WT/DS606/1  
G/L/1394  
G/ADP/D140/1  
 
19 August 2021  
(21-6273) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN UNION - PROVISIONAL ANTI -DUMPING DUTY ON MONO -ETHYLENE GLYCOL 
FROM SAUDI ARABIA  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA  
The following communication, dated  17 August 2021 , from the delegation of the Kingdom of 
Saudi  Arabia  to the delegation of the European Union , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body 
in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. My authorities have instructed me, on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to request 
consultations with the European Union pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ( "DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ( "GATT ") 1994, and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ( "Anti-Dumping Agreement "), with respect to the 
European Union’s provisional anti -dumping duty on imports of mono -ethylene glycol originating in 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of 10 June 2021,1 as well as any amendments thereto or extensions 
thereof, and any related measures.  
2. The provisional anti -dumping duty was imposed pursuant to an investigation that was initiated by 
the European Commission  ("Commission ") on 14 October 2020,2 and the provisional duty entered 
into force on 12 June 2021 for a period of six months.3 
3. This measure appears to be inconsistent with the European Union’s obligations under certain 
provisions of the GATT 1994 and t he Anti -Dumping Agreement. In particular, the Kingdom of 
Saudi  Arabia considers that the measure appears to be inconsistent with at least the following 
provisions:  
• Articles 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the 
application contained insufficient evidence on dumping causing injury to justify initiation of 
the investigation, the application did not contain all such information that was reasonably 
available to the applicant, and the Commission failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy 
of the application evidence;  
• Article 5.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the application was not 
made by or on behalf of the relevant domestic industry in the European Union;  
• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, 
there was no basis to reject domestic selling prices and the cost of production was improperly 
 
1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/939 of 10 June 2021 imposing a provisional anti -
dumping duty on imports of mono ethylene glycol originating in the United States of America and the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia, OJ L205, 11.06.2021, p. 4.  
2 Notice of  initiation of an anti -dumping proceeding concerning imports of mono ethylene glycol originating 
in the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, OJ C342, 14.10.2020, p. 12.  
3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/939 of 10 June 2021  imposing a provisional anti -
dumping duty on imports of mono ethylene glycol originating in the United States of America and the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia, OJ L205, 11.06.2021, p. 4, Article 3.  WT/DS606/1 • G/L/1394 • G/ADP/D140/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  determined after rejecting the recorded costs of the Saudi exporters, and the cost of 
production did not ref lect the cost in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;  
• Article 2.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no basis to 
reject the actual export price of the Saudi exporters, and the constructed export price 
involved unwarranted and duplicated  adjustments, including for certain expenses and profits 
of related companies;  
• Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, a provisional dumping 
margin was established for the Saudi exporters without ensuring a "fair comparison " 
betwee n the constructed normal value and the constructed export price;  
• Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the 
Commission resorted to the use of facts available without justification in relation to the 
establishment of n ormal value and export price and for the assessment of injury, improperly 
applied facts available, including by failing to take into account all relevant and verifiable 
information on the record that was appropriately and timely submitted by the Saudi 
exporters so it could be used without undue difficulties, and by failing to corroborate and 
have special circumspection in the selection of the information used for facts available;  
• Article 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no basis to 
cumulate imports from Saudi Arabia and the United States of America for the assessment of 
injury and causation given, for example, the constant and substantial differences in price, 
price and volume trends, and in respect of the effect on domestic  prices;  
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no 
basis to analyze import volumes by cumulating imports from Saudi Arabia and the United 
States, the analysis was not based on an objective examination of positiv e evidence, and 
there was no reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a finding that there was a 
significant increase in imports from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (nor with the imports from 
the United States of America on a cumulative basis);  
• Article s 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no 
basis to analyze price effects by cumulating imports from Saudi Arabia and the United States, 
the analysis was not based on an objective examination of positive evidence, and t here was 
no reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a finding that imports from the Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia had a significant effect on domestic prices (nor with the imports from the 
United States on a cumulative basis);  
• Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no 
basis to analyze the impact on the domestic industry by cumulating imports from 
Saudi  Arabia and the United States, the analysis was not based on an objective examination 
of positive evidence, and  there was no reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a 
finding that the domestic industry suffered injury and that this was explained by the imports 
from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (nor with the imports from the United States of America 
on a cumu lative basis);  
• Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no 
basis to analyze causation by cumulating imports from Saudi Arabia and the United States 
of America, the analysis was not based on an objective examinatio n of positive evidence, 
there was no reasoned and adequate explanation supporting a finding of a genuine and 
substantial relationship of cause and effect between the imports of Saudi Arabia (nor with 
the imports from the United States on a cumulative basis ) and the alleged injury to the 
domestic industry, and the Commission failed to properly separate and distinguish injury 
caused by other known factors so as not to attribute such injury to the imports;  
• Article 6.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amo ng others, the Commission failed 
to give proper notice of information that was required and to provide ample opportunity to 
provide such information, thereby failing to protect the Saudi exporters’ fundamental due 
process rights;  WT/DS606/1 • G/L/1394 • G/ADP/D140/1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the 
Commission (a) treated as confidential information provided by the applicant without good 
cause shown; (b) failed to require the applicant to furnish non -confidential summaries of 
such information; 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;  
• Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the  
GATT  1994 as a consequence of the apparent breaches of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
described above.  
4. In addition, the above -described measure appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia directly or indirectly under t he cited agreements.  
5. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reserves the right to raise additional factual and legal issues, and 
to address additional measures regarding this matter, in the course of the consultations and in any 
request for the establishment of a panel.  
6. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia looks forward to receiving the reply by the European Union to this 
request and to setting a mutually acceptable date and venue for the consultations.  
 
__________