WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS407/1 
G/L/920 
G/ADP/D83/1 
12 May 2010 
 
 (10-2694) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
CHINA – PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON CERTAIN IRON  
AND STEEL FASTENERS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
 
Request for Consultations by the European Union  
  
 The following communication, dated 7 May 2010, from the delegation of the European Union 
to the delegation of China and to the Chairman of  the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
 
 
 The European Union ("EU") hereby requests consultations with the Government of the 
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), Article 17.3 of th e 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"). The issues which the European 
Union would like to raise in the course of the consultations include, but are not limited to, the 
following measures: 
– Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Notice no. 115 (2009), 
including its annex, imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on certain iron or steel 
fasteners from the European Union; 
– Article 56 of the Regulations of the Peop le's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping. 
*  *  * 
1. The EU considers that Ministry of Commerc e of the People's Republic of China, Notice 
no. 115 (2009), including its annex, imposing provi sional anti-dumping duties on certain iron or steel 
fasteners from the European Union ("Provisional Imposition") is inconsistent, among others, with 
China's obligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the 
GATT 1994. 
(1) Article 2.2 and Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and Article VI:1 of the 
GATT 1994, because the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and profits established by China for the sole cooperating EU company were not calculated 
on the basis of a reasonable method as China used an unreasonable profitability rate, 
denied many reasonable adjustments, and because the export price concerned a 
special product not representative of the pr oducts normally sold by the company. 
(2) Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 
because by selecting an export price concerning a special product not representative WT/DS407/1 
G/L/920 G/ADP/D83/1 
Page 2 
  
  of the products normally sold by the cooperating company, China precluded a fair 
comparison between the export price and the normal value. 
(3) Article 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to make an 
objective examination, on the basis of positiv e evidence, of the effect of the dumped 
imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and the consequent impact 
of these imports on domestic producers of such products, including the factors listed in Article 3.4, as all injury indicators were  positive with the sole exception of ending 
stocks, and since the loss-making situati on improved over time and the EU export 
prices were significantly higher than domestic prices. 
(4) Article 3.1 and Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to 
make an objective determination, on the basis of evidence, that the dumped imports are, through the effects of dumping, causing injury, as China failed to objectively examine the temporal disconnect between a lleged dumping and alleged worsening of 
the situation for the domestic industry. 
(5) Article 6.1.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to ensure the 
prompt availability of the full text of th e written application as the main figures about 
the Chinese industry were omitted or indexe d despite the large number of domestic 
producers. 
(6) Article 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to 
provide timely opportunities for all inter ested parties to see all non-confidential 
information relevant to the defence of their interests. 
(7) Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to ensure the 
provision of non-confidential summaries of c onfidential information relating to the 
injury investigation or, where provided, fa iled to give summaries in sufficient detail 
to enable a reasonable understanding of that information. 
(8) Article 6.5.1 and Article 6.5.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed 
to determine that the request for confidentia lity of the names of the complainants was 
not warranted. 
(9) Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the sample of EU exporting 
producers selected by China was not based on th e largest percentage of the volume of 
the exports from the EU which could reas onably be investigated because the Chinese 
authorities asked for a disproportionate amount of information for the selection of the sample which had the effect to discourag e several EU exporters from cooperating. 
(10) Article 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because in its public notice of the 
imposition of provisional measures, or in a separate report, China did not set forth 
sufficiently detailed explanations for th e preliminary determinations on injury, 
together with references to the matters of fact and law which have led to arguments 
being accepted or rejected.  Furthermore, and in particular, China failed to meet its obligations with regard to considerations relevant to the injury determination, 
Article 12.2.1(iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and with regard to the main 
reasons leading to the determination, Article 12.2.1(v) of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement .  WT/DS407/1 
 G/L/920 
 G/ADP/D83/1 
 Page 3 
  
   The European Union also considers, including  for the detailed reasons stated above, taken 
individually and collectively, that the Provisional Im position was taken contrary to the provisions of 
paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
*  *  * 
2. The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on 
Anti-Dumping
1 is inconsistent, among others, with China' s obligations under the following provisions 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , the DSU and the GATT 1994. 
(1) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Re gulations of the People's Republic of China 
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , 
because China fails to meet its obligation that no specific action against dumping of exports from another Member can be taken except in accordance with the provisions 
of GATT 1994, as interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
(2) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Re gulations of the People's Republic of China 
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article  23 of the DSU, in particular Article 
23.1 thereof, because China fails to meet its  obligation to have recourse to, and abide 
by, the rules and procedures of the DSU when seeking the redress of a violation of obligations or other nullification or im pairment of benefits under the covered 
agreements or an impediment to the a ttainment of any objective of the covered 
agreements. 
(3) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Re gulations of the People's Republic of China 
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Artic le I:1 of the GATT 1994, since China fails 
to meet its obligation to accord immedi ately and unconditionally any advantage, 
favour, privilege or immunity granted to any product originating in or destined for any other country to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all 
other WTO Members, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind 
imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation, and with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with  importation and exportation,  and with respect to all 
matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III of the GATT 1994. 
(4) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Re gulations of the People's Republic of China 
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article  X:3(a) of the GATT since China fails to 
meet its obligation to administer in a uni form, impartial and re asonable manner all its 
laws, regulations, decisions und rulings describ ed in paragraph 1 of Article X of the 
GATT 1994. 
 The European Union considers that the Provisiona l Imposition also has to be seen in the light 
of Article 56 of the Regulations of the People' s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping and that the 
Provisional Imposition is a further incidence of these inconsistencies described above. 
                                                     
 
1 As specified in WTO document G/ADP/N1/CHN/2, Article 56 provides, in the translation made by 
China for reference by WTO Members, that "[w]here a country (region) discriminatorily imposes anti-dumping measures on the exports from the People's Republic of China, China may,  on the basis of actual situations, take 
corresponding measures agai nst that country (region)". WT/DS407/1 
G/L/920 G/ADP/D83/1 
Page 4 
  
   The European Union reserves the right to address additional measures and claims under other 
provisions of the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.   
 The European Union looks forward to receivi ng in due course a reply from China to this 
request. The European Union is ready to consider  with China mutually convenient dates to hold 
consultations in Geneva. 
__________