MOROCCO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY TUNISIA
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 20 September 2019
Document codes: WT/DS578/2
Complainant: Tunisia
Respondent: Morocco
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, China, EU, Japan, Madagascar, Russia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.8, 9.2, 11.1(a), 12.2, 12.2.2, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:6  GATT 1994

MOROCCO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON
SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY TUNISIA
The following communication, dated 1 9 September 2019, from the delegation of Tunisia to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 21 February 2019, Tunisia requested consultations with Morocco pursuant to Article 4 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 17.3
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), with regard to a definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Morocco on
imports of school exercise books from Tunisia and certain aspects of the investigation on which this
measure is based.

Consultations were held on 1 1 and 12 June 2019 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory
solution. However, they failed to resolve the dispute. Therefore, in accordance with Articles 4.7 and
6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article XXIII of the G ATT 1994,
Tunisia requests that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) establish a panel to examine this matter .
Pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU, Tunisia proceeds infra to identify the specific measure at issue
and to provide a brief summary of the legal basis for the complaint.

A. THE MEASURE AT ISSUE
The measure at issue is the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed on imports of school exercise
books from Tunisia, as a result of the investigation initiated by Morocco's Ministry of Ind ustry,
Investment, Trade and the Digital Economy ( the i nvestigating authority) on 4 May 2017.1 The
definitive measure was imposed through Public Notice No. 13/18 dated 5 November 2018, was
published in the Arabic version of Official Journal No. 6740 dated 3 January 20192, and entered into
force on 4 January 2019. The anti-dumping duty rates imposed by Morocco are as follows:

Tunisian exporter Anti-dumping duty
SOTEFI 27.71%
SITPEC 15.69%
Other Tunisian exporters 27.71%

1 Public Notice No. 06/17 concerning the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation in respect of
exercise books from Tunisia.
2 The definitive measure was also published in the French version of Moroccan Official Journal No. 6744
dated 17 January 2019.

This request covers the above-mentioned anti-dumping duties, as well as all the documents forming
part of the investigation record that led to the imposition of the measure at issue.

This request also covers any amendments, supplements, extensions, replacement measures,
renewal measures and implementing measures related to the measure at issue.

B. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT
Tunisia considers the above-mentioned measure to be inconsistent with the Kingd om of Morocco's
obligations under, inter alia , the following provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the
GATT 1994:

1. Article 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, first sentence, and 5.8, first sentence, of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, because the application filed by the three applicant companies does not
contain sufficient evidence of dumping, injury or a causal link, and because in initiating
the investigation, the investigating authority did not sufficiently examine the accuracy
and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to justify the initiation of an
anti-dumping investigation;
2. Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 9.2 and 11.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and Article VI:1 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, because the determination of dumping
and resulting injury was not based on relevant and "positive" evidence justifying the
imposition of the measure at the time of its adoption;
3. Article 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994, because the investigating authority treated domestic sales of certain
exercise books in Tunisia as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price
and disregarded these sales in determining the normal value, without prior
determination that these sales were made: (a) within an extended period of time; (b) in
substantial quantities; and (c) at prices which did not provide for the recovery of all
costs within a reasonable period of time;
4. Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, paragraphs 3, 5,
6 and 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994,
because when calculating the normal value, the investigating authority failed to take
into account numerous domestic sales that had nevertheless been reported by the
Tunisian exporters and provided no justification for this;
5. Article 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and
Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the investigating authority committed errors
leading to the calculation of an artificially high normal value . I n particular, but not
exclusively, when reconstructing the norma l value, the authority failed to take into
account all the sales made in Tunisia for the calculation of the profit margin;
6. Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and A rticle VI:1 of the GATT 1994,
because the investigating authority failed to make a fair comparison between the normal
value and the export price, by not making allowance, in particular, for all the physical
characteristics affecting price comparability that were cited by the exporters;
7. Article 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 and VI:6(a)
of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia:
a. The investigating authority failed to properly and objectively consider
the volume of the dumped imports, in absolute terms and relative to
domestic production or consumption;
b. The undercutting margin was erroneously calculated on the basis of
a reconstructed sales price for Moroccan exercise books . Moreover,
the profit margin of the Tunisian producers was used to reconstruct
the price of domestic products without examining whether the
market conditions in Tunisia were similar to those in Morocco. The

prices of imports and those of the domestic product were compared
erroneously;
c. The analysis regarding the depression of sales prices and the
prevention of price in creases is not based on positive evidence and
does not involve an objective examination;
8. Article 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 and VI:6(a)
of the GATT 1994 with regard to the analysis of injury suffered by the domestic industry
(DI), because the investigating authority failed to properly evaluate all relevant
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the DI and to conduct an
objective examination of the impact of the imports on the performance of domestic
producers. Amongst other things, the authority made a finding of injury even though
most factors had evolved positively and significantly during the investigation period,
and the period of investigation chosen for examining injury and the causal link did n ot
allow for an objective examination of the state of the DI;
9. Article 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 et VI:6(a) of
the GATT 1994 with regard to the analysis of injury to the DI, because the investigating
authority did not use the same period for all the economic factors and indices, which
led to an incorrect finding of injury;
10. Article 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 and VI:6(a)
of the GATT 1994 in relation to the causal link analysis, because the investigating
authority failed to properly determine a genuine and substantial relationship of cause
and effect between the allegedly dumped imports and the injury to the DI. The authority
failed to ensure that injury caused by other factors was not at tributed to imports
originating in Tunisia . M ost notably, but not exclusively, the authority failed to
objectively examine the causes of injury other than the imports originating in Tunisia,
such as competition between the DI and Moroccan producers not part of the DI;
11. Articles 4.1 and 5.4, first sentence , of the Anti -Dumping Agreement (and
Article 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 in a combined reading of these A rticles), because the
investigating authority limited the "domestic industry" to the applicants and wrongly
excluded certain other companies that supported the application; and
12. Article 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the
investigating authority failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions
reached on all issues of fact and law considered material by the investigating authority,
and all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to the
imposition of the measure at issue.
It appears that Morocco's investigation and definitive measure can not be reconciled with Article VI
of the G ATT 1994, Articles 1 and 18 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and the specific provisions
cited above. Tunisia considers that the measure described above nullifies or impairs the benefits
accruing to Tunisia, directly or indirectly, under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.

C. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
In light of the above, in accordance with Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XXIII of the G ATT 1994, Tunisia requests that the DSB
establish a panel to examine this matter. Tunisia further requests that the panel have the standard
terms of reference, as set forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU.

Tunisia asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting to be held on
30 September 2019.

This request for the establishment of a panel is without prejudice to the right of the parties to request
the possible undertaking of good offices, conciliation or mediation under Article 5 of the DSU.