UNITED STATES - IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF COLOUR TELEVISION RECEIVERS FROM KOREA
Document: Original: English UNITED STATES - IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF COLOUR TELEVISION RECEIVERS FROM KOREA Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Korea
Date: 7 November 1997
Document codes: WT/DS89/7
Complainant: South Korea
Respondent: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 11.2, 11.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES - IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
ON IMPORTS OF COLOUR TELEVISION RECEIVERS FROM KOREA
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Korea
The following communication, dated 6 November 1997, from the Permanent Mission of Korea
to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
On 10 July 1997, Korea requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 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) and Article 17
of the 1994 Anti-Dumping Agreement (the Agreement) with respect to the continuing imposition of
anti-dumping measures sensu lato on Korean Color Television Receivers (CTVs) ( and
Corr.1).
Consultations were held on 7 August 1997 and on 8 October 1997. However, no mutually
satisfactory solution was reached.
Korea therefore requests the establishment of a Panel, with standard terms of reference, to
examine the matter, in accordance with Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994, Article 6 of the DSU and
Articles 17.4 and 17.5 of the Agreement.
Measures at Issue
On 30 April 1984, the United States imposed anti-dumping duties on CTVs exported from
Korea to the United States. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) is one of the Korean producers affected
by this anti-dumping duty order which remains in force until this day.
Since issuance of the order, the United States has determined that SEC did not sell CTVs in
the United States at dumped prices from 1 April 1985 through 31 March 1991. Since 1 April 1991,
SEC has ceased to export CTVs from Korea to the United States.
Thus, for the past twelve years, the United States has maintained the anti-dumping duty order
on CTVs with respect to SEC, despite the absence of dumping and the absence of exports, but has
never examined whether the continued imposition of the duty is necessary to offset dumping, whether
the injury would be likely to continue or recur if the duty were removed or varied, or both. SEC’ s
repeated requestsfor revocationbased onitshistoryof nodumping,made infour separate administrative
review requests, were each time rejected on procedural rather than substantive grounds.

SEC most recently requested revocation on 20 July 1995. The United States eventually decided
to initiate a review on 24 June 1996. A preliminary decision to revoke has still not been taken as of
this day.
Before initiating the review, the United States initiated an anti-circumvention investigation on
19 January 1996, only five months after receiving the 10 August 1995 petition by several labour unions
(i.e., the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Electronic,
Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers, and the Industrial Union Department). No
determination in this anti-circumvention investigation has yet been made, while the United States is
taking the position that the review determination must await the outcome of the anti-circumvention
investigation. The United States has improperly relied on the initiation and pendency of this investigation
as a basis for refusing to revoke the anti-dumping duty order on CTVs with respect to SEC.
Legal Basis for the Complaint
1. Failure to revoke the anti-dumping duty order on CTVs applicable to SEC
Korea is of the opinion that the ongoing imposition by the United States of anti-dumping duties
on Korean CTVs exported1 by the Korean producer SEC constitutes a violation of the United States
obligations under GATT 1994 and the Agreement, and accordingly a prima facie nullification or
impairment of Korea’ s benefits under the Agreement.
(1) The failure of the United States to review, on their own initiative, dumping and injury
respectivelyand torevoke theorder underthe abovecircumstances constitutesa violationof Article 11.1
combined with Article 11.2, as well as Article 5.8 of the Agreement.
(2) The United States’ rejection of SEC’ s request for revocation review on the ground
of the United States concern about lack of current data as a result of “ no shipment” violates Article 11.2
of the Agreement, which does not provide such a standard.
(3) The failure of the United States to revoke the order, coupled with the United States
position thatthe outcome of the revocation review isdependent onthe outcome of the anti-circumvention
investigation, is in violation of Article 11.1 combined with Article 11.2 and Article 11.4 of the
Agreement because it introduces considerations not mentioned in Articles 11.1 and 11.2, and because
the review exceeds the Article 11.4 time limit and the requirement that review investigations must be
carried out expeditiously.
(4) The United States’ requirement (19 CFR §353.25(b)) that applicants file revocation
requests only in “ the third and subsequent anniversary months” is in violation of Article 11.2, which
stipulates no time limit whatsoever for such requests. Accordingly, Korea finds the United States’
rejection of SEC’ s revocation requests also in violation of the aforementioned Article.
2. Anti-circumvention investigation
Korea is of the opinion that the anti-circumvention investigation initiated on 19 January 1996
is in violation of Article VI of GATT 1994 and several provisions of the Agreement.
1The term “ exported” is used in a technical sense because SEC has not exported CTVs from Korea
to the United States since 1 April 1991.

As an exception to the most-favoured-nation principle, the national treatment principle and
the tariff bindings, Article VI of GATT 1994 and the Agreement must be construed restrictively. In
the absence of a multilateral agreement on the propriety of anti-circumvention legislation, the United
States must follow the normal procedures of GATT 1994 and the Agreement and, if it so wishes, may
initiate a normal anti-dumping proceeding against Mexico and Thailand.
In this regard, the initiation of the anti-circumvention proceeding violates Article VI of GATT
1994 and Articles 1, 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement, because itmay lead to the imposition of anti-dumping
duties on imports of CTVs from Mexico and Thailand without findings of dumping and resulting injury
ever having been made.
The refusal by the United States to conduct a standing inquiry before initiating its anti-
circumvention investigation violates Articles 3.1, 3.6, 4.1 and 5.4 of the Agreement.
Failure tomake a determinationin the anti-circumventioninvestigationfor more than22months
violates Article 5.10 of the Agreement.
3. Failure to conduct a proper and unbiased review/investigation
Korea is of the opinion that the conduct of the United States in the revocation review and the
anti-circumvention investigation, when examined and compared, violates Article X.3 of GATT 1994
and Article 17.6(i) of the Agreement, because the United States has not established the facts properly
nor has it evaluated the facts in an unbiased and objective manner.
(1) The United States initiated the anti-circumvention investigation requested by the domestic
industry within five months. SEC, on the other hand, had to wait nearly one year before the United
States initiated the revocation review.
(2) The UnitedStates cannot tenably take the position thatthe revocationreview must await
the outcome of the anti-circumvention investigation. There can only be circumvention if there is an
anti-dumping duty order in place to be circumvented. Therefore, the United States must first determine
whether there are grounds to revoke the anti-dumping duty order; only if the answer is negative can
an anti-circumvention investigation, even if it were to be justified under Article VI of GATT 1994
and the Agreement, quod non, be initiated. Conversely, a decision by the United States to revoke
the anti-dumpingdutyorder withrespect toSEC wouldremove the legal basisfor the anti-circumvention
investigation, as far as SEC is concerned, as a result of which the investigation would have to be
terminated forthwith.
(3) The initiation of the anti-circumvention investigation was premised in a significant part
on information pertaining to a time period preceding the effective date of the law under which the
investigation was authorized. Accordingly, the United States had no lawful basis to rely on this
information as support for its decision to initiate the investigation.
(4) SEC had sufficient special reasons to justify its delays in requesting revocation review,
including, but not limited to, the United States’ consistent and excessive delays in issuing results of
the administrativereviews. TheUnitedStates,however, determinedthatitsuntimelinesswasexcusable,
while SEC’ s untimeliness was not.
(5) While Korea believes that initial investigation and review are proceedings for assessment
of basically the same circumstances, the United States applies different standards for determining de
minimis dumping margins and negligible imports in two proceedings.

Korea would appreciate this request for the establishment of a Panel being inscribed on the
agenda of the meeting of the DSB scheduled to be held on 18 November 1997. Korea reserves the
right to put forward additional claims regarding the preliminary and final decisions to be taken by the
United States which should be addressed under the Panel.