CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN
Document: Request for Consultations by Japan
Date: 7 January 2013
Document codes: WT/DS454/1; G/L/1020; G/ADP/D96/1
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: China
Third parties: EU, India, South Korea, Russia, U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, 6.5.1, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM JAPAN

Request for Consultations by Japan

 The following communication, dated 20 Decemb er 2012, from the delegation of Japan to the
delegation of China and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby request, on behalf of the Government of
Japan ("Japan"), 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 Governing the Settlement
of Disputes, 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 ("AD Agreement") with respect to China's measures imposing anti-dumping
duties on high-performance stai nless steel seamless tubes ("HP-SSST" ) from Japan, as set forth in
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 21 [2012] and
Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.

 These measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with Ch ina's obligations under, among
others, the following provisions of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement:

1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because China's analysis of the volume effects and
price effects of imports under investigation di d not involve an objective examination based on
positive evidence.
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because China's analysis of the impact of subject
imports under investigation on the domestic industry at issue did not involve an objective examination
based on positive evidence, including an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices
having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement be cause China's determination of a causal
relationship did not involve an objective examination based on positive evidence, in particular:
(a) China's demonstration of the alleged causal relationship between subject imports and
the alleged injury to the domestic industry was not based on an objective examination
of all relevant evidence before the authorities and of any known factors other than
subject imports allegedly injuring the domestic industry; and
(b) China failed to meet the requirement that injuries caused by other factors must not be
attributed to the alleged dumped imports.

4. Articles 5.3 and 5.8 of the AD Agreement becau se China initiated the investigation without
sufficient evidence.
5. Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement because:
(a) China treated information the applicants supplied as confidential without showing
good cause;
(b) China failed to require the applicants to furnish non-confidential summary thereof;
and
(c) where such summaries were provided, they were not in sufficient detail to permit a
reasonable understanding of the substa nce of the information submitted in
confidence.
6. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because China faile d to inform the interested parties of the
essential facts under consideration which form the b asis for the decision to impose definitive anti-
dumping measures.
7. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement b ecause China failed to provide in sufficient
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all is sues of fact and law the investigating authorities
considered material, as well as all relevant informat ion on the matters of fact and law and reasons
which have led to the imposition of final measures.
8. Article 7.4 of the AD Agreement because Chin a applied provisional measures for a period
exceeding four months without a request by exporte rs representing a significant percentage of the
trade involved or examining whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to
remove injury.
9. Articles 6.8, including Annex II paragraph 1, 6.9, 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement,
because, with respect to the determination of the dumping margin for all other Japanese companies:
(a) China improperly applied facts available;
(b) China did not fully disclose the essential facts under consideration which form the
basis for the decision to impose definitive anti-dumping measures; and
(c) China failed to make available all relevant information on the matters of fact and law
and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures.
10. China's anti-dumping measures on HP-SSST from Japan also appear to be inconsistent with
Article 1 of the AD Agreement a nd Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the apparent
breaches of the AD Agreement described above.
 China's measures also appear to nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to Japan directly or
indirectly under the cited agreements.

Japan reserves the right to address additional measures and claims under other provisions of the WTO
Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.

 We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations in Geneva.