CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN AUTOMOBILES FROM THE UNITED STATES
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 9 July 2012
Document codes: WT/DS440/1; G/L/991; G/SCM/D91/1; G/ADP/D93/1
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: China
Third parties: Colombia, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Oman, Turkey, Saudi Arabia
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 11.4, 12.7, 12.8, 22.3, 22.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 6.9, 6.8, Annex 2, 12.2, 12.2.2, 6.5.1  Anti-dumpingArt. 12.4.1, 15.1, 16.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 3.1, 4.1, 3.1, 3.2  Anti-dumpingArt. 15.4  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 3.4, 3.5  Anti-dumpingArt. 15.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1  Anti-dumpingArt. 10  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
ON CERTAIN AUTOMOBILES FROM THE UNITED STATES

Request for Consultations by the United States

 The following communication, dated 5 July 2012, from the delegation of the United States to
the delegation of China and to th e Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes , Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures ("SCM Agreement") (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates Article XXIII of the
GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement") with respect to China's measures imposing
antidumping duties and countervailing duties on certain automobiles from the United States, as set
forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 20
[2011] and Notice No. 84 [2011], including any and all annexes. China's measures appear to be
inconsistent with China's obligations includi ng under the provisions of the GATT 1994, the
AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement.

In particular, China's antidumping and count ervailing duty measures on certain automobiles
from the United States appear to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the
AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement:

1. Articles 5.3 and 5.4 of the AD Agreement, a nd Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the SCM Agreement,
because: (a) China failed to examine the de gree of support for, or opposition to, the
application expressed by domestic producers of the like product prior to initiating the
antidumping and countervailing duty investigati ons; (b) China initiated the investigations
when domestic producers supporting the application accounted for less than 25 per cent of
total production of the like product produced by th e domestic industry; and (c) China failed to
examine or review the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application.

2. Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement becau se the application for a countervailing duty
investigation failed to contain information reas onably available to the applicant and therefore
there was insufficient evidence in the application to justify the initiation of a countervailing
duty investigation with respect to several programs.
WT/DS440/1, G/L/991,
G/SCM/D91/1, G/ADP/D93/1

3. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement and Artic le 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement because China
failed to require the applicant to provide ad equate non-confidential summaries of allegedly
confidential information.

4. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because Chin a failed to adequately disclose the calculations
and data used to establish the anti-dumping duty rates it determined.

5. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because China failed to provide in sufficient
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered
material, and the reasons for the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or claims.

6. Article 6.8, including Annex II, paragraph 1, and Articles 6.9, 12.2, and 12.2.2 of the
AD Agreement and Articles 12.7, 12.8, 22.3, a nd 22.5 of the SCM Agreement because: (a)
China improperly based its determination of the "all others" anti-dumping and countervailing
duty rates on the facts available; (b) China faile d to disclose the essential facts underlying its
"all others" rate determinations; (c) China failed to set forth in sufficient detail the findings
and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered material in its "all others"
rate determinations; and (d) with respect to the "all others" rates, China failed to make
available all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to
the imposition of the final measures.

7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement a nd Articles 15.1 and 16.1 of the SCM Agreement
because China made a determination of injury using an improper definition of the domestic
industry and as a result failed to base its determ ination on positive evidence or conduct an
objective examination of the facts with respect to the domestic industry producing the subject
imports.

8. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement a nd Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement
because China's analysis of the effects of imports under investigation on the price of the like
product was not based upon an objective examination of the record and positive evidence.

9. Articles 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Articles 15.1, 15.4, and 15.5 of the
SCM Agreement because: (a) China's analysis of the alleged causal link was not based upon
an objective examination of the record and positiv e evidence, including an examination of all
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, an
examination of all relevant evidence before th e authorities, or an examination of any known
factors other than allegedly dumped and subsid ized imports which at the same time were
injuring the domestic industry, and (b) China fa iled to meet the requirement that injuries
caused by other factors must not be attributed to the allegedly dumped and subsidized
imports.

10. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because Ch ina failed to grant interested parties a full
opportunity for the defense of their interests.

11. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a con sequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement
described above.

12. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a con sequence of the breaches of the SCM Agreement
described above.

13. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the AD and
SCM Agreements described above.
WT/DS440/1, G/L/991,
 G/SCM/D91/1, G/ADP/D93/1

China's measures also appear to nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to the United States
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.

We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations.