WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS355/2 
8 June 2007 
 
 (07-2433) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
BRAZIL – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS 
OF CERTAIN RESINS FROM ARGENTINA 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Argentina
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 7 June 2007, from the delegation of Argentina to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
 
 Argentina considers that certain measures of th e Government of Brazil are inconsistent with 
Brazil's commitments and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
("GATT 1994"), the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the  General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement"), and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization ("WTO Agreement").  In particular: 
 
(1) On 26 August 2005, the President of the Ministers Council of the Foreign Trade Chamber ("CAMEX"), through Resolução No  29, de 26 de Agosto de 2005, da Cãmara de Comércio Exterior 
CAMEX, do Conselho de Goberno  ("Resolution No. 29") , resolved, ad referendum of the Council, to 
apply an anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethyl ene terephthalate ("PET") resins, with intrinsic 
viscosity over 0.7 dl/g, excluding added resins of glass fiber and other blends, classified under item 
3907.60.00 of the NCM
1, originating from Argentina.  Reso lution No. 29 was published in Brazil's 
Diario Oficial da Uniao  on 2 September 2005 and appears to ha ve been ratified by the Council of 
Ministers of CAMEX on 16 December 2005. This me asure appears to be inconsistent with the 
following provisions of the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994:   
(a) Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, and 6.9 of th e AD Agreement and paragr aphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 
7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, because Brazil: 
 
- failed to inform the Argentinian expor ter of perceived deficiencies in its 
responses to Brazil's questionnaire;  
 
- failed to provide the Argentinian export er an opportunity to provide further 
explanations within a reasonable period; 
 - failed to provide the Argentinian export er with ample opportunity to present in 
writing all evidence which it considered relevant in respect of the anti-dumping 
investigation;  
 - failed to give the Argentinian exporter a full opportunity for the defence of its 
interests;  
 
                                                     
 
1 Nomenclatura Comun Mercosur (Mercosur Common Tariff Schedule). WT/DS355/2 
Page 2  
 
  - failed to provide timely opportunities for the Argentinian exporter to see all 
information that is relevant to the presentation of its case and to prepare presentations on the basis of this information;  
 - failed during the course of the investigation to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of 
the information supplied by interested parties upon which their findings were 
based;  
 - improperly made its final de termination on the basis of the facts available; and 
 
- failed to inform the Argentinian exporter of the essential facts under 
consideration which formed the basis for the decision to apply definitive 
measures in sufficient time for the Argentin ian exporter to defend its interests; 
 
(b) Articles 2.2.1.1 and 6.8 of the AD Agreement, pa ragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6,  and 7 of Annex II of 
the AD Agreement, and paragraph 2 of Article VI of GATT 1994, because Brazil 
substituted the facts available for the Argen tinian exporter's actual records regarding the 
primary input into PET resin, which record s were in accordance with the generally 
accepted accounting principles of Argentina and reasonably reflected the costs associated 
with the production and sale of the product u nder consideration; and by failing to use 
special circumspection in basing its findi ngs on information from a secondary source; 
 
(c) Articles 2.2.2 and 6.8 of the AD Agreement, para graphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of 
the AD Agreement, and paragraph 2 of Article VI of GATT 1994, because Brazil substituted the facts available for the Arge ntinian exporter's actual data regarding 
administrative, selling and general costs and fo r profits pertaining to production and sales 
in the ordinary course of trade of the li ke product by the Argentinian exporter under 
investigation; and by failing to use special  circumspection in basing its findings on 
information from a secondary source; 
 
(d) Articles 2.2.1 and 6.8 of the AD Agreement, para graphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of 
the AD Agreement, and paragraph 2 of Article VI of GATT 1994, because Brazil 
improperly treated sales of the Argentinian exporter's like product as being at prices 
below per unit costs of production plus admini strative, selling and general costs in the 
domestic market of Argentina, and as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, which Brazil disregarde d in determining normal value; 
 
(e) Articles 2.4 and 6.8 of the AD Agreement, paragr aphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the 
AD Agreement, and paragraph 2 of Artic le VI of GATT 1994, because Brazil, in 
calculating the profits accruing to be deduc ted from the export price on sales in Brazil 
made by the affiliated party of the Argentin ian exporter of PET resin after importation, 
substituted the facts available for the actual profit realized on the sales by the affiliated 
party of the Argentinian exporter; 
 
(f) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement and paragra phs 1 and 2 of Article VI of GATT 1994, 
because Brazil improperly denied adjustments to normal value and export price for volume discounts, debits and credits for pri ce adjustments, customer credits, as well as 
level of trade differences granted by the Ar gentinian exporter to individual customers, 
thereby failing to make a fair comparison between the export price and normal value; 
 (g) Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the AD Agreem ent because Brazil, in conducting its injury 
analysis, failed to collect or examine r ecent data, and failed to base its injury 
determination on positive evidence or to c onduct objective examina tions of the volume  WT/DS355/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  of the allegedly dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic 
market of the like product, and the impact of the imports on domestic producers of those products; 
 
(h) Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement b ecause Brazil failed to demonstrate that the 
allegedly dumped imports are, through the effects of dumping, causing injury; failed to 
base its determination of a causal relationshi p between the allegedly dumped imports and 
injury to the domestic industry on positive ev idence and an objective examination of all 
relevant evidence; failed to examine all know n factors other than the allegedly dumped 
imports which at the same time are allege dly injuring the domestic industry; and 
attributed the alleged injury caused by these other factors to the allegedly dumped 
imports; 
 (i) Article 8.3 of the AD Agreement, because Brazil rejected a proposed price undertaking 
by the Argentinian exporter without providing  the reasons which led the investigating 
authorities to consider acceptance of an undert aking as inappropriate, and without giving 
the exporter an opportunity to make comments thereon; 
  
(j) Article 10.1 of the AD Agreement, becau se Brazil began applying anti-dumping duties to 
products which entered for consumption prio r to the time when the decision to impose 
anti-dumping duties entered into force; and 
 
(k) Articles 12.1, 12.1.1, 12.2, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement, because Brazil failed in its 
public notice of initiation to provide ade quate information concerning the product 
involved in the investigation, and failed in its final determination to set forth in sufficient 
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered 
material or to provide all relevant informa tion on the matters of fact and law and reasons 
which led to the imposition of final measures. 
 (2) Certain provisions of Brazil's Decree 4732 of 10 June 2003 ("Decree 4732/03") appear to be inconsistent with Brazil's obligations under the provisions of the AD Agreement, the GATT 1994, and 
the WTO Agreement. 
 
 Article 2(XV) of Decree 4732/03 authorizes CAMEX to impose provisional or definitive anti-dumping measures.  Article 5 § 3 of Decree 4732/03 authorizes the president of CAMEX to perform all acts of CAMEX, including the imposition of anti-dumping measures, ad referendum of 
the Council of Ministers, and Brazilian law prescr ibes no deadline within which CAMEX must ratify 
or reject those acts, nor does it stipulate the lega l status of the anti-dumping measures apparently in 
force.  These provisions appear to be inconsistent with:  
(a) Article 10.1 of the AD Agreement, which requires that anti-dumping duties only be 
applied to products which enter for consump tion after the time when the decision to 
impose anti-dumping duties enters into force; 
 
(b) Article X:1 and X:3(a) of GATT 1994, which requires that laws, regulations, judicial 
decisions and administrative rulings of ge neral application made effective by a 
contracting party be published promptly in  such a manner as to enable governments and 
traders to become acquainted with them and to administer them in a uniform, impartial 
and reasonable manner; 
 
(c) Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, which requires each Member to take all necessary 
steps, of a general or particular character, to  ensure, not later than the date of entry into WT/DS355/2 
Page 4  
 
  force of the WTO Agreement for it, the c onformity of its laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures with the provisions of the AD Agreement; and 
 
(d) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement, which requires Members to ensure the conformity 
of their laws, regulations and administra tive procedures with their obligations as 
provided in the annexed Agreements. 
  Brazil's measures identified in this request also appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to 
Argentina directly or indirectly under the cited Ag reements.  For each of the measures referred to 
above, this request also covers any amendments, replacements, extensions, implementing measures or 
other related measures. 
  On 26 December 2006, the Government of Ar gentina requested consultations with the 
Government of Brazil pursu ant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994, and Article 17 of the 
AD Agreement (WT/DS355/1).  Argentina and Brazil held such consultations on 1 February 2007, 
covering the measures at issue in this request .  These consultations provided some helpful 
clarifications, but unfortunately did not resolve the dispute.   Accordingly, Argentina respectfully request s, pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, 
Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, and Article 17.4 of  the AD Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement 
Body establish a panel to examine this matter, with  the standard terms of reference as set out in 
Article 7.1 of the DSU.  Argentina further asks that  this request for a panel be placed on the agenda 
for the next meeting of the Dispute Settle ment Body to be held on 20 June 2007.  
 
__________