WT/DS397/17  
 
1 November 2013  
(13-6011)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINI TIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CHINA 
Request for Consultations 
The following communication, dated 30 October 2013, from the delegation of China to the 
delegation of the European Union and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is 
circulated in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 My authorities have instructed me to reques t consultations with the European Union ("EU") 
pursuant to Articles 21.5 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement") and paragraph 1 of the Agreed 
Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding  between China and 
the EU1 with respect to the issues identified below. 
 1  BACKGROUND TO THIS REQUEST 
1. On 28 July 2011, the Dispute Settlement Body  ("DSB") adopted the Appellate Body report 
and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, in European Communities – 
Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China  (WT/DS397) 
(EC – Fasteners ).
2 
 2. These reports concluded that Article 9(5)  of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 
30 November 2009 (the "Basic AD Regulation") was inconsistent "as such" with Article 6.10, 
Article 9.2 and Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Agreement establishing 
the World Trade Organization ("WTO Agreement") and that Council Regulation (EC) No. 91/2009 of 
26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel 
fasteners originating in China was inconsistent with several requirements of the AD Agreement. In 
accordance with these reports, the DSB recommended that the EU bring its measures found to be inconsistent with the AD Agreement and the WTO Agreement into conformity with its obligations 
under those Agreements. 
 3. On 18 August 2011, the EU informed the DSB that it intended to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respects its WTO obligations within a 
reasonable period of time.
3 The EU reconfirmed this intention at the DSB meeting of 
2 September 2011.4 
 
4. By communication of 19 January 2012, China and the EU informed the DSB that they had 
reached an agreement, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, as to the reasonable period of time 
                                               
1 WT/DS397/16. 
2 WT/DSB/M/301. 
3 WT/DS397/12. 
4 WT/DSB/M/302. WT/DS397/17 
 
- 2 - 
 
  for the implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings in that case.5 Pursuant to the 
agreement, the reasonable period of time was 14 months and two weeks as from the date of adoption of the DSB recommendations and rulings. The reasonable period of time thus ended on 
12 October 2012. 
 
5. On 25 October 2012, China and the EU info rmed the DSB that they concluded "Agreed 
Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding."
6 
 
2  IMPLEMENTATION ACTION DECLARED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
6. On 11 October 2012, the EU stated7 that it had adopted measures necessary to comply with 
the recommendations of the DSB and, in particular, identified the following measures. 
 
7. Regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to Article 9(5) "as such" of 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 of 30 Nove mber 2009 on protection against dumped 
imports from countries not members of the European Community ("the Basic AD Regulation"), the 
EU indicated that it had adopted Regulation (EU)  No. 765/2012 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 13 June 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the EC.8 Regulation (EU) No. 765/2012 
modified Article 9(5) of the Basic AD Regulation which had been found by the Appellate Body to be 
inconsistent with Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
 
8. As to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to Council Regulation (EC) No. 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a de finitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China, a review was initiated by the publication of a 
Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 March 2012.
9 The review led 
to the adoption of Council Implementing Re gulation (EU) No. 924/2012 of 4 October 201210 
amending Regulation (EC) No. 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China, which had been found by the Panel and the Appellate Body to be inconsiste nt with Articles 6.10, 9.2, 6.4, 6.2, 2.4, 4.1, 
3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement. 
 
3  MEASURES AT ISSUE AND CLAIMS RAISED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS 
9. China considers that the measures taken by the EU have failed to bring the EU into 
compliance with its obligations under the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994. In particular, 
China considers that the measure taken by the EU to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in relation to the anti-dumping duties  on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners 
originating in China through Council Regulation (EU) No. 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 does not 
fully and correctly implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and that it is not consistent with various provisions of the AD  Agreement and of the GATT 1994 including: 
 
(1) Articles 6.4 and 6.2 of the AD Agreemen t because the EU failed to provide to the 
interested parties a full opportunity for the defence of their interests and because the EU did not provide timely opportunities for interested parties to see all information 
that was not confidential as defined in Article 6.5, that was relevant to defend their 
interests and that was used by the authority in the anti-dumping investigation with regard to, inter alia , the products sold by the Indian producer; 
                                               
5 WT/DS397/14. 
6 WT/DS397/16. 
7 WT/DS397/15/Add.3. 
8 Regulation (EU) No. 765/2012 of the European Union and of the Council of 13 June 2012 amending 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the EC, OJEU L 237, 3.9.2012, p. 1. 
9 Notice regarding the anti-dumping  measures in force on imports of  certain iron or steel fasteners 
originating in the People's Republic of China, following the recommendations and rulings adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization on 28 July 2011 in the EC – Fasteners 
dispute (DS397), OJEU C 66, 6.3.2012, p. 29. 
10 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 924/2012 of 4 October 2012 amending Regulation 
(EC) No. 91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China, OJEU L 275, 10.10.2012, p. 1. WT/DS397/17 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
(2) Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement because the EU treated as "confidential" information 
concerning the products sold by the Indian producer in the absence of good cause shown and Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreemen t to the extent that the EU failed to 
require the Indian analogue producer to provide non-confidential summaries of the 
information provided on an allegedly confidential basis in sufficient detail to enable a reasonable understanding of the substance of such information; 
 
(3) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement because the EU failed to indicate to the parties in 
question what information was necessary to ensure a fair comparison, in particular since the EU failed to provide information on the products sold by the Indian producer 
which was used for the normal value determin ation and since the EU failed to indicate 
to the parties what information was necessary to substantiate their requests for adjustments; 
 
(4) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement because the EU failed to ensure that the export price 
of standard fasteners manufactured by the Chinese exporting producers was not 
compared to the normal value of special fasteners; 
 
(5) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 because the 
EU failed to make allowances for differences affecting price comparability; 
 
(6) Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:1 and Article VI:2 
of the GATT 1994 because the EU failed to calculate a dumping margin on the basis of 
all comparable export transactions and in imposing anti-dumping duties on this basis; 
and 
 
(7) Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the AD Agreemen t because the EU re-defined the domestic 
industry by merely using the data of the EU producers which had come forward within the deadline laid down in paragraph 6(b)(i) of the Notice of Initiation of the original investigation and thereby failed to remedy the self-selection process imposed by its 
approach. 
 
This request is made without prejudice to Chin a's rights under the WTO. China reserves all 
of its WTO rights with respect of all other aspects of the purported compliance by the EU with its 
obligations in this dispute. It also reserves the rights to raise further factual and legal claims in the course of the consultations. 
 
China looks forward to receiving the EU's reply to the present request and to fixing a 
mutually convenient date for consultations which shall, pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding between China and 
the EU
11, be within 15 days from the date of re ceipt of the present request by the EU. 
  
__________  
                                               
11 WT/DS397/16.