WT/DS427/10  
 
12 May 2016  
(16-2645)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES 
ON BROILER PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF TH E DSU BY THE UNITED STATES 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS 
The following communication, dated 10 May 2016, from the delegation of the United States to the 
delegation of China 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 request consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China ("China") with respect to China's measures continuing to impose 
antidumping and countervailing duties on broiler products from the United States, as set forth by 
China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) in:  Announcement No. 44 [2014]; Announcement No. 56 [2013]; Announcement No. 52 [2010]; Announcement No. 51 [2010]; Announcement 
No. 26 [2010]; Announcement No. 8 [2010]; and the annexes to the foregoing documents. 
Paragraph 1 of the Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding
1 reached between the United States and China states 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."2  As set out below, the United 
States considers that China's measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") in the dispute China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty 
Measures on Broiler Products from the United States  ("China – Broiler Products ") (DS427) are not 
consistent with the covered agreements and therefore requests that China enter into consultations.
3  
On 25 September 2013, the DSB adopted its recommendations and rulings in China – Broiler 
Products .  The DSB found that China imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. 
exports of broiler products in a manner that breached China's obligations under the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement and recommended that China bring its measures into conformity with its 
obligations under these agreements. 
On 19 December 2013, the United States and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that 
the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would 
be 9 months, 14 days, from the date of adoption of the panel report, expiring on 9 July 2014.  
China's redetermination in relation to the duties at issue in this dispute, as set forth in MOFCOM's 
                                               
1  Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU). 
2  WT/DS427/9, para. 1.  Footnote 1 following this sentence states: "The Parties agree that under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, consultations are not obligatory.” 
3  Notwithstanding the view of the parties that consultations are not required under Article 21.5 of 
the DSU, the United States takes note of the consultation provisions set out in Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994”), Article 30 of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement”) (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates 
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement”), which have been  invoked in relation to this 
matter.  See WT/DS427/1. WT/DS427/10  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Announcement No. 44 [2014], including its annexes, states that it came into force as of 
9 July 2014.  This re-determination continues th e imposition of antidumping and countervailing 
duties on imports of broiler products from the United States. 
The United States considers that China has failed to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  In particular, it appears that China's continuing antidumping and countervailing measures 
on broiler products from the United States are imposed inconsistently with the following provisions of the AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, and the GATT 1994: 
1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the 
SCM Agreement, because MOFCOM's analysis of  the alleged price effects of imports under 
investigation did not involve an objective examination of the record and was not based on 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 MOFCOM's findings that subject imports had an adverse impact on the domestic industry did not involve an objective 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 MOFCOM's determination that subject imports were causing 
injury to the domestic industry was not based on an examination of all relevant evidence, 
including that subject import volume did no t increase at the expense of the domestic 
industry and that a large portion of subject imports consisted of products that could not have been injurious, and was based on MOFCOM's flawed price and impact analyses.   
4. Articles 6.4 and 6.5 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 12.3 and 12.4 of the 
SCM Agreement, because during the reinvestigation MOFCOM did not provide interested parties timely opportunities to see all non-confidential information that was relevant to 
their case and that was used by the inve stigating authority, and MOFCOM treated 
information as confidential absent good cause.  
5. Article 6.1 of the AD Agreement and Arti cle 12.1 of the SCM Agreement because during 
the reinvestigation MOFCOM did not provide notice of the information that MOFCOM 
required and did not provide interested partie s ample opportunity to present in writing all 
evidence they considered relevant. 
6. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Arti cle 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because MOFCOM 
failed to inform interested Members and parties of the essential facts under consideration 
which form the basis for its decision to apply definitive measures. 
7. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 22.3 and 22.5 of the 
SCM Agreement, because MOFCOM failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and 
conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered material, all relevant information on matters of fact and law and the reasons which led to the imposition of final 
measures, and the reasons for the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or 
claims. 
8. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreemen t because MOFCOM  improperly calculated the 
cost of production for U.S. producers, failed to calculate costs on the basis of the records 
kept by the U.S. producers under investigation,  and did not consider all available evidence 
on the proper allocation of costs.   
9. Article 9.4 of the AD Agreement because MOFCOM applied to imports from producers and 
exporters not included in the examination an antidumping duty that exceeded the 
weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the selected exporters or producers.  WT/DS427/10 
 
- 3 - 
 
  10. Article 6.8 and Annex II (including, inter alia , paragraphs 3, 5, 6) of the AD Agreement 
because MOFCOM made its determination on the basis of the facts available, rejected verifiable and appropriately submitted facts by exporters or producers during the reinvestigation, and failed to explain why it rejected evidence or information submitted by 
these exporters or producers.   
 11. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a consequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement 
described above. 
12. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a conseq uence of the breaches of the SCM Agreement 
described above. 
13. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the AD and SCM 
Agreements described above. 
We look forward to receiving your reply to this re quest and to fixing a mutually convenient date for 
consultations, which, consistent with paragraph 1 of the Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 
22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding , the "[p]arties agree to hold … within 15 days from 
the date of receipt of the [consultations] request."  
 
__________