WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS440/1 
G/L/991 
G/SCM/D91/1 
G/ADP/D93/1 
9 July 2012 
 (12-3623) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 
ON CERTAIN AUTOMOBILES FROM THE UNITED STATES 
 
Request for Consultations by the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 5 July 2012, from the delegation of the United States to the delegation of China and to th e Chairperson 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 
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes , Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures  ("SCM Agreement") (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement") with respect  to China's measures imposing 
antidumping duties and countervailing duties on certain automobiles from the United States, as set 
forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 20 
[2011] and Notice No. 84 [2011], including any and all annexes.  China's measures appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations includi ng under the provisions of the GATT 1994, the 
AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement. 
 
In particular, China's antidumping and count ervailing duty measures on certain automobiles 
from the United States appear to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the 
AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement: 
 
1. Articles 5.3 and 5.4 of the AD Agreement, a nd Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the SCM Agreement, 
because:  (a) China failed to examine the de gree of support for, or opposition to, the 
application expressed by domestic producers of the like product prior to initiating the 
antidumping and countervailing duty investigati ons; (b) China initiated the investigations 
when domestic producers supporting the application accounted for less than 25 per cent of total production of the like product produced by th e domestic industry; and (c) China failed to 
examine or review the accuracy and adequacy of  the evidence provided in the application.  
 
2. Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement becau se the application for a countervailing duty 
investigation failed to contain information reas onably available to the applicant and therefore 
there was insufficient evidence in  the application to justify the initiation of a countervailing 
duty investigation with respect to several programs. 
 WT/DS440/1, G/L/991,  
G/SCM/D91/1, G/ADP/D93/1 Page 2 
 
 
  3. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement and Artic le 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement because China 
failed to require the applicant to provide ad equate non-confidential summaries of allegedly 
confidential information. 
 
4. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because Chin a failed to adequately disclose the calculations 
and data used to establish the anti-dumping duty rates it determined.  
 5. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because China failed to provide in sufficient 
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered 
material, and the reasons for the acceptance or re jection of relevant arguments or claims.  
 6. Article 6.8, including Annex II, paragraph 1, and Articles 6.9, 12.2, and 12.2.2 of the 
AD Agreement and Articles 12.7, 12.8, 22.3, a nd 22.5 of the SCM Agreement because:  (a) 
China improperly based its determination of the "all others" anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty rates on the facts available; (b) China faile d to disclose the essential facts underlying its 
"all others" rate determinations; (c) China failed to set forth in sufficient detail the findings 
and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered material in its "all others" rate determinations; and (d) with respect to the "all others" rates, China failed to make 
available all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reas ons which have led to 
the imposition of the final measures. 
 
7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement a nd Articles 15.1 and 16.1 of the SCM Agreement 
because China made a determination of injury using an improper definition of the domestic 
industry and as a result failed to base its determ ination on positive evidence or conduct an 
objective examination of the facts with respect to the domestic industry producing the subject 
imports. 
 8. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement a nd Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement 
because China's analysis of the effects of imports under investigation on the price of the like product was not based upon an objective examina tion of the record and positive evidence.  
 
9. Articles 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Articles 15.1, 15.4, and 15.5 of the 
SCM Agreement because:  (a) China's analysis of the alleged causal link was not based upon 
an objective examination of the record and positiv e evidence, including an examination of all 
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, an 
examination of all relevant evidence before th e authorities, or an examination of any known 
factors other than allegedly dumped and subsid ized imports which at the same time were 
injuring the domestic industry, and (b) China fa iled to meet the requirement that injuries 
caused by other factors must not be attributed to the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports.  
 10. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because Ch ina failed to grant interested parties a full 
opportunity for the defense of their interests.   
 11. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a con sequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement 
described above. 
 
12. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a con sequence of the breaches of the SCM Agreement 
described above. 
 13. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the AD and 
SCM Agreements described above.  WT/DS440/1, G/L/991,  
 G/SCM/D91/1, G/ADP/D93/1  Page 3 
 
 
   
China's measures also appear to nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to the United States 
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. 
 
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 
convenient date for consultations.  
__________