CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN AUTOMOBILES FROM THE UNITED STATES
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States
Date: 18 September 2012
Document codes: WT/DS440/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: China
Third parties: Colombia, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Oman, Turkey, Saudi Arabia
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 11.4, 12.7, 12.8, 22.3, 22.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 6.9, 6.8, Annex 2, 12.2, 12.2.2, 6.5.1  Anti-dumpingArt. 12.4.1, 15.1, 16.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 3.1, 4.1, 3.1, 3.2  Anti-dumpingArt. 15.4  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 3.4, 3.5  Anti-dumpingArt. 15.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1  Anti-dumpingArt. 10  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
ON CERTAIN AUTOMOBILES FROM THE UNITED STATES

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States

 The following communication, dated 17 Sept ember 2012, from the delegation of the
United States to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settl ement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2
of the DSU.

On July 5, 2012, the United States Governme nt requested consultations with China pursuant
to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes ( "DSU"), 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 inco rporates 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 anti-dumping duties and
countervailing duties on certain automobiles from the United States.
1 The United States and China
held such consultations on August 23, 2012. Unfo rtunately these consultations were unsuccessful in
resolving this dispute.

The United States considers that China's me asures imposing anti-dumping 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, are inconsistent with China' s obligations under the following provisions of the
AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, and GATT 1994:

Initiation of the Investigation: Support for the Application

1. Article 5.4 of the AD Agreement, and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement, because:
(a) (a)China failed to examine the degree of s upport for, or opposition to, the application
expressed by domestic producers of the like product prior to initiating the
antidumping and countervailing duty investigations; and
(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
the domestic industry.

1 WT/DS440/1.

All Others Subsidy Rate Determination

2. Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement, because Ch ina improperly based its determinations on
the "facts available" in the case of exporters that were not known at the time of the investigation,
including exporters that were not given notice of the information required by the investigating
authority.
3. Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement, because Ch ina failed to disclose the essential facts under
consideration which formed the basis of its determin ation regarding the all ot hers subsidy rate, thus
impairing the interested parties' ability to defend their interests.
4. Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement, because Chin a failed to provide in sufficient detail the
findings and conclusions it reached on all issues of f act and law it considered material in making its
preliminary and final determinations.
5. Article 22.5 of the SCM Agreement because Chin a failed to make available all relevant
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to the imposition of the final
measure.
Antidumping Margin: Disclosure of Data and Calculations

6. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement, because Ch ina failed to disclose the essential facts under
consideration which formed the basis of its determ ination, thus impairing the respondents' ability to
defend their interests.
All Others Dumping Determination

7. Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, because China improperly
applied facts available in determining the duty rate applicable to exporters that were not known at the
time of the investigation, including exporters that were not given notice of the information required by
the investigating authority.
8. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement, because Chin a failed to disclose the "essential facts" under
consideration which formed the b asis of its determination regardi ng the all others dumping margin,
thus impairing the respondents' ability to defend their interests.
9. Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement, because Ch ina failed to provide in sufficient detail the
findings and conclusions it reached on all issues of fact and law it considered in making its
preliminary or final determinations.
10. Article 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because Chin a failed to make available all relevant
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to the imposition of the final
measure.
Confidential Information

11. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement, and Ar ticle 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement, because
China failed to require the applicant to provide adequate non-confidentia l summaries of allegedly
confidential information. China's treatment of c onfidential information did not allow the interested
parties to obtain a reasonable understanding of the s ubstance of the confidential information prior to
the preliminary and final determinations, such that they could prepare presentations on the basis of
this information. China did not give any indicati on that the information could not be summarized and
did not provide the reasons why summarization was not practicable.

Injury Determination: Definition of the Domestic Industry

12. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement and Ar ticles 15.1 and 16.1 of the SCM Agreement,
because China made a determination of injury usin g an improper definition of the domestic industry
and as a result failed to base its determinati on on positive evidence or conduct an objective
examination of the facts with respect to the domestic industry producing the subject imports.
Injury Determination: Price Effects Analysis

13. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement and Ar ticles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement,
because China failed to establish that the effect of the allegedly du mped and subsidized imports was
to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have
occurred, to a significant degree, on the basis of an objective examination of the record and positive
evidence.
Injury Determination: Causation

14. Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.1 of the SCM Agreement, because China's
analysis of the alleged causal link was not based upon an objective examination of the record and
positive evidence.
15. Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.4 of the SCM Agreement, because China's
analysis of the alleged causal link was not based upon an evaluation of all relevant economic factors
and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry.
16. Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement, because:
(a) China's analysis of the alleged causal link was not based upon an examination of any
known factors other than allegedly dumped a nd subsidized imports which at the same
time were injuring the domestic industry; and
(b) China failed to meet the requirement that injuries caused by other factors must not be
attributed to the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports.
In view of the claims set forth above, the Un ited States considers that China has also acted
inconsistently with Article VI of the GATT 1994, Article 1 of the AD Agreement, and Article 10 of
the SCM Agreement, which only permit antidumpi ng or countervailing duty measures to be applied
under the circumstances provided for in Article VI of the GATT 1994 and conducted in accordance
with the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement.

These measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.

Therefore, the United States respectfully requ ests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and
Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Dispute Se ttlement Body establish a panel to examine this
matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.