SOUTH AFRICA – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN MEAT OF FOWLS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Request for Consultations by Brazil
Date: 25 June 2012
Document codes: WT/DS439/1; G/L/990; G/ADP/D92/1
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: South Africa
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 2, 2.4, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.10, 7.1, 12.2.1, Annex II  Anti-dumping

SOUTH AFRICA – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON FROZEN MEAT
OF FOWLS FROM BRAZIL

Request for Consultations by Brazil

 The following communication, dated 21 June 2012, from the delegation of Brazil to the
delegation of South Africa and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Republic of South Africa
(South Africa) pursuant to Article 4 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 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (AD
Agreement), with respect to South Africa's pr eliminary determination and the imposition of
provisional anti-dumping duties on frozen meat of fowls of the species Gallus Domesticus, whole bird
and boneless cuts, originating in or imported from Br azil, as set forth in the International Trade
Administration Commission's (ITAC) Report No. 389 and published in Notice No. R.105 of
Government Gazette No. 35030, dated 10 February 2012, as we ll as any subsequent determinations or
related measures.
2. Brazil considers the preliminary determina tion and the imposition of provisional anti-
dumping duties, as well as the initiation and conduct of the investigation, to be inconsistent with
South Africa's obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement, including, but
not limited to:
 Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not make a fair
comparison between the export price and the normal value of exporters, including in
the establishment of the residual dumping margin. South Africa failed to, inter alia:
(i) make reported and verified deductions to the normal values so as to bring them to
the same level as the export price; (ii) ma ke reported and verified due allowances for
differences that affect price comparability; (iii) exclude, from the establishment of the
normal value, sales of a type of boneless chicken cuts that was apparently not
considered to be a like product; and (iv) exclude, from the establishment of the export
price, sales of products outside the scope of the product under investigation.
Furthermore, South Africa failed to indicate what specific information was necessary
to ensure a fair comparison, thus imposing an unreasonable burden on exporters;
 Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not make a comparison
between a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all prices of all
comparable export transactions in the calculation of the residual dumping margins for

boneless chicken cuts and for whole chicken. By using sales of only one type of
boneless chicken cuts and one type of whol e chicken to establish normal value, and
comparing them with the export price of all types of boneless cuts and whole chicken
sold to the SACU market (even products outside the scope of the investigation),
South Africa failed to compare the norma l value with all comparable export
transactions;
 Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not make an
objective examination, based on positive evid ence, of the volume of dumped imports
and the effect on prices in the domestic market. South Africa incorrectly considered,
inter alia: (i) the volume and price of products outside the scope of the product under
investigation; (ii) import data provide d by Petitioner, which grossly overstated
official import statistics for the products; and (iii) the existence of a negative effect of
dumped imports on domestic prices, when the data indicated otherwise;
 Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not make an
objective examination, based on positive evid ence, of the impact of the alleged
dumped imports on domestic producers, as th e overwhelming majority of domestic
injury indicators for whole chicken and fo r boneless chicken cuts were positive or
showed positive trends;
 Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement because S outh Africa's causal link analysis was not
based on an examination of all relevant evidence before it. South Africa failed to
consider other known factors causing injury to the domestic industry, inter alia ,
imports from other origins at significantly higher volumes and lower prices, and with
relevant increase in market share;
 Article 4.1 of the AD Agreement because S outh Africa did not demonstrate that the
collective output of the three domestic producers, considered as the domestic industry
for purposes of the injury analysis, constituted a “major proportion” of the total
domestic production, since individual or collective output data for these domestic
producers were not made available by South Africa, not even by means of a non-
confidential summary;
 Articles 5.3 and 5.8 of the AD Agreement because the application to initiate the
investigation did not include sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and causal link as
established in Article 5.2 of the AD Agreement, and, accordingly, South Africa failed
to examine the accuracy and adequacy of th e evidence provided in the application to
determine whether there was sufficient ev idence to justify the initiation of the
investigation. In particular, South Africa failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy
of the information provided in the applicati on relative to items (i), (ii) and (iv) of
Article 5.2, and, by doing so, failed to reject the application and to promptly
terminate the investigation;
 Article 6.1 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not give notice of the
information required regarding sales and cost data of the like product sold in Brazil,
thus failing to provide ample opportunity for exporters to present the required
evidence prior to the preliminary determ ination and the imposition of provisional
duties;

 Article 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement because South Africa failed to make available to
other interested parties participating in the investigation evidence presented in
writing, inter alia, by the government of the exporting Member;
 Article 6.2 of the AD agreement because South Africa did not afford full opportunity
for the defense of all interested parties in the investigation;
 Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not provide timely
opportunities for all interested parties to see all relevant, non-confidential information
so as to prepare presentations on the basis of that information;
 Articles 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of the AD Agreement because South Africa: (i) did not
require the applicant to furnish non-confid ential summaries of relevant information,
and (ii) failed to find that a request for confidentiality of certain information was
unwarranted, and, consequently, failed to disregard that information;
 Article 6.7, in conjunction with paragraphs 7 and 8 of Annex I, of the AD Agreement
because South Africa did not apply the pro cedures described in Annex I of the AD
Agreement for the on-the-spot investigation in the verification visits carried out in
certain exporters. South Africa failed, inter alia, to advise exporters, prior to the visit,
of substantial additional information that needed to be provided, and to answer
questions made by exporters, which were essential to a successful on-the-spot
investigation, before the verification visit;
 Article 6.8, in conjunction with paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Annex II, of the AD
Agreement because South Africa made preliminary determinations for certain
exporters based on facts available although these exporters did not refuse access to, or
fail to provide, necessary information w ithin a reasonable period, nor did they
significantly impede the investigation. South Africa failed to, inter alia: (i) specify in
detail, as soon as the investigation was initia ted, the scope of the like product sold in
Brazil so that the exporters would know th e sales and cost information required; and
(ii) take into account in the preliminar y determination all data and information
provided by exporters, which was verifiable , appropriately submitted and supplied in
a timely fashion;
 Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not provide interested
parties with information about the essentia l facts under consideration which form the
basis for the decision whether to impose definitive measures. In the essential facts
letter, South Africa simply repeated and confirmed its preliminary determination
without considering essential facts, such as information and data submitted in
response to the preliminary determination;
 Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement because South Africa only determined an
individual dumping margin for one exporter, when it should have done so for all
known exporters;
 Article 7.1 of the AD Agreement because S outh Africa applied provisional measures
even though: (i) the investigation had not been initiated in accord ance with Article 5
of the AD Agreement and interested parti es were not given adequate opportunities to
submit information and make comments; ( ii) the preliminary determination was

inconsistent with Articles 2 and 3 of the AD Agreement; and (iii) there was no injury
being caused during the investigation;
 Article 12.2.1 of the AD Agreement because South Africa did not set forth in the
public notice of imposition of provisional measures, or in the separate report,
sufficiently detailed explanations for the preliminary determinations on dumping,
injury and causal link, and did not refer to the matters of fact and law which led to
arguments being accepted or rejected. The notice or report did not contain, inter alia:
(i) a full explanation of the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment and
comparison of the export price and the normal value; (ii) considerations relevant to
the injury determination; and (iii) the main reasons leading to the determination.
3. South Africa's measures, therefore, nullify a nd impair benefits accruing to Brazil directly or
indirectly under the cited agreements.
4. Brazil reserves the right to raise additional f actual claims and legal matters during the course
of consultations, and looks forwar d to receiving South Africa's response to the present request and to
setting a mutually convenient date for consultations.