WT/DS399/R 
 Page G-1 
 
 
ANNEX G 
  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS AND REQUEST 
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF A PANEL BY CHINA 
 
  
Contents Page 
Annex G-1 Request for Consultations by China G-2 
Annex G-2 Request for the Establishment of the Panel by China G-4 
 WT/DS399/R 
Page G-2  
 
ANNEX G-1 
 
 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CHINA 
 
 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS399/1 
G/L/893 G/SG/D36/1 
16 September 2009 
 
(09-4361) 
 Original:   English 
   
UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PASSENGER 
VEHICLE AND LIGHT TRUCK TYRES FROM CHINA 
 
Request for Consultations by China
 
  
 The following communication, dated 14 Septem ber 2009, 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 ("US") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  
("GATT 1994"), and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards  with regard to certain measures taken 
by the US affecting the import of certain passe nger vehicle and light tr uck tires from the People's 
Republic of China ("China").   This request concerns the restrictions recently announced by the US on imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China.  Th ese restrictions take the form of substantially 
higher tariffs over the next three years well in  excess of the tariff rates permitted under US 
international obligations to China.  These rest rictions were announced on 11 September 2009 by the 
US authorities following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.  The report by the International Trade Commission issued as part of this investigation can 
be found at Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China , Inv. No. TA-421-7, USITC 
Pub. No. 4085 (July 2009).  The decision by the Pr esident can be found in the Proclamation issued by 
President Barack Obama on 11 September 2009.  Unde r this proclamation, these measures are to take 
effect on 26 September 2009.  This request incl udes both these higher tariffs that have been 
announced, and any other measures the US may announce to implement this decision.   China considers that these higher tariffs, not ha ving been justified as emergency action under 
relevant WTO rules, are inconsistent with Ar ticle I:1 of the GATT 1994 because the US does not  WT/DS399/R 
 Page G-3 
 
 
accord the same treatment it grants to passenger and light truck tires originating in other countries to 
the like products originating in China.   Nor can the US justify these measures as prope rly applied exceptions to this fundamental 
WTO principle.  These measures have not been properly justified pursuant to Article XIX of 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards .  Nor have these measures been properly justified as 
China-specific restrictions under the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China  (the 
Protocol of Accession).  There are several problems with the US statute and the way in which the US 
applies its statute.  
 The US statute authorizing these China-specific re strictions is inconsistent on its face with 
Article 16 of the Protocol of Accession in that the US statute impermissibly defines "significant 
cause" more narrowly than required by the ordinary meaning of that phrase as used in Article 16.4 of 
the Protocol of Accession.  
 Each of these measures is also inconsiste nt, as applied, with US obligations under the 
Protocol of Accession, and the US has therefore not justified invocation of the Protocol in the following respects:  
Articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol of A ccession because imports from China were not "in 
such increased quantities" and were not "increasingly rapidly." 
Articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession because imports from China were not a 
"significant cause" of material injury  or threat of material injury. 
Articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession because the domestic tire producers were 
not experiencing "market disruption" or "m aterial injury," and in fact opposed the 
investigation and these measures, and stated that  the requested relief would not change their 
plans. 
Article 16.3 of the Protocol of Accession because the restrictions are not necessary at all, and 
are being imposed beyond the "extent necessary to prevent or remedy" any alleged market disruption. 
Article 16.6 of the Protocol of Accession because the restrictions are being imposed for a 
period of time longer than "necessary to prevent or remedy" any alleged market disruption. 
 
 China reserves its right to raise further factual issues and legal claims during the course of the consultations, and in any future requ est for the establishment of a panel. 
 I look forward to receiving the reaction of your  authorities to this request so that we can 
arrange a mutually acceptable date  and location for consultations. 
 WT/DS399/R 
Page G-4  
 
 ANNEX G-2 
 
 
REQUEST FOR THE ES TABLISHMENT OF  
A PANEL BY CHINA 
 
 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS399/2 
11 December 2009 
 
 (09-6454) 
 Original:   English 
 
  
UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PASSENGER 
VEHICLE AND LIGHT TRUCK TYRES FROM CHINA 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by China
 
   The following communication, dated 9 December  2009, from the delegation of China to the 
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  On 14 September 2009, China requested consultations with the United States ("US") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  ("GATT 1994"), 
and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards  with regard to certain measures taken by the US 
affecting the import of certain passenger vehicle a nd light truck tires from th e People's Republic of 
China ("China").  This request for consultations  was circulated as document WT/DS399/1 – G/L/893 
– G/SG/DS36/1 dated 16 September 2009. 
 
 Consultations were held on 9 November 2009 in Geneva, pursuant to each of the above-
referenced provisions and agreements, with a view toward reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. 
Although these consultations clarified a few issues relating to this ma tter, the consultations failed to 
settle the dispute.  
 Therefore, China respectfully requests pur suant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards  that the Dispute 
Settlement Body ("DSB") establish a Panel to examine this matter.   This request concerns the restrictions annou nced by the US on imports of certain passenger 
vehicle and light truck tires from China, and the legal basis for those restrictions.  These restrictions 
take the form of substantially higher tariffs over th e next three years well in excess of the tariff rates 
permitted under US international obligations to China.  These restrictions were announced on 
11 September 2009 as a presidential decision following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the  WT/DS399/R 
 Page G-5 
 
 
 Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.  The repor t by the International Trade Commission issued 
as part of this investigation can be found at Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from 
China , Inv. No. TA-421-7, USITC Pub. No. 4085 (July 2009).  The decision by the President can be 
found in two documents:  first,  Presidential Determination 2009-28 , which was published at 74 Fed. 
Reg. 47433 (16 September 2009); and second, Proclamation 8414 , which was published at 74 Fed. 
Reg. 47861 (17 September 2009).  Pursuant to this decision by President Obama, these measures took 
effect on 26 September 2009, and continue in effect today.  This request includes both the higher tariffs that have been announced, and any other measures the US has announced or may announce to 
implement this decision.  
 China considers that these higher tariffs, not ha ving been justified as emergency action under 
relevant WTO rules, are inconsistent with Ar ticle I:1 of the GATT 1994, because the US does not 
accord the same treatment it grants to passenger and light truck tires originating in other countries to 
the like products originating in Ch ina, and Article II of GATT 1994, since these higher tariffs consist 
of unjustified modifications of  US concessions thereunder. 
 
  The US has not even attempted to justify these restrictions as a general safeguard action 
pursuant to Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards .  The only justification 
offered was that these measures have been imposed under the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China  (the "Protocol of Accession"). Chin a believes these restrictions, and the 
basis under US law for imposing these restrictions, ar e inconsistent with US  obligations under the 
Protocol of Accession, in particular:  
(a) The US statute authorizing these restrictions, 19 U.S.C. 2451, is inconsistent on its 
face with Article 16 of the Protocol of Accession in that the US statute impermissibly 
weakens the standard of "significant cause" by imposing a definition of the term that 
contradicts Article 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession. 
(b) The restrictions imposed pursuant to 19 U. S.C. 2451 in this particular case are 
inconsistent with the following provis ions of the Protocol of Accession: 
(i) Articles 16.1 and 16.4, because imports from China in this case were not "in 
such increased quantities" and were not  "increasing rapidly," and instead had 
begun to decline in response to changing US demand conditions. 
(ii) Articles 16.1 and 16.4, because imports from China in this case were not a 
"significant cause" of material injury or  threat of material injury, and are 
being improperly blamed by the US for the condition of the industry that, in fact, reflected other factors in the market. 
(iii) Article 16.3, because the restrictions in this case are not necessary, and are 
being imposed beyond the "extent necessary to prevent or remedy" any alleged market disruption, and should not have been set at the high tariff 
levels being imposed. 
(iv) Article 16.6, because the restrictions in this case are being imposed for a 
period of time longer than "necessary to prevent or remedy" any alleged 
market disruption, and need not ha ve been imposed for three years. WT/DS399/R 
Page G-6  
 
  China requests that the Panel be established with the standard terms of reference, in 
accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
 China asks that this request for the establishm ent of a panel be placed on the agenda for the 
next meeting of the DSB, which is scheduled to take place on 21 December 2009.  
 
__________