CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP FROM CANADA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CANADA
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 13 February 2015
Document codes: WT/DS483/2
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: China
Third parties: EU, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Norway, U.S., Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.2, 6.1, 6.8, Annex II, 6.9, 6.10, 6.10.2, 12.2.2, 9.4, 1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP
FROM CANADA
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CANADA
The following communication, dated 12 February 2015, from the delegation of Canada to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 15 October 2014, the Government of Canada ("Canada") requested 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 Gove rning the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"),
Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") and
Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") with respect to China's measures imposing
anti-dumping duties on imports of cellulose pulp from Canada, as set forth in Ministry of
Commerce of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 75 of 2013 (6 November 2013), including its annex
(the "Preliminary Determination") and Notice No. 18 of 2014 (4 April 2014), including its annex
(the "Final Determination").
1

Canada held consultations with China on 2 November 2014. These consultations failed to settle the
dispute.

Canada considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with China's obligations under the
following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994:

1. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement because China, in establishing
constructed normal value for a Canadian producer, failed to calculate costs on the basis of records
kept by the producer which reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and
sale of cellulose pulp and failed to adjust costs appropriately for circumstances in which costs
during the period of investigation were affected by start-up operations.

2. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China, in establishing
constructed normal value for a Canadian producer, failed to determine the amounts for
administrative, selling and general costs on the basis of the producer's actual data pertaining to
production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of cellulose pulp.

3. Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to make a fair
comparison between the export price and normal value by, for instance, improperly deducting
certain expenses from the export price and by not making due allowance for differences in physical
characteristics when calculating the export price.

4. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's determination of injury
was not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of
the dumped imports and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic market for like
products. China failed to properly consider whether there had been:

1 WT/DS483/1.

a. significant increase in dumped imports;
b. significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of a
domestic like product, or whether the effect of such imports was otherwise to depress
prices to a significant degree or prevent pr ice increases, which otherwise would have
occurred, to a significant degree.
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's determination of injury
was not based on positive evidence, did not invo lve an objective examination of the impact of
dumped imports on domestic producers of like products and failed to properly evaluate all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.

6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement because China failed to:

a. demonstrate, through an objective examination based on positive evidence, the causal
relationship between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry
b. conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of known factors other
than the dumped imports which at the same time were injuring the domestic industry
and improperly attributed the injuries caused by those factors to the dumped imports.
7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China made a determination of
injury having improperly defined the domestic in dustry and, as a result, failed to base its
determination on positive evidence and conduct an objective examination of the facts with respect
to the domestic industry producing the like product.

8. Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to grant interested parties a
full opportunity to defend their interests.

9. Articles 6.1 and 6.8 and paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
China, in determining the margins of dumping, failed to give Canadian producers ample
opportunity to present in writing all evidence they considered relevant in respect of the
investigation and to take into account all the information which was verifiable, appropriately
submitted, and supplied in a timely fashion.

10. Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China
improperly relied on facts available to determine the margins of dumping for Canadian exporters
or producers of cellulose pulp for which individual margins of dumping were not established.

11. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to inform all interested
parties of the essential facts under consideration forming the basis for the decision to impose
definitive anti-dumping measures regarding Canadian exporters or producers of cellulose pulp for
which individual margins of dumping were not established.

12. Articles 6.10, 6.10.2 and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not
determine individual margins of dumping for producers not initially selected that voluntarily
submitted the necessary information in time for that information to be considered by China during
the course of the investigation.

13. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement because China failed to provide
public notice, in sufficient detail, of all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and
reasons which led to the imposition of final measures. China, inter alia, failed to:

- provide a full explanation of the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment
and comparison of the export price and the normal value under Article 2;
- provide the considerations relevant to the injury determination as set out in Article 3 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
- provide the reasons for the rejection of relevant arguments or claims made by the
exporters;

- provide the basis for the decision under Article 6.10.2 of the Antidumping Agreement to
reject the voluntary responses by two Canadian producers.

14. Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement an d Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence
of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.

The violations stated above nullify or impair benefits accruing to Canada, directly or indirectly,
under the covered agreements.

Therefore, Canada respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, that the Dispute Settl ement Body establish a panel to examine this
matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.

Canada asks that this request be placed on th e agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement
Body to be held on 23 February 2015.