UNITED STATES - COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDIA
Document: Request for Consultations by India
Date: 18 April 2012
Document codes: WT/DS436/1; G/L/987; G/SCM/D89/1
Complainant: India
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, Canada, China, EU, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. 12, 14, 15, 19, 32  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. I  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES - COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN
HOT-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDIA

Request for Consultations by India

 The following communication, dated 12 April 2012, from the delegation of India to the
delegation of the United States and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request c onsultations with the United States of America
("United States") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), Article XXII: 1 and XXIII:1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994") and Article 30 of the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "ASCM") with regard to the imposition of countervailing
duties by the United States on Certain Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India ("subject
goods").
2. The United States conducted countervailing duty (t he "CVD") investigation (No. C – 533 –
821) and levied countervailing duties on the subj ect goods exported from India. The provisional
measures were imposed with effect from 20 April 2001 and the final measures were imposed effective
from 3 December 2001. The United States concluded a sunset review in 2007 and continued the duties
for a further period of five years. The United St ates also conducted several Administrative Reviews
(the "AR") to determine the CVD rate/s to be a pplied on the imports made during the relevant AR
period. The measures continue to be in force. Th e request covers the countervailing duties and other
measures, if any, applied on the subject goods from I ndia through any notice, determination, decision
memorandum, order, or any other instrument issu ed by the United States from time to time in
connection with case No.C-533-821. A non-exhaustive list of such dete rminations, orders, etc issued
by the United States in Case No.C-533-821 is enclosed as Annex 1 . The measures covered in this
request also include certain provisions of the United States Tariff Act, 1930 and the United States
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 19 – Customs duties, Volume 3, Chapter III, Part 351 ("19 CFR
351") that are "as such" inconsistent with the provisions of the ASCM. The request also covers all the
amendments, replacements, implementing acts or an y other related measure in connection with the
measures referred herein.
3. India considers that the following provisions of the United States Tariff Act, 1930 and the
United States Code of Federal Regulations contai ned in 19 CFR 351 are "as such" inconsistent with
Articles 12, 14, 15, 19 and 32 of the ASCM:
(a) The United States Code of Federal Regula tions contained in 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(i)
to (iii) are "as such" inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the ASCM because they

require the adoption of benchmark prices (either Tier I or Tier II as the case may be)
without first examining whether the rem uneration for the provision of goods is
adequate and is consistent with market principles.
(b) The United States Code of Federal Regulations contained in 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2)(iv) requiring the use of 'deliver ed prices' are inconsistent "as such"
with Article 14(d) of the ASCM because they disregard the prevailing market
conditions in the country of provision of goods.
(c) The United States Code of Federal Regulations contained in 19 CFR
351.511(a)(2)(iv) requiring the use of 'deliver ed prices' are inconsistent "as such"
with Articles 19.3 and 19. 4 of the ASCM because they lead to the imposition of
inappropriate and / or excess countervailing duty.
(d) Section 771 (7)(G) of the United States Tariff Act 1930 is "as such" inconsistent with
Article 15.3 of the ASCM to the extent that it requires cumulation of imports from
countries not subject to simultaneous CVD i nvestigations, while determining injury
for the purposes of imposition of CVD.
(e) Section 776(b) of the United States Tariff Act 1930 and the implementing regulations
contained in 19 CFR 351.308 are "as such" in consistent with Article 12.7 of the
ASCM because it requires the use of 'adverse facts available'.
(f) To the extent the United States Tariff Act 1930 and the Code of Federal Regulations
mentioned above are inconsistent with the provisions of the ASCM, the United States
has failed to take all necessary steps to ensu re the conformity of its laws with the
provisions of the ASCM pursuant to Article 32.5 of the ASCM.
4. India also considers that the measures described in paragraph 2 above are inconsistent with,
inter alia, Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,19, 21 and 22 of
the ASCM as briefly indicated below:
(a) In connection with the alleged provision of sale of High Grade Iron Ore for Less Than
Adequate Remuneration:
(i) The determination that the National Minera l Development Corporation (NMDC) is a
"government authority" is inconsistent with Article 1.1(a)(1) of the ASCM because it
is based on Government ownership and does not consider all the relevant factors.
(ii) The determination that the Government of India, through the NMDC, provided a
financial contribution through sale of iron ore fines and lumps, is inconsistent with
Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the ASCM.
(iii) The United States failed to establish that the sale of iron ore by the NMDC to
producers of the subject goods, conferred a benefit within the meaning of Article
1.1(b) of the ASCM.
(iv) The determination regarding 'specificity'
 is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the ASCM because the provision of iron ore is
not limited to certain enterprises.

 is inconsistent with Article 2.1(c) of the ASCM because it fails to consider all the
mandatory factors listed thereunder.
 is inconsistent with Article 2.4 of th e ASCM because it is not based on positive
evidence.
(v) The United States' failure to collect all re levant information is inconsistent with
Article 12.1 of the ASCM.
(vi) The United States' failure to determine the adequacy of the actual remuneration, or
lack thereof, for the provision of iron-ore, is inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the
ASCM.
(vii) The benchmark prices 'as applied' for calculation of the amount of subsidy, are
inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the ASCM because the United States disregarded
the NMDC prices.
(viii) The rejection of the export prices of the NM DC as a benchmark price is inconsistent
with Article 14(d) of the ACSM.
(ix) The adoption of 'delivered prices' as the basis for determining benchmark prices in the
various administrative reviews is inconsis tent with Article 14(d) of the ASCM
because it disregards the prevailing market conditions for iron-ore in India.
(x) The adoption of world market prices (Tier II prices) for iron ore lumps in respect of
one exporter in the AR 2006, even when actua l market prices in India (Tier I prices)
were available on the records of the case, is inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the
ASCM.
(b) In connection with the Captive Mining of Iron Ore:
(i) The determination that mining rights gran ted by the Government of India are
"captive" and are 'de facto' specific is c ontrary to the facts on record and does not
meet the requirements of Article 12.5 of the ASCM.
(ii) The determination that the grant of 'mining rights' amounts to provision of goods (i.e.
provision of iron ore), is inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a)(1)(iii) of the ASCM because
the grant of 'mining rights' cannot be equated to provision of goods.
(iii) The United States' failure to determine the adequacy of the actual remuneration, or
lack thereof, for the grant of 'mining rights' , is inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the
ASCM.
(iv) The determination that mining rights granted to steel producers constituted a 'financial
contribution', is inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a) (1) of the ASCM.
(v) The United States failed to establish that the grant of mining rights conferred a
'benefit', within the meaning of Article 1.1 (b) of the ASCM.
(vi) The determination that the grant of mining ri ghts is 'de facto specific', is inconsistent
with Article 2 of the ASCM because it is not limited to steel producers.

(vii) The calculation of the amount of subsidy is inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the
ASCM because of the incorrect benchmarks applied for calculation.
(c) In connection with the Captive Mining of Coal:
(i) The determination that the grant of 'mining rights' amounts to provision of goods (i.e.
provision of coal), is inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a)(1)(iii) of the ASCM because
grant of 'mining rights' cannot be equated to provision of goods.
(ii) The United States' failure to determine the adequacy of the actual remuneration, or
lack thereof, for the grant of 'mining rights' , is inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the
ASCM.
(iii) The determination that the mining rights granted to steel producers constituted a
'financial contribution' is inconsistent with Article 1.1.(a) (1) of the ASCM.
(iv) The United States failed to establish that the grant of mining rights conferred a benefit
within the meaning of Article 1.1 (b) of the ASCM.
(v) The determination that granting captive mining rights of coal to steel producers is 'de
jure specific' is inconsistent with Article 2 of the ASCM because the grant is based on
objective criteria or conditions.
(vi) The calculation of the amount of subsidy is inconsistent with Article 14(d) of the
ASCM because of the incorrect benchmarks applied for the calculation.
(d) In connection with the operation of the Steel Development Fund (SDF):
(i) The determination that the operation of th e SDF constituted a financial contribution
by the Government is inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a) of the ASCM because SDF
comprises contributions made and mandated by the participating steel producers
themselves.
(ii) The determination that the operation of the SDF conferred a 'benefit' is inconsistent
with Article 1.1 (b) of the ASCM.
(iii) The United States' failure to collect all re levant information is inconsistent with
Article 12.1 of the ASCM.
(iv) The calculation of the amount of benefit is inconsistent with Articles 14 and 19.4 of
the ASCM because it is incorrect and not adequately explained.
(e) In connection with the injury determination:
(i) The cumulation of imports for determination of injury is inconsistent with Article 15.3
of the ASCM because the United States included imports from countries not subject to
simultaneous CVD investigation.
(ii) The determination of injury is inconsistent with Article 15 of the ASCM because such
determination covers both subsidized imports and non-subsidized imports.

(iii) The demonstration of causal link is incons istent with Article 15.5 of the ASCM
because the United States did not segregate inju ry caused due to factors other than the
subsidized imports.
(f) In connection with other issues:
(i) The application of the 'adverse facts availa ble' standard in determining the subsidy
margin, is inconsistent with Article 12.7 of the ASCM.
(ii) The inclusion of new subsidies in an admi nistrative review is inconsistent with
Articles 11, 21, 22.1 and 22.2 of the ASCM.
(iii) The failure to invite India for consultations before including New Subsidy Allegations
within the scope of the Administrative Review s, is inconsistent with Articles 13.1 and
13.2 of the ASCM.
(iv) The amount of countervailing duty applied is inconsistent with Articles 19.3 and 19.4
of the ASCM because it is not in appropriate amounts and is in excess of the amount
of subsidy, if any.
(v) As a consequence of the inconsistencie s mentioned above, the countervailing duties
applied in this case are inconsistent with Article 10 of the ASCM and Article VI of the
GATT 1994.
5. India further considers that the measures at issu e have a serious adverse impact on the export
of subject goods from India to the US. Further, pu rsuant to Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994, read
with Article 3.8 of the DSU, India considers that the measures at issue cause nullification or
impairment of benefits accruing to India under the GATT 1994.
6. India reserves its right to raise additional claims and legal matters in relation to the measures
at issue and their application, during the consultations.
7. In view of the above, India looks forward to the reply from the United States within the
prescribed time limit. India proposes that the date and venue of the consultations be mutually agreed.

ANNEX – 1

Original Investigation

1. Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final
Countervailing Determination With Fina l Antidumping Duty Determinations: Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India:, 66 FR 20240-01, April 20, 2001.
2. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Investigations:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India , 66 ITADOC 49635, September
21, 2001.
3. Final Affirmative Counterva iling Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India, 66 FR 49635-01, September 28, 2001.
4. Injury Determination: Hot Rolled Steel Products from China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan,
Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine , 701-TA-405-408 and
731-TA-899-904 and 906-908, Pub. 3468, United States International Trade Commission,
November 2001.
5. Amended Final Results of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products From India and Indonesia, 66 FR 60198-01, December 3, 2001.
6. Countervailing Duty Order in the Investigation: Certain Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Flat
Products from India, January 8, 2002.
Administrative Review: POR April 20, 2001 through December 31, 2002
7. Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review : Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 69 FR 907-01, January 7, 2004.
8. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Investigation:
Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 69 ITADOC 26549, May 6,
2004.
9. Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India, 69 FR 26549-01, May 13, 2004.
Administrative Review: POR January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004
10. Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR 1512-01, January 10, 2006.
11. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Results of Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order : Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 71
ITADOC 28665, May 10, 2006.
12.
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India, 71 FR 28665-01, May 17, 2006.
Sunset Review
13. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the
Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina,
India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand, 71 ITADOC 70960, December 7, 2006.

14. Final Results of the Expedited Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews of the Countervailing Duty
Orders: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Produc ts from Argentina, India, Indonesia,
South Africa, and Thailand, 71 FR 70960-03, December 7, 2006.
15. Injury Determination - Hot Rolled Steel Products from China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan,
Argentina, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine, 701-TA-404-408 and
731-TA-898-902 and 904-908(Review), Pub. 3956, United States International Trade
Commission, October 2007.
16. Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders - Certain Hot–Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, Indon esia, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan,
Thailand, and Ukraine, 72 FR 73316-03, December 27, 2007.
Administrative Review: POR January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
17. Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 73 FR 1578-02, January 9, 2008.
18. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India, 73 ITADOC 40295, July
7, 2008.
19. Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products From India, 73 FR 40295-02, July 14, 2008.
Administrative Review: POR January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007
20. Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 73 FR 79791-01, December 30, 2008.
21. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Resu lts of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India , 74 ITADOC 20923,
April 29, 2009.
22. Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review : Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India, 74 FR 20923-01 May 6, 2009.
Administrative Review: POR January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008

23. Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, 75 FR 1496-01, January 11, 2010.
24. Issues and Decision Memorandum - Final Resu lts of Countervailing Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Hot Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India , 75 ITADOC 43488,
July 19, 2010.
25. Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review – Certain Hot Rolled Carbon
Steel Flat Products from India, 75 FR 43488-01, July 26, 2010.