CHINA - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 20 August 2021
Document codes: WT/DS601/2
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: China
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, EU, India, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, U.S., Vietnam
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN
The following communication, dated 19 August 2021 , from the delegation of Japan to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request the establishment of a panel with respect to the
measures by the People's Republic of China ("China") imposing anti -dumping duties on stainless
steel products from Japan. Japan submits this request pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 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 17.4 of the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("Anti-Dumping Agreement").
On 11 June 2021, Japan requested consultations with China1. Japan and China held consultations
on 19 July 2021, with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, the
consultations failed to settle the dispute.
China's measures are set forth in the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") Ann ouncement No. 9 of
20192 and Announcement No. 31 of 20193, including any and all annexes and amendments thereto,
and are also identified in China's semi-annual report for the period 1 July 2019 through 31 December
2019 submitted to the WTO Committee on Anti-dumping Practices.4
In the above public announcements and semi -annual report, China has continuously stated the
import products subject to the anti -dumping duties to be "stainless steel billet and hot -rolled
stainless steel plate (coil)", which is an English translation of " 不锈钢钢坯和不锈钢热轧板/卷"
(emphasis added). However, the detailed descriptions of the subject import products in its
announcements, such as "[h]ot-rolled stainless steel plates/coils are made of stainless steel billets
after the stainless steel billets undergo hot rolling and other processes, and they are made into coils
or plates, regardless of their width and thickness",5 indicate that the word "billets" refers to stainless
steel "slabs" (in Chinese, "板坯") instead of "billets" or "钢坯". This inference can be made because
the products from which hot -rolled stainless steel plates/coils are made are slabs and not billets.
Japan therefore uses the word "slabs" when it refers to the product corresponding to " 钢坯" in its
communications/submissions in the present dispute, but in no way intends to exclude any of the

1 WT/DS601/1, G/L/1389, G/ADP/D136/1, circulated on 15 June 2021.
2 商务部公告2019年第9号 关于对原产于欧盟、日本、韩国和印度尼西亚的进口不锈钢钢坯和不锈钢热轧板/卷反倾销调
查初步裁定的公告 (MOFCOM Announcement No.9 of 2019 on the Preliminary Ruling of Anti-dumping
Investigation into Imports of Stainless Steel Billets and Hot-rolled Stainless Steel Plates/Coils Originating in the
EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Indonesia), available at
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/c/201903/20190302845525.shtml
3 商务部2019年第31号公告 关于对原产于欧盟、日本、韩国和印度尼西亚的进口不锈钢钢坯和不锈钢热轧板/卷反倾销
最终裁定的公告 (MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019 on Final Ruling of Anti-dumping Investigation into
Imports of Stainless Steel Billets and Hot-rolled Stainless Steel Plates/Coils Originating in the EU, Japan, the
Republic of Korea and Indonesia), available at
http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/b/e/201907/20190702883527.shtml
4 G/ADP/N/335/CHN, dated 21 April 2020.
5 English translation of the product description in MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019 ("不锈钢热轧板
/卷是由不锈钢钢坯经过热轧等工序后制得，呈卷状或板状，不分宽度和厚度") (emphasis added), available at
http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policyrelease/buwei/201908/20190802887274.shtml

subject import products from this dispute.6
Japan considers that these measures are inconsistent with China's obligations under the following
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's injury determination was
not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the effect of
the imports under investigation ("subject imports") on prices in the domestic market for like
products. Specifically, in its price effects analysis, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1
and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement due to, inter alia, the following reasons:
(a) China failed to conduct proper analyses with respect to three different products (i.e.
stainless steel slabs, hot-rolled coils, and hot-rolled plates) included within the subject
imports and the like domestic products, the different series of steel grades based on
the products' chemical compositions, and the subject imports as a whole. China
improperly concluded that the subject imports as a whole had a significant effect on the
prices of the like domestic products as a whole, but reached this conclusion erroneously,
as China failed to appropriately consider the differences among the three distinct
products included in the subject imports and the like domestic products. China also
failed to appropriately consider , inter alia , the different series of steel grades.
Furthermore, China failed to properly analyze the price trends of the subject imports
and the like domestic products; and
(b) China failed to provide any reasonable explanation and analysis of how and to what
extent the prices of th e like domestic products were affected, given the situation that
the prices of subject imports were generally significantly higher than those of the like
domestic products.
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's cumulative assessment
of the effects of subject imports from the European Union, Japan, Indonesia, and Korea was
inappropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the
conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic products, due
to, inter alia, the following reasons:
(a) The product mixes were different, both in terms of the proportion of three different
products (i.e. stainless steel slabs, hot -rolled coils, and hot -rolled plates ) and the
proportion of different series of steel grades based on their chemical compositions, (i)
between the subject imports from different countries and (ii) between the subject
imports and the like domestic products; and
(b) The price levels were different between the subject imports from different countries and
between the subject imports and the like domestic products.
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China's analysis of the impact
of the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry:
(a) failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the impact
of subject imports on the domestic industry based on the volume of such imports and
their effect on prices;
(b) failed to conduct an objective examination, based on p ositive evidence, of all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry;
and
(c) failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the determination of material
injury to the domestic industry by failin g to objectively determine the relative

6 Japan also notes that the above public announcements (e.g. MOFCOM Announcement No. 31 of 2019)
refers to the HS codes for the subject import products, "72189100, 72189900, 72191100, 72191200,
72191312, 72191319, 72191322, 72191329, 72191412, 72191419, 72191422, 72191429, 72192100,
72192200, 72192300, 72192410, 72192420, 72192430, 72201100 and 72201200", which includes 72189100
(covering stainless steel slabs) as well as 72189900 (covering stainless steel billets).

importance and weight to be attached to relevant economic factors and indices, and
improperly disregarding the majority of those factors and indices indicating that the
domestic industry did not suffer material injury.
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because:
(a) China failed to demonstrate, based on positive evidence and an objective examination,
that the subject imports were, through the effects of dumping, as set forth in Articles 3.2
and 3.4, causing injury to the domestic industry. In particular, China determined that
the allegedly dumped imports were causing injury based on its flawed analysis of price
effects under Article 3.2 and its flawed analysis of impact under Article 3.4;
(b) China failed to demonstrate the required causal relationship between the subject
imports and the injury to the domestic industry based on an objective examination of
all relevant evidence before the authorities, including , inter alia , the fact that the
allegedly dumped imports had limited market shares in the Chinese market; and
(c) China failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of factors
other than the subject imports which were at the same time injuring t he domestic
industry, and therefore improperly attributed the injury caused by those other factors
to the subject imports. The other factors include, inter alia, rise of raw material nickel
prices, strict environmental protection, excessive stainless steel production capacity and
competition with other domestic producers.
5. Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's use of cumulative
assessment in its analyses of the effect of allegedly dumped imports on prices, the impact of
the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry, and the causal relationship between
the allegedly dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry, respectively, was
inconsistent with Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
6. Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
(a) because China, in defining the domestic industry, relied on sales volume of slabs instead
of production volume of slabs, and did not define the domestic industry as domestic
producers whose output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total
domestic production of those products; and
(b) in conjunction with Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because China
improperly defined the domestic industry 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 products.
7. Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because:
(a) China treated the information provided by the applicant and the domestic industry as
confidential information without good cause shown; and
(b) China failed to require the applicant and the domestic industry either (i) to furnish non-
confidential summaries of confidential information which are in sufficient detail to permit
a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in
confidence; or (ii) to provide explanations as to why they were not able to furnish such
summaries.
8. Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to inform the interested
parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to
impose definitive anti-dumping measures, including, inter alia, the essential facts underlying:
(a) the definition of the products under investigation, (b) the definition of the domestic
industry, and (c) the determinations of injury and causation.
9. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide, in
sufficient detail, the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered

material by the investigating authorities, as well as all relevant information on the matters of
fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures, including, inter
alia, with respect to (a) the definition of the products under investigation, (b) the definition of
the domestic industry, and (c) the determinations of injury and causation.
China's measures imposing anti -dumping duties on stainless steel slabs, hot -rolled coils and hot-
rolled plates from Japan are also inconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and
Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the inconsistencies with the Anti -Dumping
Agreement described above.
China's measures also nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly under the
cited agreements.
Accordingly, Japan respectfully requests that, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII
of the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the Dispute Settlement Body
establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1
of the DSU.

Japan asks this request to be placed on the Agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body
to be held on 30 August 2021.