CHINA – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON X-RAY SECURITY INSPECTION EQUIPMENT FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union
Date: 9 December 2011
Document codes: WT/DS425/2
Complainant: EU
Respondent: China
Third parties: Japan, U.S., Thailand, Norway, India, Chile
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5  Anti-dumping

CHINA – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
ON X-RAY SECURITY INSPECTION EQUIPMENT
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union

 The following communication, dated 8 Decemb er 2011, from the delegation of the European
Union to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the
DSU.

On 25 July 2011 the European Union ("EU") reque sted consultations with the Government of
the Peoples' Republic of China ("China" ) pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VI of the GATT 1994 (" Anti-Dumping Agreement") and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") with respect to the imposition of definitive
anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equi pment from the European Union, pursuant to
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Notice No. 1(2011), including its annex.
The European Union held consultations with China on 19 September and 18 October 2011.
Those consultations unfortunately did not resolve the dispute.
The EU considers the measure at issue to be in consistent with China's obligations under the
following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
1. Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to ensure that
interested parties provided non-confidential su mmaries of confidential information or, where
provided, that the summaries were in sufficient de tail to enable a reasonable understanding of the
substance of the information submitted with regard to (i) the existence of dumping, including the
establishment and comparison of the normal value a nd the export price; and (ii) the existence of
injury, including the effects of dumped imports on prices, the state of the domestic industry and the
causal relationship between the dumped imports and the injury allegedly suffered by the domestic
industry. In doing so, China failed to provide a timely and full opportunity for all interested parties to
see all information that is not confiden tial as defined by Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and that was relevant to defend their interests, a nd that was used by the authority in the anti-dumping
investigation, and to prepare presentations on the b asis of this information for the defence of their
interests.
2. Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide
interested parties with information about the essential facts under consideration which would form the
basis for the decision to impose definitive anti-dumpi ng measures. In particular, China did not fully
disclose the essential facts, which fo rm the basis for the determination of the dumping margin of the

EU cooperating producer, including the calculation of the normal value and the adjustments made to
the export price, and the determination of the resi dual duty. China also failed to disclose the essential
facts that formed the basis for th e determination of injury, includi ng the analysis of the effects of
dumped imports on prices, the state of the domestic industry and the causal relationship between the
dumped imports and the injury suffered by the domes tic industry. In doing so, China failed to provide
a timely and full opportunity for all interested parties to see all information that was relevant to defend
their interests, and that was used by the authorit y in the anti-dumping investigation, and to prepare
presentations on the basis of this information for the defence of their interests.
3. Article 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because neither in its public notice of the
imposition of definitive measures, nor in a separat e report, China set forth sufficiently detailed
explanations for the definitive determinations on dumping and injury, together with references to the
matters of fact and law which led to arguments being accepted or rejected. Specifically, China failed
to provide: a) a full explanation of the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment and
comparison of the export price and normal value (Article 12.2.1(iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement);
b) all the considerations relevant to the inju ry determination as set out in Article 3 of the Antidumping
Agreement (Article 12.2.1(iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement); and c) the main reasons leading to the
determination (Article 12.2.1(v) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement).
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , because China failed to make an
objective examination, on the basis of positive evidence, of the effect of the dumped imports on prices
in the domestic market for like products. Specifica lly, it appears from the very limited information
disclosed by the Chinese authorities that the finding that EU imports had the effect of undercutting
and suppressing and/or depressing the price of dom estic products is not based on an objective
examination of positive evidence because it failed to take into account the differences between
various types of products covered by the investigation.
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to make an
objective examination, on the basis of positive evidence, of the effect of the dumped imports on prices
in the domestic market for like products and the consequent impact of these imports on domestic
producers of such products, including the factors lis ted in Article 3.4, as the overwhelming majority
of injury indicators were positive or showed positive trends.
6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to make an
objective determination, on the basis of all releva nt evidence before the authorities that the dumped
imports were, through the effects of dumping, causi ng injury. The causality determination is flawed
because it is based on findings of price undercuttin g and price suppression and/or depression by EU
imports which are themselves not based on an object ive examination of positive evidence. Moreover,
China did not consider all known relevant factors other than dumped imports having a bearing on the
state of the industry and/or affecting the domestic prices.
Accordingly the European Uni on respectfully requests that, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU
and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 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.
The European Union asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the
Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 19 December 2011.