WT/DS483/1  
G/L/1074  
G/ADP/D106/1  
 
20 October 2014  
(14-6015)  Page: 1/2  
  Original: English  
 
 CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP 
FROM CANADA 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CANADA 
The following communication, dated 15 October 2014,  from the delegation of Canada to the 
delegation of China and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
  
My authorities have instructed me to request co nsultations 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 respect to China’s measures imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of cellulose pulp from Canada, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of China ("MOFCOM") Notice 
No. 75 of 2013 (6 November 2013), including its annex (the "Preliminary Determination") and 
Notice No. 18 of 2014 (4 April 2014), including its annex (the "Final Determination").  
These measures appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under the following provisions 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994: 
 
1. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping  Agreement because China failed to calculate 
costs on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer which reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and sale of the pr oduct under consideration, and failed to adjust 
costs appropriately for circumstances in which those costs were affected by start-up operations 
during the period of investigation. 
 
2. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to determine 
amounts for administrative, selling and general costs on the basis of actual data pertaining to 
production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation. 
 
3. Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to make a fair comparison between the export price and normal  value by, for instance, improperly deducting 
certain expenses from the export price and by not excluding certain sales when calculating the 
export price. 
 
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's determination of injury 
was not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of 
the dumped imports and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic market for like products. China failed to properly consider whether there had been a significant increase in 
dumped imports. China also failed to properly co nsider whether there had been a significant price 
undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of a domestic like product, or whether the effect of such imports was otherwis e to depress prices to a significant degree or 
prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.   
 WT/DS483/1 • G/L/1074 • G/ADP/D106/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  5. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's determination of injury 
was not based on positive evidence, did not invo lve an objective examination of the impact of 
dumped imports on domestic producers of like products and failed to properly evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. 
 
6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to demonstrate, 
through an objective examination based on positive  evidence, the causal relationship between the 
dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry.  China also failed to conduct an objective 
examination, based on positive evidence, of known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same time were injuring the domestic industry and improperly attributed the injuries caused by those factors to the dumped imports. 
 
7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China made a determination of injury having improperly defined the domestic in dustry 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 product. 
 
8. Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to grant interested parties a 
full opportunity to defend their interests. 
 
9. Articles 6.1 and 6.8 and paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because 
China, in determining the margins of dumping, fa iled to give Canadian exporters or producers 
ample opportunity to present in writing all eviden ce they considered relevant in respect of the 
investigation and to take into account all the information which was verifiable, appropriately 
submitted, and supplied in a timely fashion. 
 
10. Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China 
improperly relied on facts available to determine the margins of dumping for Canadian exporters of 
cellulose pulp for which individual margins of dumping were not established. 
 
11. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement be cause China failed to inform all interested 
parties of the essential facts under consideration forming the basis for the decision to impose 
definitive anti-dumping measures regarding Canadian exporters of cellulose pulp for which individual margins of dumping were not established. 
 
12. Articles 6.10, 6.10.2 and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not determine individual margins of dumping for exporters or producers not initially selected that 
voluntarily submitted the necessary information in time for that information to be considered by 
China during the course of the investigation. 
 
13. Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement because China improperly rejected price 
undertakings offered by exporters after th e preliminary affirmative determination. 
 
14. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping  Agreement because China failed to provide 
public notice of all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to 
the imposition of final measures. 
 
15. Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement an d Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence 
of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.  China's measures, therefore, appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to Canada directly or 
indirectly under the cited agreements. 
 Canada reserves the right to address additional measures and claims in the course of 
consultations. 
  
Canada looks forward to receiving China’s reply to this request and to determining a mutually 
convenient date for consultations. 
  
__________