UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CHINA
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 16 August 2018
Document codes: WT/DS562/1; G/L/1257; G/SG/D60/1
Complainant: China
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Russia, Taiwan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. XIX:1  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2(b)  Safeguards

UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF
CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CHINA
The following communication, dated 14 August 2018, from the delegation of China to the
delegation of the United States, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with
Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructe d me to request consultations with the Government of the United
States of America ("United States") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards , regarding the
definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of certain crystalline silicon
photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assemb led into other products (including, but
not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building -integrated materials) ("crystalline silicon
photovoltaic products").
This request identifies the measures at issue in Section I, and indicates the legal basis for China's
complaint in Section II.
I. Measures at Issue
The United States imposed the definitive safeguard measure on imports of crystalline silicon
photovoltaic products pursuant to "Proclamation 9693 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive
Adjustment to Competition from Imports of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether
or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) and for Other Purposes"(83 FR 3541).
The safeguard measure on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products is b ased on the United States
International Trade Commission ("USITC") determination of injury on September 22, 2017 and the
report to the President on November 13, 2017 regarding the Investigation No. TA -201-751, as well
as the Supplemental Report Regarding Unforeseen Developments issued by the USITC on
December 27, 20172.
This request also concerns any modification, review, replacement or amendment to the definitive
safeguard measure, including any closely conne cted, subsequent measures affecting the form and
amount of the safeguard remedy, as well as the underlying reports, memoranda and other
documents supporting the safeguard measure, including any subsequent determinations made by
the United States Trade Representative with respect to the exemption of certain products from the
application of the safeguard measure.

1 See, Public Report, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or not Partially or Fully Assembled
into Other Products), Inv. No. TA-201-75, USITC Pub. 4739 (Nov. 2017), a summary of which was published in
the U.S. Federal Register on 21 November 2017 under citation "82 FR 55393".
2 The Supplemental Report Regarding Unforeseen Developments is referenced in paragraph 4 of the
Proclamation 9693 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition from Imports of
Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products)
and for Other Purposes. See, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-01592/p-4.
WT/DS562/1 • G/L/1257 • G/SG/D60/1

II. Legal Basis of the Complaint
China considers that the safeguard measure imposed by the United States on crystalline silicon
photovoltaic product s is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the GATT
1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. In particular, China considers that the safeguard measure
fails to comply with, among others, the following provisions:
a. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ,
because the US failed to establish, prior to the application of the measures, that the
increases in imports and the conditions of importation of the products covered by the
measures at issue were the result of "unforeseen development" and of the effect of the US
obligations under the GATT 1994;
b. Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards , because the United States failed to
make a proper determination, including a reasoned and adequate expla nation, that the
subject imports increased "in such quantities and under such conditions" to cause serious
injury to the domestic industry;
c. Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards as the United States failed
to make a proper determina tion, including a reasoned and adequate explanation, of a
significant overall impairment in the position of the domestic industry to support its
conclusion that the domestic industry was suffering from "serious injury or threat of
serious injury";
d. Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the safeguard measure
is not supported by a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the imports "caused or
threatened to cause" serious injury to the domestic industry;
e. Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(c) and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United
States did not properly define "domestic industry " as it failed to limit the scope to only
those producers producing "like or directly competitive products" to the subject imports;
f. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States did not
provide the interested parties with sufficient opportunities to participate in the
investigation, including as a result of the failure to respect the requirements on gran ting
confidential treatment and the availability of sufficiently informative non -confidential
summaries, and because the United States failed to set forth in the published report the
findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law , including the
conditions on which the measure was imposed, the nature and level of the actual measure,
and the ground for excluding certain sources;
g. Articles 5.1 and 7.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States failed to
grant relief only to the "extent necessary" and limit such relief to serious injury caused by
increased imports at the time of the imposition of the measure as well as at the stages of
progressive liberalization;
h. Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards b ecause the United States
excluded certain products from the scope of application of its safeguard measure;
i. Article 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards since the United states failed to grant relief
only "for such period of time as may be necessary to preven t or remedy serious injury and
to facilitate adjustment";
j. Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards to the extent that the United States fail ed to
endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations
under the GATT 1994 between the United States and China in accordance with Article 12.3
of the Agreement on Safeguards;
k. Article XIX:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on
Safeguards because the United States failed to provide immediate not ifications with all
WT/DS562/1 • G/L/1257 • G/SG/D60/1

pertinent information and failed to provide China with an adequate opportunity to
commence prior consultations;
l. Article X:3 of the GATT 1994 since the measure is not based on uniform, impartial and
reasonable administration of the relevant US laws and regulations; and,
m. Article XIII of the GATT 1994 because the measure is inconsistent with the obligation with
respect to the allocation of tariff rate quotas.
China is concerned that the safeguard measure on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic
products appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to China directly or indirectly under the
above Agreements.
China reserves the right to raise additiona l factual and legal issues, and to address additional
measures and claims regarding the above matter, in the course of the consultations and in any
request for the establishment of a panel.
China looks forward to receiving the United States' reply to the p resent request and to setting a
mutually acceptable date and venue for consultations.