EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY CHIPS FROM KOREA
Document: Request for Consultations by Korea Revision
Date: 31 July 2003
Document codes: WT/DS299/1/Rev.1; G/L/641/Rev.1; G/SCM/D56/1/Rev.1
Complainant: South Korea
Respondent: EU
Third parties: China, Taiwan, Japan, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 32  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:3  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
ON DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY CHIPS FROM KOREA
Request for Consultations by Korea
Revision
The following communication, dated 29 July 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Korea to
the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission and to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to reques t consultations with the European Communities
("EC") pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes ("DSU"), Article 30 of the Agreemen t on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM
Agreement"), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"),
with regard to provisional measures against dynamic random access memory chips ("DRAMs") from
Korea, announced in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 708/2003, published at OJ L 102, 24.4.2003,
p.7, and with regard to any final measures on the same products, which have been presented in draft
form in the Final Disclosure Document of the EC and which may be finalized and implemented later
this year.
The Government of Korea considers these determinations by the EC to be inconsistent with
its obligations under the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994 and the SCM Agreement, including,
but not limited to:
1. Article 1 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the EC failed to demonstrate the
existence of a financial contribution by the Government of Korea within the meaning
of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement.
2. Articles 1 and 14 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the EC failed to
demonstrate that a benefit was conferred on the respondent Hynix Semiconductor
Inc., given available market benchmarks.
3. Articles 1 and 14 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the credit rating and
other related analysis undertaken by the EC are inconsistent with obligations under
the SCM Agreement.
4. Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the EC imposed and
applied an improper burden of proof on respondents and, in turn, the EC did not base
its decisions on affirmative, objective, and verifiable evidence.

5. Article 2 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the EC failed to demonstrate that
the alleged subsidies were specific to the respondent Hynix Semiconductor Inc. on
the basis of positive evidence.
6. Article 11 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the EC did not base its decision
to initiate its countervailing duty investigation on sufficient evidence.
7. Article 12 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the EC improperly applied
"facts available" instead of considering the information on the record.
8. Article 15 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the EC improperly found
material injury caused by the allegedly subsidized imports without proper evidentiary
or legal foundations.
9. Article 17 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the EC imposed provisional
measures based on flawed analysis of financial contribution, benefit, and other factual
and legal issues that were inconsistent with obligations under the SCM Agreement.
10. Article 22 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the EC failed to provide all
relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons for its determinations.
11. Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of the GATT
1994 because, inter alia , the EC failed to conduct its investigation and make
determinations in accordance with fundamental substantive and procedural
requirements
The Government of Korea reserves its rights to raise additional factual and legal issues during
the course of the consultations and in any request for the establishment of a panel. We look forward
to the response of the EC to this request so that we can schedule a mutually convenient date to begin
consultations.