WT/DS414/16  
 
14 February 2014  
(14-0975)  Page: 1/2  
  Original: English  
 
 CHINA – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON 
GRAIN ORIENTED FLAT-ROLLED ELECTRICAL STEEL 
FROM THE UNITED STATES 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF TH E DSU BY THE UNITED STATES 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel 
The following communication, dated 13 February 2014 , from the delegation of the United States to 
the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
On 16 November 2012, the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted its recommendations and rulings in the dispute China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-
rolled Electrical Steel from the Unit ed States ("China – GOES") (DS414).
1 The DSB found that the 
Government of the People's Republic of China ("China") imposed antidumping and countervailing 
duties on US exports of grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel ("GOES") in a manner that 
breached China's obligations under the Agreement on  Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Ag reement") and the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement"). The DSB recommended that China bring its 
measures into conformity with its obligations under these Agreements. 
 
On 30 November 2012, China announced its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute and stated that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do 
so.
2  On 3 May 2013, the arbitrator appointed under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU issued an Award 
providing China eight months and 15 days to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings, expiring on 31 July 2013.
3   
 
On 31 July 2013, China issued a re-determination in relation to the duties at issue in this dispute, as set forth in China's Ministry  of Commerce (MOFCOM) Public Notice [2013] No. 51, including its 
annexes. This re-determination continues the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties 
on imports of GOES from the United States.  
 
On 21 August 2013, the United States and China informed the DSB that the two parties had 
concluded Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding 
("Agreed Procedures") .
4  Paragraph 1 of the Agreed Procedures provides that, "[s]hould the 
United States consider that the situation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU exists, the United 
States will request that China enter into consultations with the United States."5   
 On 13 January 2014, the United States requested consultations with China pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Agreed Procedures.
6  The consultations took place on 24 January 2014, but did 
not resolve US concerns.  
                                               
1 WT/DSB/M/324. 
2 WT/DSB/M/326. 
3 WT/DS414/12. 
4 WT/DS414/14. 
5 Original footnote 1 following this  sentence reads: "The Parties ag ree that under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU, consultations are not obligatory." 
6 WT/DS414/15. WT/DS414/16 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
The United States considers that China has failed to bring its measures into conformity with the covered agreements. Specifically, the United States considers that China's measures continuing to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on GOES from the United States, as set forth in 
MOFCOM Public Notice [2013] No. 51, including its annexes, and in MOFCOM Public Notice No. 21 
[2010], including its annexes, are not consistent with the following provisions of the covered agreements: 
 
1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agr eement and Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the 
SCM Agreement, because China failed to establish that the effect of the dumped and subsidized imports was to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, 
which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree, on the basis of an objective 
examination of the record and positive evidence.   
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 15.1 and 15.4 of the 
SCM Agreement, because China's findings that the dumped and subsidized imports negatively impacted the domestic industry were not based on an objective examination of 
the record and positive evidence, including an evaluation of all relevant economic factors 
and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry.  
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 15.1 and 15.5 of the 
SCM Agreement, because:  (a) China's analysis of the alleged causal relationship between 
subject imports and injury to the domestic industry was not based on an objective examination of the record and positive evidence, including an examination of all relevant 
evidence before the authorities, or an examination of any known factors other than 
dumped and subsidized imports which at the same time were injuring the domestic industry; and (b) China failed to meet the requirement that injuries caused by other 
factors must not be attributed to the dumped and subsidized imports. 
 
4. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Arti cle 12.8 of the SCM Agreement, because China 
failed to disclose the "essential facts" under consideration which form the basis for its 
re-determination. 
 5. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 22.3 and 22.5 of the 
SCM Agreement, because China failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and 
conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered material, and the reasons for the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or claims. 
 
6. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a consequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement 
described above. 
 
7. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a conseq uence of the breaches of the SCM Agreement 
described above. 
 
8. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a conseq uence of the breaches of the AD and 
SCM Agreements described above. 
 
As "there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of 
measures taken to comply with the recommendatio ns and rulings" between the United States and 
China within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), the United States seeks recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU, 
including wherever possible resort to the original panel.    
 The United States notes that China, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Agreed Procedures, has agreed 
to accept the establishment of the panel at the first DSB meeting at which a request for the 
establishment of an Article 21.5 panel appears on the agenda. 
__________