objectively consider whether the 
alleged increase is "significant " and does not appear to have been based on an objective 
examination  of the trends given the significant decrease in the volume of allegedly dumped 
imports in cluding in  the most recent part of the period of investigation.  
 Article s 3.1 and  3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to properly 
consider whether there was significant price undercutting or whether the effect is 
otherw ise to depress or suppress prices, which otherwise would have occurred, to a 
significant degree. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities failed to objectively 
consider the explanatory force of the allegedly dumped imports for the price effect s which 
were simply in line with international market developments as well as costs and failed to 
undertake an objective examination of the price effects of the alleged dumped imports 
given , among others, the absence of price suppression during the period of investigation , 
the significant domestic price increase during the period of investigation including in the 
most recent part of the period of investigation and the absence of price undercutting for a 
significant part of the period of investigation.  
 Articles 3.1 and  3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to properly 
evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the 
domestic industry, including the margin of dumping, and conduct an objective examination 
of the con sequent impact of the imports on domestic producers. In particular, the Pakistan 
investigating authoritie s: 
o Failed to " evaluate " all relevant factors and instead simply summarized the results 
of the various factors concluding that any negative developments  during the period 
of investigation indicated that the domestic industry suffered material injury 
without undertaking  a qualitative and holistic assessment of these factors;  
o Failed to examine "all" relevant factors since , for example, the margin of dumping  
was not evaluated ; WT/DS538/2  
 
- 4 - 
 
  o Failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the explanatory force of 
the allegedly dumped imports in respect of the examined injury factors , in 
particular in the light of evidence on the record that revealed that other fact ors 
explained the developments of certain injury factors such as, for example, sales, 
profits and losses, productivity, salaries and return on investment ; and  
o Failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the determination of 
material injury giv en, among others, the many injury factors that trended 
positively, the strong market share of the domestic producer constituting the 
domestic industry , the complete capacity utilization of the domestic producer  and 
the lack of significant negative effects of other injury factors, in particular also 
during the most recent p art of the period of investigation.  
 Article s 3.1 and  3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of the failure to establish a 
genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect betwe en the alleged dumped 
imports and the injury to the domestic industry, including by failing to ensure that injury 
caused by other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. In particular, the 
Pakistan investigating authorities simply based the deter mination on a partial correlation in 
time thus failing to undertake an objective examination of the genuine and substantial 
nature of the alleged causal relationship  taking into account the entire period of 
investigation  and otherwise failed to separate an d distinguish the injury caused by other 
factors such as, among others, the global financial crisis that affected the industry in 2009  
as well as other factors that were on the record and explained a number of the injury 
factor developments.  
 Articles 6.2 a nd 6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of the failure to provide the 
respondent UAE exporter with the full opportunity to defen d its interests and the failure to 
provide timely opportunities to see all information that was relevant to the presentati on of 
its case and that is not properly considered to be confidential and to prepare presentations 
on the basis of this information, in particular with respect to the reasons for the rejection 
of the cost data , the failure to conduct an on -spot verificatio n and the refusal to make due 
allowan ce for the di fference in the level of trade.  
 Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating 
authorities: (a) treated as confidential the information provided by the domestic producer 
without good cause shown; (b) failed to require the applicants to furnish a non -confidential 
summary thereof; and (c) where such summaries were provided, they were not in 
sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the informati on 
submitted in confidence .  In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities failed to meet 
these obligations in respect of the information contained in the application as well as the 
injury related information in the questionnaire responses of the d omestic producer.   
 Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating authorities failed to 
inform the interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the 
basis for the decision to impose definitive anti -dumpin g measures, in particular with 
respect to the determination of dumping, including the rejection of the relevant cost data 
and the refusal to make due allowance for differences in the level of trade.  
 Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreeme nt, because the anti -dumping 
measure s were extended on the basis of a sunset review that was not grounded on a 
sufficient factual basis and maintaining the measure s therefore appears to be inconsistent 
with the obligation that the anti -dumping duty shall r emain in force only as long as and to 
the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury. In particular, it 
appears that:  
o Pakistan failed to base the initiation of its sunset review on sufficient evidence 
that the termination of the anti-dumping measure s would likely lead to a 
continuation or recurrence of dumping, in violation of procedural and 
evidentiary requirements of Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement since it based the decision on an application that failed to  provide 
forward looking information and was based on outdated information; and  WT/DS538/2  
 
- 5 - 
 
  o Pakistan's determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury misapplied the "likelihood" standard, lacked an adequate 
factual basis, and was b ased on an undue presumption in favor of maintaining 
the duties, in violation of Articles 2, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities :  
 Calculated a dumping margin by unduly disregarding actual dome stic sales 
and export prices and constructing normal value based on inflated cost of 
production as compared with a constructed landed costs;  
 Based their determination of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury on unsubstantiated assumptions rather than facts as 
they simply assumed that any positive developments during the period of 
review was a result of the duties and that the expiry of the duties would 
necessarily have a negative effect on the state of the industry and thus a 
likely recurrence of injury  without undertaking a forward -looking analysis ; 
 Failed to objectively determine the probability that material injury was 
likely to recur given the fact that the domestic producer constituting the 
domestic industry enjoys  a close to monopoly position in the market  and 
performed well during the period of review ; and 
 Failed to address the lack of explanatory force of the allegedly dumped 
imports with respect to a number of injury factors such as , for example,  
profitability, since these factors were clearly unrelated to the alleged 
dumped imports.  
 Article 11.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the provisions of Article 6 regarding 
evidence and procedure, including among others the requirements of Articles 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 
6.7 and 6.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, were not respected in the sunset review 
including, among others, with respect to the lack of disclosure of the application and 
related injury information such as on sales, sales prices, costs, inven tories, production, 
profits, etc. and because the sunset review was not carried out expeditiously and was not 
concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review since the sunset review 
investigation was initiated on 4 August 2015 while a notice of conclusion of the sunset 
review was published only on 1 December 2016, close to 16 months later and thus neither 
expeditiously nor within 12 months.    
 Articles 12.1, 12.2 , and 12.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Pakistan failed to 
provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and 
law the investigating authorities considered material, as well as all relevant information on 
the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of th e final 
measure s and the continuation of the duties as a result of the sunset review; and  
 Pakistan's anti -dumping measure s on the subject imports also appear to be inconsistent 
with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI :2 of the 
GATT 1994 as a consequence of the apparent breaches of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
described above.  
7. The UAE considers that the above -described measures also appear to nullify or impair the 
benefits accruing to the UAE directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.  
8. Therefore, the UAE respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of 
the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement that 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.  
9. The UAE further asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be placed on the 
agenda of the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 28 May 2018.  
__________