MOROCCO - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY TURKEY
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 13 January 2017
Document codes: WT/DS513/2
Complainant: Turkey
Respondent: Morocco
Third parties: China, Egypt, EU, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Oman, Russia, Singapore, UAE, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 5.10, 6.8, Annex II, 6.9, 3.1, 3.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 6.5, 6.5.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. I:1, X:3(a), XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 3.2, 3.3  Import LicensingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 18  Anti-dumping

MOROCCO - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY TURKEY
The following communication, dated 12 January 2017, from the delegation of Turkey to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 3 October 2016, Turkey requested consultations with Morocco pursuant to Article 4 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) , Article 17.3
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (Import
Licensing Agreement). These consultations were related to the imposition of definitive anti -
dumping measures by Morocco on imports of certain hot -rolled steel products from Turkey, and
with respect to certain aspects of the investigation underlying those measures.
Consultations were held on 18 and 28 November 2016 with a view to reaching a mutually
satisfactory solution. However, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute. Therefore, in
accordance with Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement,
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 6 of the Import Licensing Agreement, Turkey requests
that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) establish a panel to examine this matter. Pursuant to
Article 6.2 of th e DSU, Turkey proceeds infra to identify the specific measures at issue and to
provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint.
A. THE MEASURES AT ISSUE
The measures at issue are:
 The definitive anti -dumping measures imposed on imports of certai n hot-rolled steel
products from Turkey, as a result of the investigation initiated by Morocco's Ministry of
Industry, Trade, Investment and Numerical Economy (Investigating Authority) on 21
January 2013. 1 The definitive measures were published in Morocco' s Official Journal
No. 6294 of 25 September 2014, and came into force on 26 September 20142; and
 Import restrictions imposed by Morocco pursuant to Article 63 of the Decree
implementing Morocco's trade remedies legislation ( Décret n° 2 -12-645 du 13 safar

1 This is also the date of initiation listed by Morocco in its Semi-Annual Report to the WTO Committee on
Anti-Dumping Practices under Article 16.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, G/ADP/N/259/MAR, dated 15
October 2014, p. 3.
2 The Investigating Authority's Definitive Determination is found in the Rapport final de l’enquête
antidumping sur les importations de tôles d’acier laminées à chaud originaires de l’Union Européenne et de la
Turquie, Détermination finale de l’existence du dumping, du dommage et du lien de causalité (Definitive
Determination). The definitive measures were notified to the WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices in
G/ADP/N/272/MAR, dated 6 October 2015, at 5. This request includes the Preliminary Determination on the
existence of dumping, injury and causal link of 30 October 2013, to the extent that the Investigating Authority
based its findings on that document.

mesures de défense commerciale ) (" Décret n° 2 -12-645") in the form of the
requirement of a "prior import declaration" for goods subject to anti-dumping duties.3
In addition, th is request covers any amendments, extensions, related instruments or practices,
including methodologies, the results of any review proceedings, whether initiated prior to or
following this panel request or the establishment of the panel, as well as implementing measures.
B. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT
The measures at issue are inconsistent with Morocco's obligations under the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Import Licensing Agreement for the following reasons:
1. Duration of the investigation: The Investigating Authority failed to conclude the
investigation at issue within the maximum 18 -month deadline contained in Article 5.10
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and therefore acted inconsistently with this provision.

2. Use of facts available to deter mine dumping margins: The Investigating Authority
rejected all of the Turkish exporters' reported sales, cost and other data and instead
determined dumping margins on the basis of "facts available". The Investigating
Authority's stated reason for doing so was that, in their questionnaire responses, the
Turkish exporters had failed to report all of their sales of the investigated products to
Morocco during the investigation period, due to alleged discrepancies between Morocco's
import statistics and the exp orters' submissions to the Investigating Authority. The
Investigating Authority's decision to reject the above -mentioned data in the exporters'
questionnaire responses and to determine dumping margins on the basis of "facts
available" is inconsistent with Article 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II to
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

In particular, the Investigating Authority improperly determined that the Turkish
exporters had failed to provide, or otherwise impeded access to, necessary informat ion
within the meaning of Article 6.8 and, in doing so, failed to comply with the following
requirements of Annex II: (i) paragraph 1, which requires the investigating authority to
specify in detail the information required from an exporter; (ii) paragraph 3, which
provides that all verifiable information submitted by an exporter shall be taken into
account when determinations are made; (iii) paragraph 5, which provides that
investigating authorities may not disregard information simply because it is not id eal in
all respects; (iv) paragraph 6, which provides that an exporter should have an
opportunity to provide further explanations when information is rejected; and (v)
paragraph 7, which details the steps to be followed with respect to the use of
information from secondary sources.

3. Disclosure of essential facts regarding the dumping analysis: The Investigating Authority
acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 (first sentence) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by
failing to disclose all essential facts with res pect to the decision to use facts available,
including the precise basis for the authority's decision to resort to facts available, the
steps the Investigating Authority took to determine whether the information submitted
by the exporters was not reliable, and the manner in which the Investigating Authority
used information from secondary sources. Moreover, the Investigating Authority failed to
disclose to the exporters its decision to reject the export sales data and to use facts
available. Instead, the In vestigating Authority provided that information only in its
Definitive Determination, which was too late to enable the exporters to defend
themselves within the meaning of Article 6.9 (second sentence) of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement.

3 The requirements of Article 63 of Décret n° 2-12-645 were imposed in this instance pursuant to
All of these instruments of Moroccan law form part of the measures at issue in this dispute.

4. Injury determination: The Investigating Authority failed to conduct an appropriate
examination of injury to the domestic industry. In particular:
a. The Investigating Authority acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994 by finding that the
domestic industry was not "established" 4, and by determining that the
establishment of that industry was retarded5;
b. The Investigating Authority acted inconsistently with Article 3.4 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement by failing t o assess all the relevant injury factors set out in
that provision. Moreover, the Investigating Authority failed to conduct an
appropriate examination of each of the factors it analysed, as well as an objective
and unbiased assessment of all these factors collectively.
c. The Investigating Authority also acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement by failing properly to provide the "profitability threshold"
used for its finding of material retardation of the establishment of the domesti c
industry, or alternatively a non-confidential summary of that information.
d. The Investigating Authority acted inconsistently with Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to require the applicant to submit a non -
confidential summary of the "profitability threshold" used for its finding of material
retardation of the establishment of the domestic industry, or an explanation of
why it could not be summarized.
5. Import restrictions: The requirement under Article 63 of Décret n° 2 -12-645 that
importers must provide "prior import declarations" for goods subject to anti -dumping
investigations constitutes additional, impermissible, "specific action against dumping"
that is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Fur thermore,
these measures are inconsistent with Articles I:1, X:3(a), and XI:1 of the GATT 1994
and Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.
It appears to Turkey that Morocco's investigation and definitive measures cannot be reconciled
with Article VI of the GATT 1994, Articles 1 and 18 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, as well as the
specific provisions cited above.
Turkey considers that the measures described above nullify and impair benefits accruing to Turkey
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Import Licensing Agreement.
C. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
In the light of the above, in accordance with Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Artic le 6 of the Import Licensing
Agreement, Turkey requests that the DSB establish a panel to examine this matter. Turkey further
requests that the panel have the standard terms of reference, as set forth in Article 7.1 of the
DSU.
Turkey asks that this reques t be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting to be held on
25 January 2017.