. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS425/2 
9 December 2011 
 
 (11-6394) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
CHINA – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES  
ON X-RAY SECURITY INSPECTION EQUIPMENT 
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union 
 
  The following communication, dated 8 Decemb er 2011, from the delegation of the European 
Union to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Bo dy, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the 
DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
On 25 July 2011 the European Union ("EU") reque sted consultations with the Government of 
the Peoples' Republic of China ("China" ) pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article 
VI of the GATT 1994 (" Anti-Dumping Agreement ") and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") with respect to the imposition of definitive 
anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equi pment from the European Union, pursuant to 
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Notice No. 1(2011), including its annex. 
The European Union held consultations with  China on 19 September and 18 October 2011. 
Those consultations unfortunately did not resolve the dispute. 
The EU considers the measure at issue to be in consistent with China's obligations under the 
following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement : 
1. Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to ensure that 
interested parties provided non-confidential su mmaries of confidential information or, where 
provided, that the summaries were in sufficient de tail to enable a reasonable understanding of the 
substance of the information submitted with regard  to (i) the existence of dumping, including the 
establishment and comparison of the normal value a nd the export price; and (ii) the existence of 
injury, including the effects of dumped imports on prices, the state of the domestic industry and the 
causal relationship between the dumped imports and the injury allegedly suffered by the domestic 
industry. In doing so, China failed to provide a timely  and full opportunity for all interested parties to 
see all information that is not confiden tial as defined by Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
and that was relevant to defend their interests, a nd that was used by the authority in the anti-dumping 
investigation, and to prepare presentations on the b asis of this information for the defence of their 
interests.  
2. Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to provide 
interested parties with information about the essen tial facts under considerati on which would form the 
basis for the decision to impose definitive anti-dumpi ng measures. In particular, China did not fully 
disclose the essential facts, which fo rm the basis for the determination of the dumping margin of the WT/DS425/2 
Page 2 
 
 
  EU cooperating producer, including the calculation of  the normal value and the adjustments made to 
the export price, and the determination of the resi dual duty. China also failed to disclose the essential 
facts that formed the basis for th e determination of injury, includi ng the analysis of the effects of 
dumped imports on prices, the state of the domestic industry and the causal relationship between the 
dumped imports and the injury suffered by the domes tic industry. In doing so, China failed to provide 
a timely and full opportunity for all interested parti es to see all information that was relevant to defend 
their interests, and that was used by the authorit y in the anti-dumping investigation, and to prepare 
presentations on the basis of this informa tion for the defence of their interests. 
3. Article 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because neither in its public notice of the 
imposition of definitive measures, nor in a separat e report, China set forth sufficiently detailed 
explanations for the definitive determinations on  dumping and injury, together with references to the 
matters of fact and law which  led to arguments being accepted or rejected.  Specifically, China failed 
to provide: a) a full explanation of the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment and 
comparison of the export price and normal value (Article 12.2.1(iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ); 
b) all the considerations relevant to the inju ry determination as set out in Article 3 of the Antidumping 
Agreement  (Article 12.2.1(iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ); and c) the main reasons leading to the 
determination (Article 12.2.1(v) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement) .   
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , because China failed to make an 
objective examination, on the basis of positive evidence,  of the effect of the dumped imports on prices 
in the domestic market for like products. Specifica lly, it appears from the very limited information 
disclosed by the Chinese authorities that the finding  that EU imports had the effect of undercutting 
and suppressing and/or depressing the price of dom estic products is not based on an objective 
examination of positive evidence because it failed to take into account the differences between 
various types of products c overed by the investigation. 
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to make an 
objective examination, on the basis of positive evidence,  of the effect of the dumped imports on prices 
in the domestic market for like products and the consequent impact of these imports on domestic 
producers of such products, including the factors lis ted in Article 3.4, as the overwhelming majority 
of injury indicators were positive or showed positive trends.   
6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because China failed to make an 
objective determination, on the basis of all releva nt evidence before the authorities that the dumped 
imports were, through the effects of dumping, causi ng injury. The causality determination is flawed 
because it is based on findings of price undercuttin g and price suppression and/or depression by EU 
imports which are themselves not based on an object ive examination of positive evidence. Moreover, 
China did not consider all known relevant factors other than dumped imports having a bearing on the 
state of the industry and/or affecting the domestic prices. 
Accordingly the European Uni on respectfully requests that, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU  
and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , 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 . 
The European Union asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the 
Dispute Settlement Body to be  held on 19 December 2011. 
 
__________