WT/DS414/15  
 
16 January 2014  
(14-0228)  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 Consultations 
The following communication, dated 13 January 2014, 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 co nsultations 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 grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel  ("GOES") from the 
United States, as set forth in Public Notice [2013] No. 51, including its annexes, issued by China's 
Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") and in MOFCOM Public Notice No. 21 [2010], including its 
annexes. Paragraph 1 of the Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding
1 reached between the United States and China reflects 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 measure taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") in this dispute is not 
consistent with the covered agreements and therefore requests that China enter into 
consultations.
3  
 
On 16 November 2012, the DSB adopted its recommendations and rulings in the dispute China – 
Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States  ("China – GOES ") (DS414). The DSB found that China imposed antidumping and 
countervailing duties on U.S. exports of GOES 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 3 May 2013, the arbitrator appo inted to determine China's reasonable period of time to comply 
issued an Award providing China eight months and 15 days to implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, expiring  on 31 July 2013. On 31 July 2013, China issued a 
re-determination in relation to the duties at issue in this dispute, as set forth in MOFCOM's Public 
                                               
1 WT/DS414/14. 
2 Original footnote 1 following this  sentence reads: "The Parties ag ree 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 Understanding on 
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes , 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 incorp orates 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 in voked in relation to this matter. See WT/DS414/1. WT/DS414/15 
 
- 2 - 
 
  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.  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 GOES from the United States are imposed inconsistently with the following provisions of the AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, and 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 China'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, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agr eement, and Articles 15.1, 15.4, 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 evaluation  of all relevant 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, an examination 
of all relevant evidence before the authorities, or an examination of any known factors other than allegedly 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 allegedly dumped and subsidized imports. 
 3. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Arti cle 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because China 
failed to disclose the "essential facts" underlying its re-determination. 
 4. 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. 
 
5. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a conseq uence of the breaches of the AD Agreement 
described above. 
 
6. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a conseq uence of the breaches of the SCM Agreement 
described above. 
 
7. 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." 
 
__________