PAKISTAN – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED POLYPROPYLENE FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 18 May 2018
Document codes: WT/DS538/2
Complainant: UAE
Respondent: Pakistan
Third parties: Afghanistan, China, EU, Japan, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 1, 2.1, 3.1, 9.1, 9.3, 11.1, 5.10, 6.8, Annex II, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 11.2, 11.3, 2, 11.4, 6.7, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994

PAKISTAN – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED
POLYPROPYLENE FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
The following communication, dated 15 May 2018, from the delegation of the United Arab Emirates
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the
Agreement on Imp lementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement"), with
regard to Pakistan's anti -dumping measure s on imports of biaxially oriented polypropylene
("BOPP") film from, among others, the UAE dated 9 April 2015, imposing definitive anti -dumping
duties,1 as well as any amendments thereto or extensions thereof, and any related measures, 2
including the sunset review determination published in the Official Gazette on 1 December 2016 by
which the anti-dumping measures were extended.3
2. The imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties on BOPP film from the UAE, and the
continuation of such duties following the sunset review determination appear to be inconsistent
with Pakistan's obligations under certain provisions of the GATT 1994 and the An ti-Dumping
Agreement.
3. Consultations were held on 27 March 2018 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory
solution. However, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute.
4. Therefore, the UAE respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU , Article XXIII of
the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body

1 Notice of Final Determination and Levy of Definitive Antidumping Duties on Imports of Bixially [sic]
Oriented Poly Propylene Film into Pakistan Originating In and/or Exported from the People's Republic of China,
Sultanate of Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (9 April 2015), publication reference
22/2012/NTC/BOPP/UAE, imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports from, among others, the UAE, with
effect from the date of issuance of the notice till August 14, 2015. As stated in the above referenced Notice of
Final Determination, the investigation was initiated on 23 April 2012. In this decision of 9 April 2015, the
National Tariff Commission has "maintained" the previous final determination dated 4 February 2013 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties with effect from 14 August 2012.
2 The Pakistan National Tariff Commission has published online the "Investigation Notices" which it
considers to relate to the BOPP film investigation. See website of National Tariff Commission,
https://ntc.gov.pk/antidumping-investigation-notices/. In addition, it is noted that an earlier investigation by
Pakistan on BOPP Film was aborted following a challenge in the Islamabad High Court. See, Notice of Initiation
Anti-dumping Investigation against Alleged Dumping of BOPP Film Originating In and/or Exported from the
People's Republic of China, Sultanate of Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (27
September 2010, publication reference 22/2010/NTC/BOPP).
3 Notice of Conclusion of Sunset Review and Continuation of Anti-dumping Duties Imposed on Dumped
Imports of Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Film Imported from China, Oman, KSA and UAE (1
December 2016; publication reference 16/2008/NTC/BOPP Film/SR/14); Report on the Conclusion of Sunset
Review and Continuation of Anti-dumping Duties Imposed on Dumped Imports of Biaxially Oriented
Polypropylene (BOPP) Film Imported from China, Oman, KSA and UAE (28 November 2016; publication
reference 16/2008/NTC/BOPP FILM/SR/14).

establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in
Article 7.1 of the DSU.
5. Pursuant to Article 6.2 o f the DSU, the UAE proceeds below to provide a brief summary of
the legal basis of the complaint. The measures at issue are the definitive anti-dumping duties
imposed by Pakistan on BOPP film from the UAE and their continuation as per the legal
instruments referenced above.
6. The UAE considers that the anti -dumping measures on BOPP film appear to be inconsistent
with at least the following provisions:
 Articles 5.2, 5.3 , and 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because there was insufficient
accurate and adequat e evidence to justify the initiation of the anti -dumping investigation
and the application should therefore have been rejected. In particular, the investigation
was initiated on 23 April 2012 based on an application that was dated 12 April 2010 and
which w as based on outdated dumping and injury data which related to a period that
ended in December 2009. The application therefore did not contain reasonably available
relevant evidence on dumping, injury and causation. The Pakistan investigating authorities
failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the information contained in the
application for purposes of initiating the investigation on 23 April 2012. The application
should have been rejected since it did not contain sufficient relevant evidence of eith er
dumping or injury to justify proceeding with the case.
 Articles 1, 2.1, 3.1, 9.1, 9.3 , and 11.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the
determination of dumping and resulting injury was not based on relevant and "positive"
evidence justifying the imp osition of the anti -dumping measure s at the time of their
adoption, and because the measure s remained in force without positive evidence that it
was necessary to counteract dumping that was causing injury. In particular, since the
period of investigation f or dumping and injury ended in June 2010, the evidence on which
the final determination was based was not informative of the situation at the time of the
imposition of the duties. The absence of a real -time link between the imposition of the
measures and the data on which the determination was made means that the measures
were imposed without "positive" evidence of dumping, injury and the causal link and that
there was therefore also no basis for maintaining the measures.
 Article 5.10 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigation was not concluded
within 18 months after its initiation. In particular, the investigation was initiated on 23
April 2012 but the investigation was only concluded with the final determina tion on 9 April
2015, almost three years later. Alternatively, if the investigation should be considered to
have been concluded with the first "final" determination dated 4 February 2013, the
investigation was also not concluded within 18 months since the investigation was first
initiated on 27 September 2010, and the investigation thus took more than 28 months to
conclude.
 Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating
authorities unduly rejected cost information which was verifiable, appropriately submitted
so that it could be used without undue difficulties and supplied in a timely manner by the
exporter acting to the best of its ability and because the authorities never gave the
reasons or explained the basis of their conclusion that such information could not be used
in the investigation and failed to give the exporter an opportunity to provide further
explanations in this respect. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities rejected
the cost information pro vided by the UAE exporter that specifically related to the cost to
make and sell BOPP film in the UAE and instead relied on general make and sell data for
worldwide sales.
 Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the normal value was
determined by relying on cost data that did not reasonably reflect the costs associated
with the production and sale of the product under consideration and because the amounts
for administrative, selling and general costs were not based on actual data pertaining to
the production and sale of the like product. In particular, the Pakistan investigating
authorities disregarded the specific cost data that were provided by the UAE exporter,
despite the fact that the provided data were the actual data as refl ected in the records of

the producer which were kept in accordance with the generally accepted accounting
principles of the UAE and reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and
sale of the product under consideration, based on the prod ucer's historically utilized
allocation of costs.
 Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because the improper rejection and
replacement of verifiable cost data resulted in the unwarranted finding that certain sales
were not made in the ordi nary course of trade which, in turn, resulted in the erroneous
construction of normal value based on inflated cost information. In particular, the finding
that sales were made below cost and the construction of the normal value was based on
inflated cost d ata that did not accurately reflect the costs associated with the production
and sale of the product under consideration in the UAE and instead relied on general make
and sell data for worldwide sales.
 Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of the failure to make due allowance
for a difference in the level of trade which was required to ensure a fair comparison
between the export price and the normal value. In particular, since domestic sales were
made to end-users while export sales were made to distributors, the Pakistan investigating
authorities failed to make the comparison between normal value and export price at the
same level of trade and failed to indicate what information was necessary to ensure a fair
comparison, should the evidence of sales at different levels of trade not have sufficed.
 Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to make
a determination of injury based on positive evidence and involving an objective
examination. In particular, the determination of injury and causation was based on data
that covered a period of in vestigation which ended in June 2010, and such outdated
information therefore did not constitute "positive evidence " as it was not relevant or
probative of the state of the domestic industry at the time of the imposition of the
measures.
 Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to properly
consider whether there was a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, either
in absolute terms or relative to domestic production or consumption. In particular, the
Pakistan investigating authorities' determination fails to objectively consider whether the
alleged increase is "significant" and does not appear to have been based on an objective
examination of the trends given the significant decrease in the volume of allegedly dumped
imports including in the most recent part of the period of investigation.
 Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to properly
consider whether there was significant price undercutting or whether the effect is
otherwise to depress or suppress prices, which otherwise would have occurred, to a
significant degree. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities failed to objectively
consider the explanatory force of the allegedly dumped imports for the price effects which
were simply in line with international market developments as well as costs and failed to
undertake an objective examination of the price effects of the alleged dumped imports
given, among others, the absence of price suppression during the period of investigation,
the significant domestic price increase during the period of investigation including in the
most recent part of the period of investigation and the absence of price undercutting for a
significant part of the period of investigation.
 Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of a failure to properly
evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the
domestic industry, including the margin of dumping, and conduct an objective examination
of the consequent impact of the imports on domestic producers. In particular, the Pakistan
investigating authorities:
o Failed to "evaluate" all relevant factors and instead simply summarized the results
of the various factors concluding that any negative developments during the period
of investigation indicated that the domestic industry suffered material injury
without undertaking a qualitative and holistic assessment of these factors;
o Failed to examine "all" relevant factors since, for example, the margin of dumping
was not evaluated;

o Failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the explanatory force of
the allegedly dumped imports in respect of the examined injury factors , in
particular in the light of evidence on the record that revealed that other fact ors
explained the developments of certain injury factors such as, for example, sales,
profits and losses, productivity, salaries and return on investment; and
o Failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the determination of
material injury giv en, among others, the many injury factors that trended
positively, the strong market share of the domestic producer constituting the
domestic industry, the complete capacity utilization of the domestic producer and
the lack of significant negative effects of other injury factors, in particular also
during the most recent part of the period of investigation.
 Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of the failure to establish a
genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect betwe en the alleged dumped
imports and the injury to the domestic industry, including by failing to ensure that injury
caused by other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports. In particular, the
Pakistan investigating authorities simply based the determination on a partial correlation in
time thus failing to undertake an objective examination of the genuine and substantial
nature of the alleged causal relationship taking into account the entire period of
investigation and otherwise failed to separate an d distinguish the injury caused by other
factors such as, among others, the global financial crisis that affected the industry in 2009
as well as other factors that were on the record and explained a number of the injury
factor developments.
 Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because of the failure to provide the
respondent UAE exporter with the full opportunity to defend its interests and the failure to
provide timely opportunities to see all information that was relevant to the presentati on of
its case and that is not properly considered to be confidential and to prepare presentations
on the basis of this information, in particular with respect to the reasons for the rejection
of the cost data, the failure to conduct an on -spot verification and the refusal to make due
allowance for the difference in the level of trade.
 Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating
authorities: (a) treated as confidential the information provided by the domestic producer
without good cause shown; (b) failed to require the applicants to furnish a 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 informati on
submitted in confidence. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities failed to meet
these obligations in respect of the information contained in the application as well as the
injury related information in the questionnaire responses of the domestic producer.
 Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the investigating authorities failed to
inform the interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the
basis for the decision to impose definitive anti -dumping measures, in particular with
respect to the determination of dumping, including the rejection of the relevant cost data
and the refusal to make due allowance for differences in the level of trade.
 Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the anti -dumping
measures were extended on the basis of a sunset review that was not grounded on a
sufficient factual basis and maintaining the measure s therefore appears to be inconsistent
with the obligation that the anti -dumping duty shall remain in force only as long as and to
the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury. In particular, it
appears that:
o Pakistan failed to base the initiation of its sunset review on sufficient evidence
that the termination of the anti-dumping measure s would likely lead to a
continuation or recurrence of dumping, in violation of procedural and
evidentiary requirements of Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement since it based the decision on an application that failed to provide
forward looking information and was based on outdated information; and

o Pakistan's determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury misapplied the "likelihood" standard, lacked an adequate
factual basis, and was b ased on an undue presumption in favor of maintaining
the duties, in violation of Articles 2, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement. In particular, the Pakistan investigating authorities:
 Calculated a dumping margin by unduly disregarding actual dome stic sales
and export prices and constructing normal value based on inflated cost of
production as compared with a constructed landed costs;
 Based their determination of a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury on unsubstantiated assumptions rather than facts as
they simply assumed that any positive developments during the period of
review was a result of the duties and that the expiry of the duties would
necessarily have a negative effect on the state of the industry and thus a
likely recurrence of injury without undertaking a forward-looking analysis;
 Failed to objectively determine the probability that material injury was
likely to recur given the fact that the domestic producer constituting the
domestic industry enjoys a close to monopoly position in the market and
performed well during the period of review; and
 Failed to address the lack of explanatory force of the allegedly dumped
imports with respect to a number of injury factors such as , for example,
profitability, since these factors were clearly unrelated to the alleged
dumped imports.
 Article 11.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because the provisions of Article 6 regarding
evidence and procedure, including among others the requirements of Articles 6.2, 6.4, 6.5,
6.7 and 6.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, were not respected in the sunset review
including, among others, with respect to the lack of disclosure of the application and
related injury information such as on sales, sales prices, costs, inven tories, production,
profits, etc. and because the sunset review was not carried out expeditiously and was not
concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review since the sunset review
investigation was initiated on 4 August 2015 while a notice of conclusion of the sunset
review was published only on 1 December 2016, close to 16 months later and thus neither
expeditiously nor within 12 months.
 Articles 12.1, 12.2 , and 12.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, because Pakistan 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 th e final
measures and the continuation of the duties as a result of the sunset review; and
 Pakistan's anti-dumping measures on the subject imports also appear to be inconsistent
with 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.
7. The UAE considers that the above -described measures also appear to nullify or impair the
benefits accruing to the UAE directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
8. Therefore, the UAE respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of
the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body
establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in
Article 7.1 of the DSU.
9. The UAE further asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be placed on the
agenda of the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 28 May 2018.