CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON STEEL WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 27 January 2015
Document codes: WT/DS482/2
Complainant: Taiwan
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: EU, China, South Korea, Norway, UAE, U.S., Brazil
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.8, 1, 6.10, 7.1(ii), 7.5, 9.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 6.8, Annex II, 2.2, 9.3  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON STEEL
WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
The following communication, dated 22 January 20 15, from the delegation of Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 25 June 2014, the Government of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen
and Matsu requested consultations with Canada pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") and Article 17 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") with respect to the
provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Canada on imports of Certain Carbon
Steel Welded Pipe ("CSWP") originating in, among others, the Separate Customs Territory of
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
1
On 7 November 2014, the Separate Customs Territo ry of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, in
an addendum to its request for consultations, requested further consultations on other aspects of
the abovementioned anti-dumping measures and on certain provisions of the Special Import
Measures Act ("SIMA") and the Special Import Measures Regulations ("SIMR").2
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and Canada held
consultations on 24 July 2014 and 4 December 2014. Unfortunately, those consultations have not
led to a satisfactory resolution of the dispute.
1 CLAIMS CONCERNING THE PROVISIO NAL AND DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING
MEASURES IMPOSED BY CANADA ON IMPO RTS OF CSWP ORIGINATING IN, AMONG
OTHERS, THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITO RY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND
MATSU
1.1 Background and Measures at Issue
On 14 May 2012, the Canada Border Services Agency ("CBSA") initiated an anti-dumping
investigation with respect to imports of CSWP originating in, among others, the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
3 A Statement of Reasons of the initiation of the
investigation was made available on 29 May 2012. 4 On 15 May 2012, the Canada International
Trade Tribunal ("CITT") issued a notice of commencement of a preliminary injury inquiry.5

1 WT/DS482/1, G/ADP/D105/1, G/L/1073.
2 WT/DS482/1/Add.1, G/ADP/D105/1/Add.1, G/L/1073/Add.1.
3 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/ad1396/ad1396-i12-ni-eng.html .
4 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/ad1396/ad1396-i12-de-eng.pdf.
5 Canada Gazette 2012.I.146.21 p. 1382.

On 13 July 2012, the CITT determined that there was evidence that disclosed a reasonable
indication that the dumping and subsidizing of th e subject goods had caused injury or retardation
or were threatening to cause injury. 6 A Statement of Reasons was issued on 30 July 2012. 7 The
CBSA made a preliminary determination of dumping on 13 August 2012. 8 The Statement of
Reasons concerning the preliminary determination of dumping was made available on
28 August 2012.9
On 14 August 2012, the CITT published a notice of commencement of inquiry.10
Definitive measures were imposed following the final dumping determination made by the CBSA on
9 November 2012 11 and following the finding by the CITT made on 11 December 2012 that the
dumping of certain CSWP originating in, among others, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu were threatening to ca use injury to the Canadian domestic industry.
12
A Statement of Reasons concerning the findings of the CBSA was made available on 26 November
201313 and a Statement of Reasons concerning the fi ndings of the CITT was made available on 27
December 2012.14
On 7 January 2013, the CBSA initiated a re-investiga tion to update the normal values and export
prices of certain CSWP originating in, among others, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
15 The CBSA issued a Notice on the conclusion of the re-investigation
on 7 May 2013.16
The measures at issue in this dispute include all determinations, notices and statements of reasons
issued by Canada as mentioned above as well as any related measures, amendments or
replacement measures taken by Canada in relation to the above-mentioned investigations and the
imposition of the provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures.
1.2 Legal Claims
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that the
provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Canada on imports of CSWP
originating in, among others, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and
Matsu, as well as the underlying investigations are inconsistent with the following provisions of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and of the GATT 1994:
The treatment of exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping
1. Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada failed to immediately
terminate the investigation with respect to those exporters whose margins of dumping
are de minimis within the meaning of that provision.
2. Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement beca use, in imposing anti-dumping measures
including on imports of exporters with a de minimis dumping margin, Canada did not
apply such measures pursuant to an investigation conducted in accordance with the
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
3. Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada failed to determine only
one individual margin of dumping for each exporter in its determination of whether to
continue the investigation and the subsequent determination of duty rates.

6 Canada Gazette 2012.I.146.29 p. 2095.
7 http://www.citt.gc.ca/en/dumping/preinq/determin/pi2m003_e .
8 Canada Gazette 2012.I.146.34 p. 2518.
9 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/ad1396/ad1396-i12-pd-eng.pdf .
10 Canada Gazette 2012.I.146.34 p. 2523.
11 Canada Gazette 2012 I 146.47 p. 3172.
12 Canada Gazette 2012 I 146.51 p. 3555.
13 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/i-e/ad1396/ad1396-i12-fd-eng.pdf .
14 http://www.citt.gc.ca/en/dumping/inquirie/findings/nq2m003_e .
15 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/ri-re/ad1396/ad1396-ri13-ni-eng.html .
16 http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/ri-re/ad1396/ad1396-ri13-nc-eng.html .

4. Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t because Canada applied provisional anti-
dumping measures in the absence of a preliminary affirmative determination of dumping
when it applied such measures to imports of CSWP of exporters with a de minimis
dumping margin.
5. Articles 7.5 and Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, in imposing
provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties on imports from exporters with a de
minimis margin of dumping, Canada caused anti-dumping duties to be collected from
sources found not to be dumped and causing injury.
6. Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the
possibility to levy an anti-dumping duty on ly applies "in order to offset or prevent
dumping" and therefore not with respect to imports from exporters with a de minimis
dumping margin.
The treatment of non-dumped imports and of factors other than the dumped imports in
the injury and causation analyses
7. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, for the
purpose of the injury analysis, Canada failed to exclude from the dumped imports, the
imports of the exporters with a de minimis dumping margin. By failing to exclude these
imports, Canada failed to properly consider the volume of dumped imports, the effects
of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market, the impact of the dumped
imports on the domestic industry and whether the dumped imports are causing injury
and/or threat of injury to the domestic industry.
8. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada failed to examine
all known factors other than the alleged dumped imports which at the same time were
injuring the domestic industry, such as the existing overcapacity of the domestic
industry and subsidized imports, and failed to ensure that the injuries caused by such
other factors were not attributed to the alleged dumped imports.
The dumping determination for "all other exporters"
9. Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraph 7, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada
improperly applied facts available in determining the dumping margin and duty rate
applicable to "all other exporters" without complying with the conditions laid down in
those provisions. In particular, in using the highest intermediate margin of dumping
calculated for one single transaction in the determination of the "all other exporters"
dumping margin and duty rate applicable, Canada applied facts inconsistent with the
"best information available" principles of those provisions.
New product types to be exported by cooperating producers
10. Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada resorted to
facts available for the calculation of the normal values with respect to imports of new
product types to be exported by cooperating producers, thus resorting to facts available
even though the conditions laid down in these provisions had not been met.
11. Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada calculated normal values for
new product types of cooperating exporters on the basis of a methodology which is not
foreseen in Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
12. Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada determined more than one
individual margin of dumping for cooperating exporters.
13. Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t because Canada imposed anti-dumping
duties on new product types of the cooperating exporters that exceed their margin of
dumping as established under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

2 CLAIMS CONCERNING CERTAIN PROVISIO NS OF THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES
ACT ("SIMA") AND OF THE SPECIAL IMPORT MEASURES REGULATIONS ("SIMR")
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that the following
provisions of SIMA and SIMR are, as such, inconsistent with several provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and of the GATT 1994.
1. Sections 2(1), 30.1, 35(1) and 35(2), 38(1) and 41(1) of SIMA, and any amendments,
implementing measures, or related measures, are inconsistent, as such, with:
a. Article 1, Article 5.8 and Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because
Section 38(1) of SIMA, read together with Sections 30.1 and 35(1) and (2) of
SIMA and the definitions of "insignificant" and "margin of dumping" in Section 2(1)
of SIMA, mandates that an affirmativ e preliminary dumping determination be
made for exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping when the country-wide
weighted average of the margins of dumping is two per cent or more.
b. Article 1 and Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Section 41(1) of
SIMA, read together with Sections 30.1 and 35(1) and (2) of SIMA and the
definitions of "insignificant " and "margin of dumping" in Section 2(1) of SIMA,
mandates that a final affirmative dumping determination be made for exporters
with a de minimis margin of dumping wh en the country-wide weighted average of
the margins of dumping is two per cent or more.
c. Articles 7.5 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because in mandating that
affirmative dumping determinations be made for exporters with a de minimis
margin of dumping when the country-wide weighted average of the margins of
dumping is two per cent or more, these provisions cause anti-dumping duties to be
collected even from sources found not to be dumped and causing injury.
d. Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 which
provide for the possibility to levy an anti-d umping duty only "in order to offset or
prevent dumping" and therefore not with re spect to imports from exporters with a
de minimis dumping margin.
2. Sections 42(1), 42(6) and 43(1) of SIMA and Section 37(1) of SIMR and any
implementing measures, or related measures, are inconsistent, as such, with Articles
3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement because they automatically
include, for the purpose of the injury analysis, in the dumped imports, imports of
exporters with a de minimis dumping margin when the country-wide weighted average
of the margins of dumping is two per cent or more. Therefore, these provisions are
inconsistent with the obligation that the injury determination be based on positive
evidence and involve an objective examination of the volume of dumped imports and the
effect of such imports on prices in the domestic market for like products and the impact
of the dumped imports on domestic producers of the like product and with the obligation
to demonstrate that the dumped imports are causing injury and/or threat of injury to
the domestic industry.
3. The provisions of SIMA and SIMR listed above are inconsistent with Article XVI:4 of the
Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement insofar as
Canada has not taken all steps to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures with the provisions of the GATT 1994 and of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
In view of the claims set forth in sections 1 and 2, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that Canada has also acted inconsistently with Article 1 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
The measures at issue also appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu directly or indirectly under the cited Agreements.

Therefore, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu respectfully
requests that a panel be established, pursuant to Article 4.7 and Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII
of the GATT and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by the Dispute Settlement Body, with
standard terms of reference as set forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU.
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu , Kinmen and Matsu asks that this request be
placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body.