WT/DS553/1  
G/L/1248  
G/ADP/D125/1  
 
21 June 2018  
(18-3903) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
KOREA – SUNSET REVIEW OF ANT I-DUMPING DUTIES ON ST AINLESS STEEL BARS  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY JAPAN  
The following communication, dated 18 June 2018 , from the delegation of Japan  to the delegation 
of the Republic of Korea , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with 
Article  4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby request, on behalf of the Government of Japan 
("Japan "), consultations with the Government of the Republic of Korea ( "Korea ") purs uant to 
Articles 1 and 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 "), and 
Articles 17.2 and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementat ion of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ( "AD Agreement "). 
 
These consultations are with respect to Korea 's determination to continue the imposition of anti -
dumping duties on stainless steel bar ( "SSB") from Japan as a conclusio n in the third sunset 
review as set forth in the Korea Trade Commission 's ("KTC") "Resolution of Final Determination on 
the Sunset Review of Anti -Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Bars from Japan, India and Spain " 
("Resolution of Final Determination ") and in the Office of Trade Investigation 's "Final Report on the 
Sunset Review of Anti -Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Bars from Japan, India and Spain " 
("Final Report ") with respect to Investigation Trade Remedy 23 -2016-3, both dated 20 March 
2017, including  any and all annexes and amendments thereto.1   
 
These measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with Korea 's obligations under the following 
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement, in particular, but not limited to:  
 
1.  Article 11.3 of the AD  Agreement, because Korea failed to properly determine, as the basis 
to continue the imposition of antidumping duties on the imports from Japan, that the expiry 
of the duties would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury. Specifically, 
Korea failed to demonstrate the nexus between the expiry of the duties and a continuation 
or recurrence of injury and to comply with the fundamental requirement that such 
determination shall rest on a sufficient factual basis and reasoned and adequate conclu sions 
concerning the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, due to, inter alia , following 
reasons:  
 
(a)  Korea 's determination that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of injury was based on its cumulative assessment of the 
effects of the imports from Japan, India and Spain. However, such cumulative 
assessment was not base d on positive evidence and an objective examination. For 
example, Korea cumulatively assessed the effect of the imports from Japan, India and 
Spain without properly examining, in a manner which would establish that there is a  
basis to continue the impositi on of the duties on the imports from Japan, whether the 
conditions of competition between the imported products, as well as the conditions of 
competition between the imports from Japan and the like domestic products, are such 
that the imports from Japan, t ogether with the imports from India and Spain would 
                                                
1 This determination in the third sunset review  is identified in Korea’s notification G/ADP/N/ 300/KOR 
dated 17 August 2017. WT/DS553/1 • G/L/1248 • G/ADP/D125/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  cause injury to the domestic industry, even though the vast majority of the models, 
types or grades of SSB imported from Japan during the period of review were distinct 
from those of the imports from Indi a and of the like domestic product ;  
 
(b)  When it determined that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of injury, Korea improperly attributed the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of injury to the imports f rom Japan, even though such 
injury would be caused by certain factors , other than the imports under review , which 
may have caused injury to the domestic industry irrespective of the expiry of the 
duties. Such factors include (i) the growing volume and mark et share of the imports of 
SSB from third countries, such as China, Taiwan and Italy; (ii) the declining material 
cost; and (iii) the continuing trend of slow growth in domestic demand, even though 
Korea found that the profitability of the domestic industr y had not sufficiently 
recovered during the period of review due to, among others, these three factors;  
 
(c) Korea 's determination that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of injury relied on, among others, the fi nding that Japan 's 
SSB sector had sufficient additional production capacity for exports. In this finding, 
Korea, as stated in paragraph 2 below, declined, without any reasonable grounds, to 
accept and properly consider the actual production capacity data o f each of the 
Japanese exporters, which were submitted by those exporters, and instead based its 
determination on information from a secondary source that was both inaccurate and 
irrelevant when calculating the production capacity of Japan 's SSB sector. As  a result, 
Korea 's analysis that the Japanese producers had the capability to increase their 
production and exports to Korea was neither based on positive evidence nor on an 
objective examination; and  
 
(d) Korea 's determination that the expiry of the dutie s would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of injury relied on, among others, the finding that the 
expiry of the duties on the imports from Japan lead to the increase of the imports 
under the review. However, Korea failed to show any plausible  reason for expecting 
that the imports from Japan of SSB of the models, types or grades  same as or 
comparable with those imported from countries other than Japan or produced by the 
domestic industry would increase after the expiry of the duties. As a resul t, Korea 
failed to demonstrate, based on positive evidence and an objective examination, how 
the alleged increase in the imports of SSB from Japan could affect the imports of SSB 
from countries other than Japan and/or SSB produced by the domestic industry.  
 
In light of, in particular, (a) to (d) above, but not limited to these reasons, the measures at issue 
also appear to be inconsistent with Korea 's obligations under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, 
because Korea is levying the antidumping duties without establishing that the effect of the 
dumping is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established domestic industry.  
 
2.  Articles 11.4 and 6.8 and paragraphs 3 and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, because, to 
the extent that Korea used the third party data regarding the production capacity of the 
Japanese exporters and thus resorted to facts available, inter alia , (a) Kore a failed to take 
into account the information regarding actual production capacity which each of the 
Japanese exporters submitted, even though such information was verifiable, was 
appropriately submitted so that it could be used in the investigation withou t undue 
difficulties and was supplied in a timely fashion, and (b) Korea adopted information from a 
secondary source regarding the production capacity of Japanese exporters without special 
circumspection, and, more specifically, Korea did not examine the a ccuracy of the 
information from a secondary source by comparing it with the information obtained from the 
Japanese exporters;  
 
3.  Articles 11.4, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement, because Korea, inter alia , (a) treated the 
information provided by the appl icants as confidential information without good cause 
shown; (b) failed to require the applicants to furnish non -confidential summaries thereof; 
and (c) failed to require that such summaries be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable 
understanding of t he substance of the information submitted in confidence, should such 
summaries have been provided;  
 WT/DS553/1 • G/L/1248 • G/ADP/D125/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.  Articles 11.4 and 6.9 of the AD Agreement, because Korea failed to inform all interested 
parties of the essential facts under consideration which forme d the basis for the decision to 
extend the anti -dumping duties. Specifically, Korea merely informed the Japanese exporters 
that the Resolution of Final Determination and the Final Report, as well as the Office of 
Trade Investigation 's "Preliminary Report r egarding the Sunset Review of Anti -dumping 
Duties on Japanese, Indian, and Spanish Stainless Steel Bar (Amended after Public 
Hearing) " ("Preliminary Report ") in so far as its contents did not contradict those of the Final 
Report, constituted such essential  facts. However, none of the Resolution of Final 
Determination, the Final Report and the Preliminary Report fully disclosed the essential facts 
underlying the determination of the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, 
notably, inter alia , with regard to the cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports 
under review, and the determination of the nexus between the expiry of the duties and a 
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury; and  
 
5.  Articles 12.3, 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Ag reement, because Korea failed to provide in 
sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law that the 
investigating authorities considered material, as well as all relevant information on the 
matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the sunset review determination, 
including, inter alia , with respect to Korea 's determination that a cumulative assessment of 
the effects of the imports under review is appropriate in light of the conditions of 
competition  between  the imported products and the conditions of competition between the 
imported products and the like domestic product . 
 
Korea 's determination to continue the imposition of anti -dumping duties on SSB from Japan also 
appears to be inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a 
consequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement described above.  
 
Korea 's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or 
indirectly under the cited agreements.  
   
Japan reserves the right to address further factual claims and legal issues under other provisions 
of the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.   
 
Japan looks forward to receiving Korea 's reply to the present r equest in due course. Japan is ready 
to consider with Korea mutually convenient dates and venue for consultations.  
 
 
__________