EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF COTTON-TYPE BED LINEN FROM INDIA
Document: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India Request for the Establishment of a Panel Revision
Date: 8 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS141/13/Rev.1
Complainant: India
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Egypt, Japan, South Korea, U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. VI, I  GATT 1994Art. 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 12  Anti-dumping

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS
OF COTTON-TYPE BED LINEN FROM INDIA
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India
Request for the Establishment of a Panel
Revision
The following communication, dated 7 May 2002, from the Permanent Mission of India to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
On 12 March 2001 the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted 1 the Appellate Body
Report2 and the Panel Report 3 as modified by the Appellate Body, in the dispute " " (WT/DS141).
These Reports concluded that the EC's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of
cotton-type bed linen from India had been inconsistent with the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement" or
"ADA"). Pursuant to the recommendations of these Reports, the DSB requested the European
Communities to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
In accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") the EC and India mutually agreed on a reasonable period of five
months and two days to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.4
On 7 August 2001 the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation 1644/2001
amending the original definitive anti-dumping duties on bed linen from India, purporting to comply
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, whilst simultaneously suspending its application. 5
India strongly disagreed that this re-determination complied with the rulings of the DSB. 6 T h e
re-determination was amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 160/2002 of 28 January 2002
terminating the proceeding against Pakistan.
7 On 13 February 2002 the EC initiated a so-called

1 WT/DS141/9 of 22 March 2001.
2 WT/DS141/AB/R of 1 March 2001.
3 WT/DS141/R of 30 October 2000.
4 WT/DS141/10 of 1 May 2001.
5 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1644/2001 of 7 August 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No. 2398/97,
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and
Pakistan and suspending its application with regard to imports originating in India, published in Official Journal
of the European Communities of 14 August 2001, L-series, No. 219, pages 1-11.
6 WT/DS141/11 and WT/DSB/M/108 at paragraph 85.
7 Council Regulation (EC) No. 160/2002 of 28 January 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No. 2398/97
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and

"partial interim review" against India 8 and on 14 March 2002 the EC terminated the anti-dumping
proceeding with respect to Egypt. 9 On 22 April 2002 the Council of the European Union adopted
Regulation (EC) No. 696/2002 confirming the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of
cotton-type bed linen originating in India by Regulation (EC) No. 2398/97, as amended and
suspended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1644/2001.10
In the view of India, the re-determination, as amended, as well as the further actions, failed to
bring the EC into compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the dispute
"European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Im ports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India "
(WT/DS141) and is inconsistent with the WTO covered agreements. The re-determination is
inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, and 15 of the ADA, as was the original measure. The
re-determination, as well as the further actions, have also introduced further inconsistencies with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 8 March 2002 India initiated procedures under Article 21.5 of the DSU by requesting the
EC to enter into consultations. The reque st was circulated in document WT/DS141/12 of
14 March 2002. Consultations were held in Geneva on 25 and 26 March 2002. These consultations
have allowed a better understanding of the respective positions but have failed to settle the dispute.
Accordingly, "there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement
of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of the DSB between India and EC
within the terms of Article 21.5 of the DSU. Pursuant to Articles 6 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 17 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XXIII of GATT 1994, and as envisaged in 13 September
2001 Agreement on the "Agreed Procedures between India and the European Communities under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU) in the follow-up to the dispute ' ' ", India hereby requests the establishment of a Panel.
In particular, India claims and requests the Panel to find that:
(a) The EC acted inconsistent with Article 2.2.2(ii) of the ADA, by not properly calculating a
"weighted average" of amounts for SG&A and profits;
(b) The EC acted inconsistent with
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the ADA, by not properly excluding
the correct portion of non-dumped imports from the total volume of Indian imports;
(c) The EC acted inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the ADA by cumulating Indian imports
with those of a country for which no dumping was found.
(d) The EC acted inconsistent with Article 5.7 of the ADA by not simultaneously considering the
evidence of dumping and injury. In fact, by cumulating countries for injury purposes and by
subsequently excluding a particular source on account of non-dumping, the EC engaged in
sequencing that was entirely improper;

Pakistan and terminating the proceeding with regard to imports originating in Pakistan, published in Official
Journal of the European Communities of 30 January 2002, L-series, No. 26, pages 1-4.
8 Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of
cotton-type bed linen originating in India, published in Official Journal of the European Communities of
13 February 2002, C-series, No. 39, pages 17-19.
9 Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures, published in Official Journal of the European
Communities of 14 March 2002, C-series, No. 65, page 12.
10 Council Regulation (EC) No. 696/2002 of 22 April 2002 confirming the definitive anti-dumping duty
imposed on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in India by Regulation (EC) No. 2398/97, as amended
and suspended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1644/2001, published in Official Journal of the European
Communities of 25 April 2002, L-series, No. 109, pages 3-13.

(e) The EC acted inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the ADA since a proper
implementation of the Panel's findings required not only a mere recitation of injury factors but
an overall reconsideration and analysis of the information in light of the requirements of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. To the extent that the EC has relied on non-disclosed confidential
information it has acted contrary to Articles 6 and 12 of the ADA;
(f) The EC acted inconsistent with Article 3.5 of the ADA, by incorrectly establishing a causal
relationship between dumped imports and injury;
(g) The EC acted inconsistent with Article 11.2 of the ADA, by accepting a request for review,
and subsequently initiating a review, on grounds that are not foreseen in Article 11.2. Thus
the EC is also in violation of Article 18.1 of the ADA; and
(h) The EC acted inconsistent with Article 15 of the ADA by failing to explore constructive
remedies. The recently initiated partial interim review shows that the suspension of the
measures was not a remedy of any type but a pretext to continue the proceeding and
circumvent the Panel's finding with respect to Article 15; and
(i) The EC also failed to respect the stipulations of Article 21.2 of the DSU.
Accordingly, India requests the Panel to conclude that:
(a) By failing to withdraw the measures found to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the EC has failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and
rulings in this dispute; and
(b) The re-determination, as amended, and the subsequent actions as identified above are
inconsistent with the above provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the DSU.
India requests that the Panel be established with standard terms of reference set out in
Article 7 of the DSU. Pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU India also requests that, if possible, the
DSB refer the matter to the original Panel.