KOREA - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON PNEUMATIC VALVES FROM JAPAN REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 16 March 2016
Document codes: WT/DS504/1; G/L/1143; G/ADP/D113/1
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Brazil, China, Ecuador, EU, Norway, Singapore, Turkey, U.S., Vietnam
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1  Anti-dumping

KOREA - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON PNEUMATIC VALVES FROM JAPAN
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN
The following communication, dated 15 March 2016, from the delegation of Japan to the
delegation of Korea 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 Republic of Korea ("Korea") pursuant to
Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes, Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and
Articles 17.2 and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement"). These consultations are with respect to
Korea’s measures imposing anti-dumping duties on valves for pneumatic transmission ("pneumatic
valves") from Japan, as set forth in the Korea Trade Commission ("KTC") notices and reports in
Investigation Trade Remedy 23-2013-5, dated 20 January 2015, any and all annexes,
amendments, or notices related to these anti-d umping measures, and the underlying documents
and factual information that led the Korean authorities to impose these anti-dumping duties.
These measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with Korea’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 Korea’s analysis of the volume
effects of the imports under investigation ("subject imports") did not involve an
objective examination based on positive evidence;
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because Korea’s analysis of the price
effects of the subject imports did not involve an objective examination based on positive
evidence;
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because Korea’s analysis of the impact
of the subject imports on the domestic indu stry at issue did not involve an objective
examination, on the basis of positive eviden ce, of the impact of the dumped imports on
the domestic industry, including an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and
indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry;
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to demonstrate
that the dumped imports were, through the effects of dumping, causing injury to the
domestic industry, with an involvement of an objective examination of the alleged causal
relationship between the subject imports and the alleged injury to the domestic industry,
on the basis of all relevant positive evidence before the authorities;
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to consider
adequately all known factors other than the subject imports that were injuring the
domestic industry at the same time and incorrectly attributed the effects of other factors
to the subject imports;
WT/DS504/1 • G/L/1143 • G/ADP/D113/1

6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea’s causation
determination lacks any foundation in its analyses of the volume effects, price effects
and/or impact of the subject imports, irrespective and independent of whether Korea’s
flawed volume analysis and/or flawed price depression/suppression analysis, on the one
hand, and Korea’s flawed impact analysis on the other, would be inconsistent with,
respectively, Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
AD Agreement;
7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement because Korea made a determination
of injury having 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 product;
8. Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement because Korea: (a) treated as
confidential information provided by the interested parties as such without good cause
shown; (b) 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 substance of the information submitted in confidence;
9. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to inform the interested
parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision to
impose definitive anti-dumping measures;
10. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to provide in
sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law the
investigating authorities considered material, as well as all relevant information on the
matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures;
and
11. Korea’s anti-dumping measures on th e subject imports also appear to be
inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a
consequence of the apparent breaches of the AD Agreement described above.
Korea’s measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or
indirectly under the cited agreements.
Japan reserves the right to address further factua l claims and legal issues under other provisions
of the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.
Japan looks forward to receiving Korea’s reply to the present request in due course. Japan is ready
to consider with Korea mutually convenient dates and venue for consultations.