. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS427/1 
G/L/960 
G/SCM/D88/1 G/ADP/D90/1 
23 September 2011 
 
 
(11-4582) 
 Original:   English 
 
  
CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES  
ON BROILER PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES 
 
Request for Consultations by the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 20 Sept ember 2011, from the delegation of the 
United States to the delegation of China and to th e Chairperson 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 
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant 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"), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures  ("SCM Agreement") (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates 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") with respect to China's measures imposing anti-
dumping duties and countervailing duties on broiler pr oducts from the United States, as set forth in 
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 8 [2010], Notice No. 26 [2010], Notice No. 51 [2010], and Notice No. 52 [2010], including any and all annexes.  China's measures appear to be inconsistent with Ch ina's obligations including under the provisions of 
the GATT 1994, the AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. 
 
In particular, China's anti-dumping and count ervailing duty measures on broiler products 
from the United States appear to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the 
AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement:  
1. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement be cause China failed to calculate costs on the 
basis of the records kept by the US producers under investigation. 
 2. Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement because China failed to properly allocate production 
costs. 
 
3. Articles 6.4 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreemen t, and Articles 12.3 and 12.4.1 of the SCM 
Agreement because China failed to provide, or require the applicant to provide, adequate, 
non-confidential summaries of alle gedly confidential information. 
 4. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement including Anne x II and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement 
because China improperly based its determ inations on the facts available. 
 WT/DS427/1, G/L/960,  
G/SCM/D88/1, G/ADP/D90/1 Page 2 
 
 
  5. Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement, because China 
levied countervailing duties on imported U.S. br oiler products in excess of the amount of 
subsidy found to exist. 
 
6. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agreem ent, and Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of 
the SCM Agreement, because China's analysis of the effects of imports under investigation 
and alleged causal link was not based upon an objective examination of positive evidence, an 
examination of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the 
industry, or an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities. 
 
7. Articles 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles 11.1, 15.1, and 16.1 of the SCM 
Agreement because China improperly defined th e domestic industry a nd did not conduct a 
proper investigation or objective examination of  the domestic industry producing the subject 
imports. 
 
8. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because China 
failed to disclose the "essential facts" underlying its determinations. 
 9. Articles 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agre ement and Articles 22.3, 22.4, and 22.5 of the 
SCM Agreement because China failed to pr ovide in sufficient detail the findings and 
conclusions reached on all issues of fact and la w it considered material, and the reasons for 
the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or claims. 
 10. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because Chin a failed to grant interested parties a full 
opportunity for the defense of their interests.   
 
11. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a conseque nce of the breaches of the AD Agreement 
described above. 
 12. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a conseque nce of the breaches of the SCM Agreement 
described above. 
 
13. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the AD and SCM 
Agreements described above. 
 
China's measures also appear to nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to the United States 
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. 
 
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 
convenient date for consultations.   
__________