UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA
Document: Request for Consultations by Argentina
Date: 26 June 2006
Document codes: WT/DS346/1; G/L/781; G/ADP/D69/1
Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.8, 6.9, 9.2, 9.3, 12.2, 12.2.2, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA

Request for Consultations by Argentina

 The following communication, dated 20 June 2006, from the delegation of Argentina to the
delegation of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby wish to convey the request of Argentina to
hold consultations with the United States of America pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXIII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 17 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement), in connection to the
anti-dumping duty administrative review by the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) on
Oil Country Tubular Goods, other than Drill Pipe (OCTG) from Argentina with respect to Acindar
Industria Argentina de Aceros S.A. (Acindar), fo r the period 1 August 2000 through 31 July 2001,
published in the Federal Register of the United States on 9 September 2002
1 and 19 March 20032, and
also in connection to the Tariff Act of 1930, S ection 773(e)(2)(B)(iii), as well as any amendments
thereto or extensions thereof and any related measures.

 Argentina is concerned that the anti-dumping duty administrative review with respect to
Acindar is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994 and the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The provisions of these Ag reements with which this measure appears to
be inconsistent include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Article 2.2 and note 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994,
because the USDOC failed to properly establish th at Acindar's home sales during the period
of review did not permit a proper comparison;

 Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, because the
USDOC:

1 Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Admini strative Review; Oil Country Tubular Goods from
Argentina (67 FR 57215, of 9 September 2002).
2 Final Results and Recision in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Oil Country Tubular
Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, From Argentina (68 FR 132 62, of 19 March 2003); and the Issues and Decision
Memo for the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina –
1 August 2000 through 31 July 2001 (68 FR 13262, 19 March 2003).

• improperly calculated the constructed nor mal value taking into account the amounts
for profits based on Siderca's financial stat ement, disregarding Acindar's actual data
pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade;

• when calculating the constructed normal value, the USDOC added direct selling
expenses reported for Acindar's US sales, disregarding the selling expenses reported
on Acindar's financial statement;

 Article 2.2.2 (iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agre ement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, because
even if the amount for profit could not be dete rmined on Acindar's actual data, by improperly
using Siderca's financial statement under alternative III (as provided by
Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of 1930) to assess profit for Acindar's constructed
normal value, the USDOC did not properly establish that the profit determined did not exceed
the profit normally realized by Siderca or othe r producers on sales of OCTG in the domestic
market of Argentina;

 Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, because:

• by using Siderca's financial statement (including seventy-three per cent of export
sales) in calculating Acindar's profit ratio and, therefore, constructed normal value,

• by not taking into account that Acindar so ld only welded OCTG during the period of
review while Siderca sold only seamless OCTG during the fiscal year covered by the
financial statement when calculating Acindar's profit ratio,

• by disregarding the fact that Siderca's home market sales were made pursuant to long-
term supply contracts tending to cause Si derca's home market prices lag behind the
general price increase during the period,

• by not indicating what further informat ion from Companhia 103 was necessary to
calculate Acindar's profit ratio,

• by making circumstances-of-sale adjustment s adding direct selling expenses reported
for Acindar's US sales, disregarding th e selling expenses reported on Acindar's
financial statement,

• by utilizing Siderca's financial statement for the period ending 31 March 2001 and,
therefore, not comparing sales made at as nearly as possible the same time,

 the USDOC did not conduct a fair compar ison between Acindar's export price and the
constructed normal value, failed to make due allowances for the above-mentioned differences
that affected price comparability and did not indicate Acindar what information was
necessary to ensure a fair comparison;

 Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because by, inter alia:

• not making clear, expressly requesting, a nd/or seeking to clarify the kind of
information required with respect to Companhia 103's (i.e. Acindar's home sales unit)
and Siat's (Siderca's home sales unit) profits because of an alleged "ambiguity" and
"unclearness", and

• using instead Siderca's financial statement (including seventy-three per cent of export
sales) as the basis for Acindar's constructed value profit,

 the USDOC did not give notice of the info rmation required and denied Acindar ample
opportunity to present in writing all evidence considered relevant, did not not provide Acindar
a full opportunity for the defence of its interests and did not satisfy itself as to the accuracy of
the information supplied;

 Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, because by recurring to facts
available and resorting to Siderca's financial statement for calculating Acindar's constructed
value profit, the USDOC failed to comply with the necessary conditions established in those
provisions;

 Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, b ecause by not disclosing how it determined the
dumping margin for the period of review to be 60.73%, the USDOC failed to inform Acindar
of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to apply
antidumping duties;

 Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 because,
inter alia:

• by not calculating the constructed normal value taking into account the amounts for
administrative, selling and general costs and profits based on actual data pertaining to
production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of OCTG by Acindar,

• by not establishing an amount of profit that did not exceed the profit normally
realized by other producers on sales of OCTG in the domestic market of Argentina,

• by not taking into account that Acindar so ld only welded OCTG during the period of
review while Siderca sold only seamless OCTG during the fiscal year covered by the
financial statement when calculating Acindar's profit ratio,

• by disregarding the fact that Siderca's home market sales were made pursuant to long-
term supply contracts tending to cause Si derca's home market prices lag behind the
general price increase during the period,

 the USDOC failed to collect anti-dumping duties in the appropriate amount;

 Article 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994,
because the zeroing methodology applied by the USDOC in the administrative review at issue
with regard to Acindar resulted in amounts of assessed anti-dumping duties that exceeded
Acindar's margin of dumping with which the anti-dumping duties had to be compared; and

 Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, inter alia , by not
providing details of the calculations that led to a determination of a dumping margin for
Acindar of 60.73%, the USDOC did not make available through the Notice of Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and the Issues and Decision Memo, all the
relevant information of fact and law and reasons that led to the impositions of anti-dumping

duties, and in particular, the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment and
comparison of the export price and the normal value.

In addition, Argentina also requests consultati ons with the United States with respect to the
Tariff Act of 1930 ("the Act"), in particular, Section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii), which appears to be
inconsistent with United States' obligations un der the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.
Argentina is concerned that this provision of the Act allows the United States to establish an amount
for profit that exceeds the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of
products of the same general categor y in the domestic market of the country of origin, in violation of
Article 2.2.2(iii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.

For all of the measures identified above, the Un ited States also failed to comply with its
obligations under Articles 1 and 18.1 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement.

 Argentina reserves its right to raise further fact ual, "as applied" and "as such" claims and legal
issues during the course of consultations.

 We look forward to receiving your reply to th is request and to fixing a mutually convenient
date for consultations.