EUROPEAN UNION - PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON MONO-ETHYLENE GLYCOL FROM SAUDI ARABIA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 19 August 2021
Document codes: WT/DS606/1; G/L/1394; G/ADP/D140/1
Complainant: Saudi Arabia
Respondent: EU
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.8, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN UNION - PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON MONO-ETHYLENE GLYCOL
FROM SAUDI ARABIA
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
The following communication, dated 17 August 2021 , from the delegation of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to the delegation of the European Union, is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body
in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT") 1994, and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ( "Anti-Dumping Agreement"), with respect to the
European Union’s provisional anti -dumping duty on imports of mono -ethylene glycol originating in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of 10 June 2021, 1 as well as any amendments thereto or extensions
thereof, and any related measures.
2. The provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed pursuant to an investigation that was initiated by
the European Commission ("Commission") on 14 October 2020, 2 and the provisional duty entered
into force on 12 June 2021 for a period of six months.3
3. This measure appears to be inconsistent with the European Union’s obligations under certain
provisions of the GATT 1994 and t he Anti -Dumping Agreement. In particular, the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia considers that the measure appears to be inconsistent with at least the following
provisions:
• Articles 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the
application contained insufficient evidence on dumping causing injury to justify initiation of
the investigation, the application did not contain all such information that was reasonably
available to the applicant, and the Commission failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy
of the application evidence;
• Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, among others, the application was not
made by or on behalf of the relevant domestic industry in the European Union;
• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, among others,
there was no basis to reject domestic selling prices and the cost of production was improperly

1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/939 of 10 June 2021 imposing a provisional anti -
dumping duty on imports of mono ethylene glycol originating in the United States of America and the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, OJ L205, 11.06.2021, p. 4.
2 Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of mono ethylene glycol originating
in the United States of America and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, OJ C342, 14.10.2020, p. 12.
3 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/939 of 10 June 2021 imposing a provisional anti -
dumping duty on imports of mono ethylene glycol originating in the United States of America and the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, OJ L205, 11.06.2021, p. 4, Article 3.
WT/DS606/1 • G/L/1394 • G/ADP/D140/1

determined after rejecting the recorded costs of the Saudi exporters, and the cost of
production did not reflect the cost in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
• Article 2.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no basis to
reject the actual export price of the Saudi exporters, and the constructed export price
involved unwarranted and duplicated adjustments, including for certain expenses and profits
of related companies;
• Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, a provisional dumping
margin was established for the Saudi exporters without ensuring a "fair comparison "
between the constructed normal value and the constructed export price;
• Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the
Commission resorted to the use of facts available without justification in relation to the
establishment of normal value and export price and for the assessment of injury, improperly
applied facts available, including by failing to take into account all relevant and verifiable
information on the record that was appropriately and timely submitted by the Saudi
exporters so it could be used without undue difficulties, and by failing to corroborate and
have special circumspection in the selection of the information used for facts available;
• Article 3.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no basis to
cumulate imports from Saudi Arabia and the United States of America for the assessment of
injury and causation given, for example, the constant and substantial differences in price,
price and volume trends, and in respect of the effect on domestic prices;
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no
basis to analyze import volumes by cumulating imports from Saudi Arabia and the United
States, the analysis was not based on an objective examination of positiv e evidence, and
there was no reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a finding that there was a
significant increase in imports from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (nor with the imports from
the United States of America on a cumulative basis);
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no
basis to analyze price effects by cumulating imports from Saudi Arabia and the United States,
the analysis was not based on an objective examination of positive evidence, and there was
no reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a finding that imports from the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia had a significant effect on domestic prices (nor with the imports from the
United States on a cumulative basis);
• Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no
basis to analyze the impact on the domestic industry by cumulating imports from
Saudi Arabia and the United States, the analysis was not based on an objective examination
of positive evidence, and there was no reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a
finding that the domestic industry suffered injury and that this was explained by the imports
from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (nor with the imports from the United States of America
on a cumulative basis);
• Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, there was no
basis to analyze causation by cumulating imports from Saudi Arabia and the United States
of America, the analysis was not based on an objective examinatio n of positive evidence,
there was no reasoned and adequate explanation supporting a finding of a genuine and
substantial relationship of cause and effect between the imports of Saudi Arabia (nor with
the imports from the United States on a cumulative basis ) and the alleged injury to the
domestic industry, and the Commission failed to properly separate and distinguish injury
caused by other known factors so as not to attribute such injury to the imports;
• Article 6.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the Commission failed
to give proper notice of information that was required and to provide ample opportunity to
provide such information, thereby failing to protect the Saudi exporters’ fundamental due
process rights;
WT/DS606/1 • G/L/1394 • G/ADP/D140/1

• Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, among others, the
Commission (a) treated as confidential information provided by the applicant without good
cause shown; (b) failed to require the applicant to furnish non -confidential summaries of
such information; 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;
• Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 as a consequence of the apparent breaches of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
described above.
4. In addition, the above-described measure appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
5. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reserves the right to raise additional factual and legal issues, and
to address additional measures regarding this matter, in the course of the consultations and in any
request for the establishment of a panel.
6. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia looks forward to receiving the reply by the European Union to this
request and to setting a mutually acceptable date and venue for the consultations.