CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP FROM CANADA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CANADA
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 20 October 2014
Document codes: WT/DS483/1; G/L/1074; G/ADP/D106/1
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: China
Third parties: EU, Chile, Japan, South Korea, Norway, U.S., Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.2, 6.1, 6.8, Annex II, 6.9, 6.10, 6.10.2, 12.2.2, 9.4, 1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CELLULOSE PULP
FROM CANADA
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CANADA
The following communication, dated 15 October 2014, from the delegation of Canada 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.

My authorities have instructed me to request co nsultations with the Government of the People's
Republic of China ("China") pursua nt to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") , 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 ("Anti-
Dumping Agreement") with respect to China’s measures imposing anti-dumping duties on imports
of cellulose pulp from Canada, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of China ("MOFCOM") Notice
No. 75 of 2013 (6 November 2013), including its annex (the "Preliminary Determination") and
Notice No. 18 of 2014 (4 April 2014), including its annex (the "Final Determination").

These measures appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under the following provisions
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994:

1. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to calculate
costs on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer which reasonably reflected the costs
associated with the production and sale of the pr oduct under consideration, and failed to adjust
costs appropriately for circumstances in which those costs were affected by start-up operations
during the period of investigation.

2. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to determine
amounts for administrative, selling and general costs on the basis of actual data pertaining to
production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product by the exporter or producer
under investigation.

3. Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to make a fair
comparison between the export price and normal value by, for instance, improperly deducting
certain expenses from the export price and by not excluding certain sales when calculating the
export price.

4. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's determination of injury
was not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of
the dumped imports and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic market for like
products. China failed to properly consider whether there had been a significant increase in
dumped imports. China also failed to properly co nsider whether there had been a significant price
undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of a domestic like product, or
whether the effect of such imports was otherwis e to depress prices to a significant degree or
prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
WT/DS483/1 • G/L/1074 • G/ADP/D106/1

5. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's determination of injury
was not based on positive evidence, did not invo lve an objective examination of the impact of
dumped imports on domestic producers of like products and failed to properly evaluate all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.

6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to demonstrate,
through an objective examination based on positive evidence, the causal relationship between the
dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry. China also failed to conduct an objective
examination, based on positive evidence, of known factors other than the dumped imports which
at the same time were injuring the domestic industry and improperly attributed the injuries caused
by those factors to the dumped imports.

7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China made a determination of
injury having improperly defined the domestic in dustry 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. Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to grant interested parties a
full opportunity to defend their interests.

9. Articles 6.1 and 6.8 and paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
China, in determining the margins of dumping, fa iled to give Canadian exporters or producers
ample opportunity to present in writing all eviden ce they considered relevant in respect of the
investigation and to take into account all the information which was verifiable, appropriately
submitted, and supplied in a timely fashion.

10. Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China
improperly relied on facts available to determine the margins of dumping for Canadian exporters of
cellulose pulp for which individual margins of dumping were not established.

11. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement be cause China failed to inform all interested
parties of the essential facts under consideration forming the basis for the decision to impose
definitive anti-dumping measures regarding Canadian exporters of cellulose pulp for which
individual margins of dumping were not established.

12. Articles 6.10, 6.10.2 and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not
determine individual margins of dumping for exporters or producers not initially selected that
voluntarily submitted the necessary information in time for that information to be considered by
China during the course of the investigation.

13. Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement because China improperly rejected price
undertakings offered by exporters after the preliminary affirmative determination.

14. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide
public notice of all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to
the imposition of final measures.

15. Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement an d Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence
of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.

China's measures, therefore, appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to Canada directly or
indirectly under the cited agreements.

Canada reserves the right to address additional measures and claims in the course of
consultations.

Canada looks forward to receiving China’s reply to this request and to determining a mutually
convenient date for consultations.