WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS331/2 
7 February 2006 
 
 (06-0526) 
 Original:   English 
  
MEXICO – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON STEEL PIPES AND TUBES 
FROM GUATEMALA 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Guatemala
 
  
 The following communication, dated 6 February  2006, from the delegation of Guatemala to 
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
  On 17 June 2005, Guatemala requested consultati ons with Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governi ng the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), 
Article XXIII:1  of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994") and 
Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994  (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement") regard ing the definitive anti-dumping measures 
imposed by Mexico on imports of certain steel pi pes and tubes from Guatemala and the investigation 
leading thereto.  
  Guatemala and Mexico held consultations on 15 July, 26 August, and 28 September 2005.  
These consultations unfortunately failed to resolve th e dispute.  Accordingly, Guatemala respectfully 
requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that at 
its next meeting on 17 February 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel with the standard 
terms of reference set out in Article 7.1 of the DS U to examine this matter and the claims set forth 
below.     The investigation leading to the imposition of  the measures at issue was initiated by the 
Mexican investigating authority, the Se cretaría de Economía ("Economía"),
1 on 24 August 2001.2   
 
 On 13 March 2002, Economía issued a preliminary resolution, in which it found that the imports under investigation were being dumped at ma rgins of 3.41 per cent for standard galvanized 
pipes and tubes and 12.82 per cent for standard "b lack" pipes and tubes from known exporters, and 
25.83 per cent and 26.59 per cent, respectively,  from all other exporters, and that these dumped 
imports were causing injury to the Mexican industry.
3  Thus, Economía imposed provisional anti-
dumping duties on those products at the above mentioned rates.    
                                                     
 
1 The Secretaría de Economía is now known  as the Ministerio de Economía.   
2 Resolución por la que se acepta la solicitud de parte interesada y se declara el inicio de la 
investigación antidumping sobre las importaciones de t ubería estándar, mercancía clasificada en las fracciones 
arancelarias 7306.30.01 y 7306.30.99 de la Tarifa de la Ley del Impuesto General de Importación, originarias 
de la República de Guatemala, independientemente del país de procedencia , 24 August 2001 (the "Initiation 
Resolution"). 
3 Resolución preliminar de la investigación antidumping sobre las importaciones de tubería estándar, 
mercancía actualmente clasificada en las fracciones arancelarias 7306.30.01 y 7306.30.99 de la Tarifa de la Ley del Impuesto General de Importación, originarias de la República de Guatemala, independientemente del 
país de procedencia , 13 March 2002 (the "Preliminary Resolution"), para. 197. WT/DS331/2 
Page 2  
 
   On 13 January 2003, Economía issued its fina l resolution, in which it found dumping margins 
of 29.93 per cent for standard galvanized pipes a nd tubes and 35.26 per cent for standard "black" 
pipes and tubes, and that these imports were causing injury to the Mexican industry.
4  Accordingly, 
using the lesser duty rule, Economía imposed defin itive anti-dumping duties at the rate of 25.87 per 
cent for both galvanized and "black" pipes and tubes from all exporters.5 
 
 Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requi res that "[a]n anti-dumping measure shall be 
applied only under the circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to 
investigations initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of [the Anti-Dumping]  
Agreement."  In the light of this requirement , and based on Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, Guatemala considers that  Mexico's definitive anti-dumping duties and the 
investigation leading thereto are inconsistent with  Mexico's obligations under the provisions of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement hereinafter cited in the following respects:    Claims Relating to the Initiation of the Investigation
: 
 
 (a) The application for the investigation fa iled to contain sufficient evidence either of 
dumping, injury or a causal link to justify the initiation of an investigation.  Mexico 
then initiated the investigation without pr operly determining whether the application 
for the investigation contained sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal 
link to justify the initiation, and without properly examining the accuracy and 
adequacy of the evidence provided in the a pplication.  These failures are inconsistent 
with Articles 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 Claims Relating to the Product under Consideration/Like Product
: 
 
 (b) In the Initiation Resolution, Mexico  provided a definition of the product under 
consideration and the like product.  During th e course of the investigation, however, 
Mexico failed to adhere to and improper ly changed its definitions of the product 
under consideration and the like product without any objective examination of 
positive evidence regarding these definitions.  As a result, Mexico failed to conduct 
an unbiased and objective investigation and made findings of dumping, injury and a 
causal link with respect to products that  were not properly investigated.  These 
failures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4, 6.4 
and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
  (c) As a result of the changes to the defi nitions of the product under consideration and 
the like product during the course of the i nvestigation, Mexico applied its final 
measure to products that were not covered by its investigation and for which it had 
not made determinations of dumping, injury, and a causal link.  This is inconsistent 
with Articles 2.1, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 9.1, 9.3 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
Claims Relating to the Determination of Dumping
: 
  (d) Mexico relied on facts available to dete rmine the margin of dumping for the largest 
Guatemalan exporter of the subject products .  Mexico lacked a basis under Article 6.8 
                                                     
 
4 Resolución final de la investigación antidumping sobre las importaciones de tubería estándar, 
mercancía actualmente clasificada en las fracciones arancelarias 7306.30.01 y 7306.30.99 de la Tarifa de la 
Ley de los Impuestos Generales de Importación y de Exportación, originarias de la República de Guatemala, independientemente del país de procedencia , 13 January 2003 (the "Final Resolution"), paras. 115, 273. 
5 Ibid., paragraph 275.  WT/DS331/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to resort to facts available, and did so without 
properly following the procedures laid out in Article 6.8 and Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  These failures are inconsistent with Articles 6.6, 6.8, 
6.13, and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agre ement, as well as with the requirements 
of Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to conduct a fair 
comparison between the export price and the normal value. 
  (e) Mexico's report on the on-the-spot inves tigation of the largest Guatemalan exporter 
contains no grounds to conclude that Mexico  had encountered problems that justified 
recourse to facts available under Article 6.8.   Thus, Mexico failed to disclose to the 
Guatemalan exporters that it had encountered problems at the on-the-spot 
investigation that warranted the rejection of  that exporters' data and the use of facts 
available, contrary to Articles 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Mexico also failed to provid e any subsequent adequate explanation of 
any problems it had encountered at the on-the-spot investigation or how those 
problems justified its resort to facts availa ble.  These failures are also inconsistent 
with Articles 6.2, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
  (f) Mexico made adjustments to the export price for certain categories of expenses 
without making the symmetrical adjustme nts to the normal value for the same 
categories of expenses that was necessary to achieve a fair comparison between the 
normal value and the export price.  This failu re is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.2 
and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 Claims Relating to the Determination of Injury and a Causal Link
: 
 
 (g) In its determination of injury and a causal link, Mexico relied on a period of 
investigation that ended significantly befo re the initiation of the investigation and 
therefore failed to take into account releva nt data relating to the period immediately 
preceding its investigation, resulting in a determination of injury and a causal link 
that was not based on an objective examinati on or positive evidence.  This failure is 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 
 (h) Mexico improperly limited its injury anal ysis to data relating to six-month periods 
each year within the period of investigation,  resulting in a determination of injury and 
causal link that was not based on an objective examination or positive evidence.  This 
failure is inconsistent with Articles 3. 1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
  (i) Mexico selectively and inconsistently used data relating to different domestic 
producers, products and groups or  ranges of products, and time  periods, in its analysis 
of the volume and price effects of the impor ts under investigation, of the impact of 
those imports on investigation on the domes tic industry, and of the causal link, 
resulting in a determination of injury and causal link that was not based on an 
objective examination or positive evidence.  These failures are inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
  (j) Mexico's analysis of both the volume of  the allegedly dumped imports and the effect 
of those imports on prices in the domes tic market for like products, and the 
consequent impact of those imports on th e domestic producers of such products, was 
not based on an objective examination or positive evidence.  These failures are 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 WT/DS331/2 
Page 4  
 
   (k) Mexico failed to evaluate properly all relevant economic factors and indices having a 
bearing on the state of the domestic indu stry listed in Article 3.4, including, inter alia , 
utilization of capacity, inventories, employme nt, wages, and growth.  In addition to 
its failure to consider properly particular listed factors, Mexico's overall analysis of 
the factors listed in Article 3.4 did not conf orm to the standards of Article 3.  These 
failures are inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
  (l) Mexico's analysis of the causal link between dumping and injury failed to analyse 
properly other known factors, including, inter alia , changes in consumption, cost 
increases, differences in production methods , technology, productivity, decline in 
exports, and imports from other countries, that  were at the same time causing injury 
to the domestic industry, and failed to ensure that injury caused by those known factors was not attributed to the imports  under investigation.  This failure is 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 
Claims Relating to Procedural Matters
: 
  (m) Mexico failed, before making its final determination, to inform the Guatemalan 
exporters of the essential facts under consideration that formed the basis for its decision to apply definiti ve measures, including, inter alia , the facts relating to the 
decision to resort to facts available and to the definitions of the product under 
consideration and the like product.  This failure  is inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
  (n) Mexico failed to disclose in its prelimin ary and final resolutions in sufficient detail 
the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law that were 
considered material by the Mexican authorities, including, inter alia , the reasons for 
Mexico's definition of the product under c onsideration and the like product and its 
resort to facts available to calculate dumping margins for the largest Guatemalan 
exporter.  These failures are inconsistent  with Article 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
 
 (o) Mexico failed to require the applicants to provide non-confidential summaries and to 
disclose properly information that was not shown upon good cause to be confidential or to disclose non-confidential summaries of confidential information.  These failures 
are inconsistent with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
 Guatemala considers that the foregoing methodologies, calculations, comparisons, 
determinations and procedures made or used by th e Mexican authorities in their investigation and the 
imposition of the measures referred to above cannot be reconciled with Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,  or the specific provisions of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement cited above.    
__________