WT/DS578/1  
G/L/1297  
G/ADP/D131/1  
27 February  2019 
(19-1110) Page: 1/3 
 Original:  French  
 
  
MOROCCO – DEFINITIVE  ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON  
SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY TUNISIA  
The following communication, dated 21  February  2019, from the delegation of Tunisia to the 
delegation of Morocco, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with Article 4.4 of 
the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
The Tunisian Republic  hereby requests consultations with the Kingdom  of Morocco pursua nt to 
Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement o n Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT  1994"), Article 17.3 of 
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT  1994 ("Anti -Dumping Agreement") and 
Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes 
("DSU") with respect to the imposition of definitive  anti-dumping measures by the Kingdom of 
Morocco on imports of school exercise books originating in  Tunisia . 
The anti -dumping measures  were imposed by the Kingdom of Morocco through Customs and Excise 
Administration Circular No. 5895/211 dated 7  January  2019. The anti -dumping measures  are based 
on: (i) public n otice No. 13/18 of the Ministry of Industry, Investment, Trade and the Digital  
Economy dated 5 November  2018 and (ii) the final report by the Trade Defence and Regulation 
Directorate of the Secretariat of State for Foreign Trade on the determination  of dump ing, injury 
and a causal link following the corresponding investigation .1 
In Tunisia's view,  the above -mentioned measures appear to be inconsistent  with the Kingdom  of 
Morocco's obligations under the following provisions  of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the 
GATT  1994, among st others : 
1. Article  5.2, 5.3 and  5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the application  filed 
by the domestic industry does not contain sufficient evidence of dumping, injury or a 
causal link and because the investigating authority did not conduct  a satisfactory 
examination of the accuracy and adequa cy of the evidence provided in the application ; 
 
2. Articles 1, 2.1, 3.1 , 3.4, 3.5, 9 and 11.1  of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  and Article  VI:1 
and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994 , because the determination of dumping and resulting 
injury was not based on relevant and  "positive" evidence justifying the imposition of the 
measure at the time of its adoption ; 
 
3. Article 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1 and  2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the 
investigating authority committed errors leading to the calculation of an artificially high 
normal value. In particular , but not exclusively : 
 
(a) The authority did not calculate costs on the basis of records kept by the Tunisian 
producers for the investigation period, even though th ese records are in 
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and reasonably reflect 
                                                
1 Report AD -11.17. CAHIER.TUN  WT/DS578/1 • G/L/1297 • G/ADP/D131/1  
- 2 - 
  the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under 
consideration ; 
(b) The authority did not determine the administrative, selling and general  costs or 
profits on the basis of data pertaining to production and sales of the like product 
in the ordinary course of trade for the investigation period ; 
(c) The authority arbitrarily excluded sales in the ordinary course of trade , despite 
there being no par ticular market situation ; and 
(d) The authority improperly excluded a portion of domestic sales when determining 
sales in the ordinary course of trade;  
4. Article 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating 
authority treated domestic s ales of certain exercise books in Tunisia as not being in the 
ordinary course of trade by reason of price and disregarded these sales in determining 
the normal value, without prior determination that these sales were made: (a) within 
an extended period of time; (b) in substantial quantities; and (c) at prices which did 
not provide for the recovery of all costs wit hin a reasonable period of time;  
 
5. Article  2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the investigating authority did not 
make allowance, in particular, for all the physical characteristics affecting price 
comparability and compared the normal value and the export price established for 
different periods ; 
 
6. Article  2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the investigating authority made 
adjust ments to the export price on the basis of data that had not been provided by the 
exporters, in particular, but not exclusively , port charges, ocean freight costs and 
international after -sales service;  
 
7. Article  3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agre ement a nd Article  VI:1 and VI:6(a) 
of the GATT 1994, because the investigating authority failed to  make a determination 
of injury based on positive evidence and involving  an objective examination . In 
particular, but not exclusively, the period of investiga tion chosen for examining injury 
and the causal link does not allow for an objective examination of the situation ; 
 
8. Article  3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because , inter alia : 
 
a. The investigating authority failed to properly and objectively consider the volume 
of the dumped imports , in absolute terms and relative to domestic  production or 
consumption ; 
b. The undercutting margin was calculated on the basis of a reconstructed target 
sales price that does not correspond to the performance of the d omestic industry . 
The profit margin of the Tunisian pro ducers was used to construct  the price of 
domestic products without examining whether the market conditions in Tunisia 
were similar to those in Morocco. The prices of imports and those of the domestic 
product were compared erroneously;  
c. The analysis regarding the depression of sales prices and the prevention of price 
increases  was not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective 
examination;  
9. Article  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the investigating authority 
failed to properly evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing 
on the  state of the domestic industry  and to conduct an objective examination of the 
impact of the imports on the performa nce of domestic producers . Amongst other things, 
the authority made a finding of injury  even though most factors had evolved positively  
and significantly during the investigation period ; WT/DS578/1 • G/L/1297 • G/ADP/D131/1  
- 3 - 
  10. Article 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating authority 
focused its analysis on different periods for each of the economic factors and indices , 
which led to an incorrect  finding of injury;  
 
11. Article  3.1 and  3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the investigating authority 
failed to properly determine  a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect 
between the alleged ly dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry . The 
authority failed to ensure that in jury caused by other factors was not attributed to  
imports originating in Tunisia. Most notably , but not exclusively, the authority failed to 
examine the causes of injury other than the imports originating in Tunisia,  and, in 
particular, competition betwee n Moroccan producers not part of the domestic industry 
and the importance of the informal market ; 
 
12. Article  4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  (and Article  3.1 and 3.4 in a combined 
reading of the se two Articles) , because the investigating authority limited the "domestic 
industry " to the applicants  and also wrongly excluded certain other companies that 
supported the application ; 
 
13. Article  5.10, because the investigation was not concluded within one year, despite the 
absence of special circumstances ; 
 
14. Article 6 .5 and  6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the investigating 
authority : (a) treated as confidential the information provided by the applicants  without 
showing good cause ; (b) failed to require the applicants to furnish a non -confidential 
summary t hereof ; and (c) where such summaries were provided, they were not in 
sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the 
information submitted in confidence ; 
 
15. Article 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 6 of Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, 
because the investigating authority did not use the data and structure of the exporters' 
Excel files as provided by the exporters  following the public hearing;  
 
16. Article 12. 2 and  12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the Kingdom of 
Morocco failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all 
issues of fact and law considered material  by the investigating authority, and all relevant 
inform ation on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition 
of measures ; and  
 
17. Article 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles II:1( a) and (b) and VI:1 of the 
GATT  1994 insofar as the definitive  anti-dumping measure or measures  apply to 
products not subject to the anti -dumping investigation. In this case, these measures 
become "other duties or charges", and in any event  are in excess of  the bound rates 
provided for in t he schedule annexed to the GATT  1994 containing the tariff 
commitments of the Kingdom of Morocco.  
 
Tunisia  reserves the right to raise additional factual or legal points related to the a bove-mentioned 
measure s during the course of consultations and in any request for panel proceedings . 
Tunisia  looks forward to receiving in due course a reply from the Kingdom of Morocco to this request . 
Tunisia is ready to consider with the Kingdom of Morocco mutually convenient dates to hold 
consultations . 
__________