UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLE AND LIGHT TRUCK TYRES FROM CHINA
Document: Request for Consultations by China
Date: 16 September 2009
Document codes: WT/DS399/1; G/L/893; G/SG/D36/1
Complainant: China
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Vietnam
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 16.1, 16.3, 16.4, 16.6  Protocol of AccessionArt. I:1, II, XIX  GATT 1994  Safeguards

UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF CERTAIN PASSENGER
VEHICLE AND LIGHT TRUCK TYRES FROM CHINA

Request for Consultations by China

 The following communication, dated 14 Septem ber 2009, from the delegation of China 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.

 My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the United
States ("US") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
("GATT 1994"), and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards with regard to certain measures taken
by the US affecting the import of certain passe nger vehicle and light tr uck tires from the People's
Republic of China ("China").

 This request concerns the restrictions recently announced by the US on imports of certain
passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. Th ese restrictions take the form of substantially
higher tariffs over the next three years well in excess of the tariff rates permitted under US
international obligations to China. These rest rictions were announced on 11 September 2009 by the
US authorities following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C.
2451 et seq. The report by the International Trade Commission issued as part of this investigation can
be found at Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tires from China , Inv. No. TA-421-7, USITC
Pub. No. 4085 (July 2009). The decision by the Pr esident can be found in the Proclamation issued by
President Barack Obama on 11 September 2009. Unde r this proclamation, these measures are to take
effect on 26 September 2009. This request incl udes both these higher tariffs that have been
announced, and any other measures the US may announce to implement this decision.

 China considers that these higher tariffs, not ha ving been justified as emergency action under
relevant WTO rules, are inconsistent with Ar ticle I:1 of the GATT 1994 because the US does not
accord the same treatment it grants to passenger and light truck tires originating in other countries to
the like products originating in China.

 Nor can the US justify these measures as prope rly applied exceptions to this fundamental
WTO principle. These measures have not been properly justified pursuant to Article XIX of
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards . Nor have these measures been properly justified as
China-specific restrictions under the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (the
Protocol of Accession). There are several problems with the US statute and the way in which the US
applies its statute.

 The US statute authorizing these China-specific re strictions is inconsistent on its face with
Article 16 of the Protocol of Accession in that the US statute impermissibly defines "significant
cause" more narrowly than required by the ordinary meaning of that phrase as used in Article 16.4 of
the Protocol of Accession.

 Each of these measures is also inconsiste nt, as applied, with US obligations under the
Protocol of Accession, and the US has therefore not justified invocation of the Protocol in the
following respects:

Articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol of A ccession because imports from China were not "in
such increased quantities" and were not "increasingly rapidly."
Articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession because imports from China were not a
"significant cause" of material injury or threat of material injury.
Articles 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession because the domestic tire producers were
not experiencing "market disruption" or "m aterial injury," and in fact opposed the
investigation and these measures, and stated that the requested relief would not change their
plans.
Article 16.3 of the Protocol of Accession because the restrictions are not necessary at all, and
are being imposed beyond the "extent necessary to prevent or remedy" any alleged market
disruption.
Article 16.6 of the Protocol of Accession because the restrictions are being imposed for a
period of time longer than "necessary to prevent or remedy" any alleged market disruption.

 China reserves its right to raise further factual issues and legal claims during the course of the
consultations, and in any future request for the establishment of a panel.
 I look forward to receiving the reaction of your authorities to this request so that we can
arrange a mutually acceptable date and location for consultations.