WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS379/1 
G/L/854 
G/SCM/D78/1 G/ADP/D74/1 
22 September 2008 
 
(08-4427) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING  
DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA 
 
Request for Consultations by China  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 19 Septem ber 2008, from the delegation of China to the 
delegation of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the United 
States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement 
of Disputes  (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  (the SCM 
Agreement) and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the AD Agreement). 
 This request concerns the definitive anti-dum ping and countervailing duties imposed by the 
United States pursuant to the final anti-dumping a nd countervailing duty dete rminations and orders 
issued by the US Department of Commer ce in the investigations listed below. 
Investigations A-570-910 and C-570-911 ("CWP") 
• Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 
Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China , 73 Federal Register 31970 
(5 June 2008). 
• Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe 
from the People's Republic of China , 73 Federal Register 42547 (22 July 2008). 
• Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe  from the People's Republic of China : 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 Federal Register 31966 (5 June 2008). 
• Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe  from the People's Republic of China : 
Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 73 Federal Register 42545 (22 July 2008). WT/DS379/1, G/L/854,  
G/SCM/D78/1, G/ADP/D74/1 Page 2 
 
 
  Investigations A-570-912 and C-570-913 ("OTR") 
• Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Partial 
Affirmative Determination of Critical Ci rcumstances, 73 Federal Register 40485 
(15 July 2008). 
• Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China : 
Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 Federal Register 51624 (4 September 2008). 
• Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty  Determination and Final Negative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 Federal Register 40480 
(15 July 2008). 
• Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China : 
Countervailing Duty Order, 73 Federa l Register 51627 (4 September 2008). 
Investigations A-570-914 and C-570-915 ("LWRP") 
• Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part : Light–Walled Rectangular 
Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China, 73 Federal Register 35652 
(24 June 2008). 
• Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube  from Mexico, the People's Republic of 
China, and the Republic of Korea: Antidumping Duty Orders, 73 Federal Register 45403 (5 August 2008). 
• Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From People's Republic of China: 
Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty I nvestigation Determination, 73 Federal 
Register 35642 (24 June 2008). 
• Light–Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube fr om the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Countervailing Duty Order, 73 Federal Register 45405 
(5 August 2008).  
Investigations A-570-916  and C-570-917 ("LWS") 
• Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China : Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than  Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 
Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 Federal Register 35646 
(24 June 2008). 
• Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's 
Republic of China , 73 Federal Register 45941 (7 August 2008) 
• Laminated Woven Sacks from th e People's Republic of China : Final Affirmative 
Countervailing Determination and Final Affirmative Dete rmination, in Part, of 
Critical Circumstances, 73 Federal Register 35639 (24 June 2008).  WT/DS379/1, G/L/854,  
 G/SCM/D78/1, G/ADP/D74/1  Page 3 
 
 
  • Laminated Woven Sacks From the People's Republic of China : Countervailing 
Duty Order, 73 Federal Register 45955 (7 August 2008). 
 China considers that the foregoing measures, which include the conduct of the underlying 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, are inconsistent with the obligations of the 
United States under, inter alia,  Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 
and 32 of the SCM Agreement, Articles 1, 2, 6, 9,  and 18 of the AD Agreement, and Article 15 of the 
Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (the Protocol of Accession).   
 These inconsistencies arise in connection with each of the foregoing measures, and include, 
inter alia :
1 
(1) in connection with the alleged provisi on of goods for less than adequate 
remuneration – 
(a) the US authorities' determination that certain state-owned enterprises (SOEs) 
are "public bodies" within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement; 
(b) in the absence of a valid determinati on that certain SOEs are public bodies, 
the US authorities' failure to make a determination that China "entrusts or 
directs" SOEs to provide goods to producers of subject merchandise, within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement; 
(c) even assuming a valid determination that certain SOEs are public bodies, the 
US authorities' failure to make a determ ination that SOEs "entrust or direct" 
trading companies to provide goods to producers of subject merchandise, 
within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement;
2 
(d) the US authorities' determination that the sale of goods by trading companies 
to producers of subject merchandise confers a countervailable subsidy with the meaning of Article 1 of the SC M Agreement and a benefit under the 
guidelines set forth in Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement; 
(e) the US authorities' failure to determin e whether the alleged benefit received 
by trading companies was passed through to producers of subject merchandise, in violation of Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 10, 
14, 19.1, 19.4, and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
(f) the US authorities' inclusion  in subsidy benefit calculations of only those 
transactions that produced a positive be nefit, while excluding transactions 
that yielded no benefit, in violation of Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and 
Articles 10, 14, 19.1, 19.4, and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
                                                     
 
1 Unless otherwise noted, all inconsistencies relating to the GATT 1994, the SCM Agreement, and the 
Protocol of Accession arise in connection with eac h of the CVD measures specified above, while all 
inconsistencies relating to the AD Agreement arise in  connection with each of the anti-dumping measures 
specified above.   
2 The inconsistencies set forth in paras. 1(c) – 1(e) do not arise in connection with the LWS CVD 
measures.   WT/DS379/1, G/L/854,  
G/SCM/D78/1, G/ADP/D74/1 Page 4 
 
 
  (2) in connection with the alleged provision of land and land use rights for less than 
adequate remuneration –  
(a) the failure of the US authorities to de monstrate specificity under Articles 2.1 
and 2.2 of the SCM Agreement, and to clearly substantiate these 
determinations of specificity on the basis of positive evidence, as required by 
Article 2.4 of the SCM Agreement;
3 
(3) in connection with the alleged provis ion of loans on preferential terms – 
(a) the US authorities' determination that certain state-owned commercial banks 
(SOCBs) are "public bodies" within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the 
SCM Agreement;4 
(b) in the absence of a valid determinati on that certain SOCBs are public bodies, 
the US authorities' failure to make a determination that China "entrusts or 
directs" SOCBs to provide loans to producers of subject merchandise, within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement; 
(c) the failure of the US authorities to de monstrate specificity under Articles 2.1 
and 2.2 of the SCM Agreement, and to clearly substantiate these determinations of specificity on the basis of positive evidence, as required by Article 2.4 of the SCM Agreement; 
(4) in connection with each instance in which th e US authorities resorted to a benchmark 
outside of China for the purpose of dete rmining the existence and amount of any 
alleged subsidy benefit – 
(a) the US authorities' rejection of preva iling terms and conditions in China as 
the basis for determining whether, and to what extent, subject producers 
received a subsidy benefit under the methodologies set forth in Article 14 of the SCM Agreement; 
(b) the US authorities' rejection of preva iling terms and conditions in China as 
the basis for determining whether, and to what extent, producers of subject 
merchandise received a subsidy benefit, without making a finding of "special 
difficulties" as required under Article  15 of the Protocol of Accession; 
(c) the US authorities' use of benefit methodologies that the United States did not 
notify to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, as 
required by Article 15(c) of the Protocol of Accession; 
(5) in connection with all countervailing duty determinations and orders specified 
above –  
(a) the failure of the US authorities to take all necessary steps to ensure that the 
imposition of a countervailing duty order is in accordance with Article VI of 
                                                     
 
3 The inconsistency set forth in para. 2(a) does no t arise in connection with the CWP CVD measures.   
4 The inconsistencies set forth in paras. 3(a) – 3( c) do not arise in connection with the LWRP CVD 
measures.    WT/DS379/1, G/L/854,  
 G/SCM/D78/1, G/ADP/D74/1  Page 5 
 
 
  the GATT 1994 and the SCM Agreement, as  required by Article 10 of the 
SCM Agreement; 
(b) the use of a specific action against alle ged subsidies other than in accordance 
with the provisions of the GATT 1994, as interpreted by the SCM 
Agreement, in violation of Ar ticle 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
(c) the imposition of countervailing duties in  a manner inconsistent with the 
requirements of Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994; 
(6) in connection with the US authorities'  use of a non-market economy (NME) 
methodology for the purpose of determini ng the existence and amount of alleged 
dumping under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement, simultaneously 
with the determination of subsidization and imposition of countervailing duties on the 
same subject merchandise – 
(a) the failure of the US authorities to ensure that the final affirmative 
determination of subsidi zation, and the imposition of countervailing duties, 
were based on the amount of subsidy f ound to exist, as required by Article 
19.4 of the SCM Agreement;
5 
(b) the use by the US authorities of a specifi c action against subsidization that is 
not in accordance with the GATT 1994, as interpreted by the SCM Agreement, in violation of Ar ticle 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
(c) the US authorities' failure to take al l necessary steps to ensure that the 
imposition of countervailing duties was in accordance with Article VI of 
GATT 1994 and the SCM Agreement, as re quired by Article 10 of the SCM 
Agreement; 
(d) the US authorities' levying of anti -dumping and countervailing duties in 
excess of the "appropriate amounts," in vi olation of Article 9.2 of the AD 
Agreement and Article 19.3 of th e SCM Agreement, respectively; 
(e) the US authorities' failure to ensure  a fair comparison between the export 
price and normal value, in violation of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement; 
(f) the failure of the US authorities to ensure that the final affirmative 
determination of dumping, and the im position of anti-dumping duties, were 
based on the amount of dumping found to exist, as required by Article 9.3 of 
the AD Agreement. 
(7) in connection with the conduct of the underlying anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty investigations –  
(a) the US authorities' failure to invite China for consultations regarding new 
subsidy allegations, as required by Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
                                                     
 
5 The inconsistencies set forth in paras. 6(a) – 6(f) relate to each of the CVD and AD measures 
specified above, as well as to the combined effect of the CVD and AD measures in each of the specified 
investigations.   WT/DS379/1, G/L/854,  
G/SCM/D78/1, G/ADP/D74/1 Page 6 
 
 
  (b) the US authorities' failure to allow 30 days for responses to questionnaires 
issued in connection with subsidy allega tions made after the initiation of the 
investigation, as required by Article 12.1.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
(c) the US authorities' failure to take due account of any difficulties experienced 
by interested parties in supplying info rmation requested in questionnaires, as 
required by Article 12.11 of the SCM Agreement;   
(d) the US authorities' failure to provide notice to interested parties of the 
information which the U.S. authorities re quired to make a determination with 
respect to whether certain entities are "public bodies" within the meaning of 
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, as required by Article 12.1 of the 
SCM Agreement; 
(e) the US authorities' failure to inform in terested parties of the essential facts 
under consideration with respect to whether certain entities are "public bodies" within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, as 
required by Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement; 
(f) the US authorities' failure to provide notice to interested parties of the 
information which the US authorities required to determine whether the simultaneous application of anti-dumpi ng and countervailing duties results in 
a double remedy for the same conduct, as required by Article 12.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles 2.4 and 6.1 of the AD Agreement; 
(g) the US authorities' failure to inform in terested parties of the essential facts 
under consideration with respect to wh ether the simultaneous application of 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties results in a double remedy for the same conduct, as required by Article  12.8 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement; and 
(h) the US authorities' use of adverse infe rences and facts available in a manner 
inconsistent with Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement, including, in 
particular, those instances in which the US authorities drew "adverse inferences" or relied upon "neutral" or "adverse" facts available, having failed 
to request information from interested parties concerning the factual issue in 
question.   
 China reserves the right to raise additional cl aims and legal matters regarding the above-
mentioned measures during the course of the consultations. 
 China looks forward to receiving the reply of the Government of the United States to this 
request and to setting a mutually conv enient date for consultations.   
__________