WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS346/1 
G/L/781 
G/ADP/D69/1 
26 June 2006 
 (06-3099) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA 
 
Request for Consultations by Argentina
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 20 June 2006,  from the delegation of Argentina 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.  
_______________ 
 
  Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby  wish to convey the request of Argentina to 
hold consultations with the United States of America pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on 
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU), Article XXIII of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 17 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994  (the Anti-Dumping Agreement), in connection to the 
anti-dumping duty administrative review by the Un ited States Department of Commerce (USDOC) on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods, other than Drill Pipe (OCTG) from Argentina with respect to Acindar 
Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (Acindar), fo r the period 1 August 2000 through 31 July 2001, 
published in the Federal Register of  the United States on 9 September 2002
1 and 19 March 20032, and 
also in connection to the Tariff Act of 1930, S ection 773(e)(2)(B)(iii), as well as any amendments 
thereto or extensions thereof and any related measures.   Argentina is concerned that the anti-dumping duty administrative review with respect to 
Acindar is inconsistent with the obligations  of the United States under the GATT 1994 and the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The provisions of these Ag reements with which this measure appears to 
be inconsistent include, but are not limited to, the following:   Article 2.2 and note 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
because the USDOC failed to properly establish th at Acindar's home sales during the period 
of review did not permit a proper comparison; 
  Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, because the 
USDOC: 
 
                                                     
 
1 Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Admini strative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods from 
Argentina (67 FR 57215, of 9 September 2002). 
2 Final Results and Recision in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular 
Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From Argentina (68 FR 132 62, of 19 March 2003); and the Issues and Decision 
Memo for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review  of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina – 
1 August 2000 through 31 July 2001 (68 FR 13262, 19 March 2003). WT/DS346/1 
G/L/781 G/ADP/D69/1 
Page 2 
  
  • improperly calculated the constructed nor mal value taking into account the amounts 
for profits based on Siderca's financial stat ement, disregarding Acindar's actual data 
pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade; 
 
• when calculating the constructed normal value, the USDOC added direct selling 
expenses reported for Acindar's US sales, disregarding the selling expenses reported on Acindar's financial statement; 
  Article 2.2.2 (iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agre ement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, because 
even if the amount for profit could not be dete rmined on Acindar's actual data, by improperly 
using Siderca's financial statement under alternative III (as provided by 
Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930) to assess profit for Acindar's constructed 
normal value, the USDOC did not properly establish that the profit determined did not exceed the profit normally realized by Siderca or othe r producers on sales of OCTG in the domestic 
market of Argentina; 
 
 Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, because:  
• by using Siderca's financial statement (including seventy-three per cent of export 
sales) in calculating Acindar's profit ratio a nd, therefore, constructed normal value,  
 
• by not taking into account that Acindar so ld only welded OCTG during the period of 
review while Siderca sold only seamless OCTG during the fiscal year covered by the financial statement when calculating Acindar's profit ratio,  
 
• by disregarding the fact that Siderca's home market sales were made pursuant to long-
term supply contracts tending to cause Si derca's home market prices lag behind the 
general price increase during the period,   
 
• by not indicating what further informat ion from Companhia 103 was necessary to 
calculate Acindar's profit ratio,  
 
• by making circumstances-of-sale adjustment s adding direct selling expenses reported 
for Acindar's US sales, disregarding th e selling expenses reported on Acindar's 
financial statement, 
 
• by utilizing Siderca's financial statement for the period ending 31 March 2001 and, 
therefore, not comparing sales made at as nearly as possible the same time,  
  the USDOC did not conduct a fair compar ison between Acindar's export price and the 
constructed normal value, faile d to make due allowances for the above-mentioned differences 
that affected price comparability and did not indicate Acindar what information was 
necessary to ensure a fair comparison; 
  Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because by, inter alia : 
 
• not making clear, expressly requesting, a nd/or seeking to clarify the kind of 
information required with respect to Compa nhia 103's (i.e. Acindar's home sales unit) 
and Siat's (Siderca's home sales unit) profits because of an alleged "ambiguity" and 
"unclearness", and   WT/DS346/1 
 G/L/781 
 G/ADP/D69/1 
 Page 3 
  
   
• using instead Siderca's financial statement (including seventy-three per cent of export 
sales) as the basis for Acindar's constructed value profit,   
 
 the USDOC did not give notice of the info rmation required and denied Acindar ample 
opportunity to present in writing all evidence cons idered relevant, did not not provide Acindar 
a full opportunity for the defence of its interests and did not satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied; 
 
 Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, because by recurring to facts 
available and resorting to Siderca's financial statement for calculating Acindar's constructed 
value profit, the USDOC failed to comply with  the necessary conditions established in those 
provisions; 
 
 Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, b ecause by not disclosing how it determined the 
dumping margin for the period of review to be  60.73%, the USDOC failed to inform Acindar 
of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to apply antidumping duties; 
  Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 because, 
inter alia:  
 
• by not calculating the constructed normal value taking into account the amounts for 
administrative, selling and general costs and profits based on actual data pertaining to 
production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of OCTG by Acindar,  
 
• by not establishing an amount of profit that did not exceed the profit normally 
realized by other producers on sales of OCTG in the domestic  market of Argentina,  
 
• by not taking into account that Acindar so ld only welded OCTG during the period of 
review while Siderca sold only seamless OCTG during the fiscal year covered by the financial statement when calculating Acindar's profit ratio,  
 
• by disregarding the fact that Siderca's home market sales were made pursuant to long-
term supply contracts tending to cause Si derca's home market prices lag behind the 
general price increase during the period,  
  the USDOC failed to collect anti-dumping duties in the appropriate amount;  
 Article 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
because the zeroing methodology applied by the US DOC in the administrative review at issue 
with regard to Acindar resulted in amounts of assessed anti-dumping duties that exceeded 
Acindar's margin of dumping with which the anti-dumping duties had to be compared;  and 
  Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , by not 
providing details of the calculations that led to a determination of a dumping margin for 
Acindar of 60.73%, the USDOC did not make av ailable through the Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and the Issues and Decision Memo, all the relevant information of fact and law and reasons that led to  the impositions of anti-dumping WT/DS346/1 
G/L/781 G/ADP/D69/1 
Page 4 
  
  duties, and in particular, the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment and 
comparison of the export price and the normal value. 
 
In addition, Argentina also requests consultati ons with the United States with respect to the 
Tariff Act of 1930 ("the Act"), in particular, Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii), which appears to be 
inconsistent with United States' obligations un der the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994. 
Argentina is concerned that this provision of the Act allows the United States to establish an amount 
for profit that exceeds the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of 
products of the same general categor y in the domestic market of the country of origin, in violation of 
Article 2.2.2(iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and  Article VI of the GATT 1994. 
 
For all of the measures identified above, the Un ited States also failed to comply with its 
obligations under Articles 1 and 18.1 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement. 
  Argentina reserves its right to raise further fact ual, "as applied" and "as such" claims and legal 
issues during the course of consultations.   We look forward to receiving your reply to th is request and to fixing a mutually convenient 
date for consultations. 
 
__________