CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON BROILER PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 23 September 2011
Document codes: WT/DS427/1; G/L/960; G/SCM/D88/1; G/ADP/D90/1
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: China
Third parties: EU, Japan, Norway, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Chile, Mexico
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.4, 6.8, 12.2.1, 12.2, 6.9, 12.7  Anti-dumpingArt. 12.7  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:3  GATT 1994Art. 19.4, 22.3, 22.4, 22.5, 12.8  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 15.5, 12.3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 3.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 15.1, 15.2, 12.4.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 6.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1  Anti-dumpingArt. 10  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CHINA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES
ON BROILER PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES

Request for Consultations by the United States

 The following communication, dated 20 Sept ember 2011, from the delegation of the
United States to the delegation of China and to th e Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes , Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures ("SCM Agreement") (to the extent that Article 30 incorporates Article XXIII of the GATT
1994), and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement") with respect to China's measures imposing anti-
dumping duties and countervailing duties on broiler pr oducts from the United States, as set forth in
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 8 [2010], Notice
No. 26 [2010], Notice No. 51 [2010], and Notice No. 52 [2010], including any and all annexes.
China's measures appear to be inconsistent with Ch ina's obligations including under the provisions of
the GATT 1994, the AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement.

In particular, China's anti-dumping and count ervailing duty measures on broiler products
from the United States appear to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the
AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement:

1. Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement be cause China failed to calculate costs on the
basis of the records kept by the US producers under investigation.

2. Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement because China failed to properly allocate production
costs.

3. Articles 6.4 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreemen t, and Articles 12.3 and 12.4.1 of the SCM
Agreement because China failed to provide, or require the applicant to provide, adequate,
non-confidential summaries of allegedly confidential information.

4. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement including Anne x II and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement
because China improperly based its determinations on the facts available.
WT/DS427/1, G/L/960,
G/SCM/D88/1, G/ADP/D90/1

5. Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement, because China
levied countervailing duties on imported U.S. br oiler products in excess of the amount of
subsidy found to exist.

6. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agreem ent, and Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of
the SCM Agreement, because China's analysis of the effects of imports under investigation
and alleged causal link was not based upon an objective examination of positive evidence, an
examination of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the
industry, or an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities.

7. Articles 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles 11.1, 15.1, and 16.1 of the SCM
Agreement because China improperly defined th e domestic industry a nd did not conduct a
proper investigation or objective examination of the domestic industry producing the subject
imports.

8. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because China
failed to disclose the "essential facts" underlying its determinations.

9. Articles 12.2, 12.2.1, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 22.3, 22.4, and 22.5 of the
SCM Agreement because China failed to pr ovide in sufficient detail the findings and
conclusions reached on all issues of fact and la w it considered material, and the reasons for
the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or claims.

10. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because Chin a failed to grant interested parties a full
opportunity for the defense of their interests.

11. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a conseque nce of the breaches of the AD Agreement
described above.

12. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a conseque nce of the breaches of the SCM Agreement
described above.

13. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the AD and SCM
Agreements described above.

China's measures also appear to nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to the United States
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.

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