WT/DS460/4  
 
20 August 2013  
(13-4443)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON 
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") 
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
 The following communication, dated 16 Au gust 2013, from the delegation of the 
European Union to the Chairperson of the Disput e Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to 
Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China ("China") 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 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 
certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes ("HP-SSST") from the European Union.1  
These measures are set out 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. 
 
The European Union held consultations with China on 17 and 18 July 2013. These 
consultations did not resolve the dispute.  
The European Union considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with China's 
obligations under the following provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement: 
 
1. Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not 
determine the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits on the basis of records and actual data by the exporters or producers under investigation. In particular, the 
amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits as constructed by China do 
not reflect the records and the actual data of the exporters or producers under investigation.  2. Article 2.4 and Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not establish 
the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a fair comparison between the export price 
and the normal value. In particular, China did not establish the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a comparison of prices of comparable export transactions. 
 
3. 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 volume of 
the dumped imports under investigation and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic 
market for like products. In particular, in its price effects analyses, China failed to conduct proper analyses with respect to the three different type s of HP-SSST products under investigation and the 
HP-SSST products as a whole. China improperly concluded that the imports under investigation 
had an overall significant effect on the prices of like domestic products. 
 
                                               
1 WT/DS460/1. WT/DS460/4 
 
- 2 - 
 
  4. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's analysis of the impact 
of the dumped imports on the domestic industry: (i) failed to make an objective examination, 
based on positive evidence, of the impact of su bject imports on the domestic industry based on 
the volume of such imports and their effect on prices; (ii) failed to evaluate factors affecting 
domestic prices and the magnitude of the margin  of dumping; and (iii) failed to objectively 
determine the relative importance and weight to be attached to the relevant economic factors and indices, and improperly disregarded the majority of those factors and indices indicating that the 
domestic industry did not suffer injury. 
 5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence , of the causal relationship between the imports 
under investigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry. China determined that the 
allegedly dumped imports are causing injury despite an absence of a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, based on improper pr ice effects analyses and based on flawed impact 
analyses, including improper evaluation of or failure to consider relevant economic factors and 
indices having a bearing on the state of the do mestic industry. Furthermore, 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 injuries caused by thes e other factors to the imports under investigation. 
 6. Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to disclose to the interested 
parties all information that is relevant to the presentation of their cases and that is used by the 
authorities in an anti-dumping investigation, in particular used to establish the margins of dumping, including the calculation of the margin of dumping, and the effect of imports under 
investigation on prices of domestic market for like products. 
 7. Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China treated as confidential, without 
good cause shown, information supplied by the applicants. 
 8. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to require the applicants 
to furnish (i) non-confidential summaries of information that was treated as confidential which 
provided sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information 
submitted in confidence; or (ii) explanations as to why furnishing such summaries was not possible. 
 
9. Article 6.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and paragraph 7 of Annex I to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China refused to take into account information relevant for the determination 
of the margins of dumping provided during the on-the-spot investigation. 
 10. Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and paragraphs 3 and 6 of Annex II to the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to take into account all information pertaining to 
the determination of the margins of dumping which was verifiable, which was appropriately 
submitted so that it could have been used in the investigation without undue difficulties and which was supplied in a timely fashion.  
 
11. Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and paragraph 1 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China improperly relied on facts available to determine the margin of dumping 
for all European Union companies other than those for which individual margins of dumping were 
determined.  12. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to inform the interested 
parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision to impose 
definitive anti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying the determinations of 
the existence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of dumping, including relevant data, 
and the determinations of injury and causation, including the import prices and domestic prices 
used therein.   
13. Article 7.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China applied provisional measures on 
the imports under investigation for a period exceeding four months.  14. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide in 
sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered WT/DS460/4 
 
- 3 - 
 
  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.   15. China's anti-dumping measures on HP-SSST from the European Union also appear to be 
inconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a 
consequence of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.  
China's measures, therefore, nullify and impair benefits accruing to the European Union 
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.  
Accordingly, the European Union respectfully requests that, pursuant to Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU 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. 
 
The European Union asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the 
Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 30 August 2013. 
 
__________