KOREA – SUNSET REVIEW OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS STEEL BARS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 21 June 2018
Document codes: WT/DS553/1; G/L/1248; G/ADP/D125/1
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: China, EU, India, Kazakhstan, Russia, Taiwan, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 11.3, 11.4, 6.8, Annex II, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.3, 12.2, 12.2.2  Anti-dumping

KOREA – SUNSET REVIEW OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON STAINLESS STEEL BARS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN
The following communication, dated 18 June 2018, from the delegation of Japan to the delegation
of the Republic of Korea , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with
Article 4.4 of the DSU.

Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby request, on behalf of the Government of Japan
("Japan"), consultations with the Government of the Republic of Korea ( "Korea") purs uant 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"), and
Articles 17.2 and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementat ion of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement").

These consultations are with respect to Korea 's determination to continue the imposition of anti -
dumping duties on stainless steel bar ( "SSB") from Japan as a conclusio n in the third sunset
review as set forth in the Korea Trade Commission 's ("KTC") "Resolution of Final Determination on
the Sunset Review of Anti -Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Bars from Japan, India and Spain "
("Resolution of Final Determination") and in the Office of Trade Investigation's "Final Report on the
Sunset Review of Anti -Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Bars from Japan, India and Spain "
("Final Report ") with respect to Investigation Trade Remedy 23 -2016-3, both dated 20 March
2017, including any and all annexes and amendments thereto.1

These measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with Korea 's obligations under the following
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement, in particular, but not limited to:

1. Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement, because Korea failed to properly determine, as the basis
to continue the imposition of antidumping duties on the imports from Japan, that the expiry
of the duties would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury. Specifically,
Korea failed to demonstrate the nexus between the expiry of the duties and a continuation
or recurrence of injury and to comply with the fundamental requirement that such
determination shall rest on a sufficient factual basis and reasoned and adequate conclu sions
concerning the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, due to, inter alia, following
reasons:

(a) Korea's determination that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of injury was based on its cumulative assessment of the
effects of the imports from Japan, India and Spain. However, such cumulative
assessment was not base d on positive evidence and an objective examination. For
example, Korea cumulatively assessed the effect of the imports from Japan, India and
Spain without properly examining, in a manner which would establish that there is a
basis to continue the impositi on of the duties on the imports from Japan, whether the
conditions of competition between the imported products, as well as the conditions of
competition between the imports from Japan and the like domestic products, are such
that the imports from Japan, t ogether with the imports from India and Spain would

1 This determination in the third sunset review is identified in Korea’s notification G/ADP/N/300/KOR
dated 17 August 2017.
WT/DS553/1 • G/L/1248 • G/ADP/D125/1

cause injury to the domestic industry, even though the vast majority of the models,
types or grades of SSB imported from Japan during the period of review were distinct
from those of the imports from India and of the like domestic product;

(b) When it determined that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of injury, Korea improperly attributed the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence of injury to the imports f rom Japan, even though such
injury would be caused by certain factors , other than the imports under review, which
may have caused injury to the domestic industry irrespective of the expiry of the
duties. Such factors include (i) the growing volume and market share of the imports of
SSB from third countries, such as China, Taiwan and Italy; (ii) the declining material
cost; and (iii) the continuing trend of slow growth in domestic demand, even though
Korea found that the profitability of the domestic industr y had not sufficiently
recovered during the period of review due to, among others, these three factors;

(c) Korea's determination that the expiry of the duties would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of injury relied on, among others, the fi nding that Japan's
SSB sector had sufficient additional production capacity for exports. In this finding,
Korea, as stated in paragraph 2 below, declined, without any reasonable grounds, to
accept and properly consider the actual production capacity data o f each of the
Japanese exporters, which were submitted by those exporters, and instead based its
determination on information from a secondary source that was both inaccurate and
irrelevant when calculating the production capacity of Japan 's SSB sector. As a result,
Korea's analysis that the Japanese producers had the capability to increase their
production and exports to Korea was neither based on positive evidence nor on an
objective examination; and

(d) Korea's determination that the expiry of the dutie s would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of injury relied on, among others, the finding that the
expiry of the duties on the imports from Japan lead to the increase of the imports
under the review. However, Korea failed to show any plausible reason for expecting
that the imports from Japan of SSB of the models, types or grades same as or
comparable with those imported from countries other than Japan or produced by the
domestic industry would increase after the expiry of the duties. As a resul t, Korea
failed to demonstrate, based on positive evidence and an objective examination, how
the alleged increase in the imports of SSB from Japan could affect the imports of SSB
from countries other than Japan and/or SSB produced by the domestic industry.

In light of, in particular, (a) to (d) above, but not limited to these reasons, the measures at issue
also appear to be inconsistent with Korea 's obligations under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994,
because Korea is levying the antidumping duties without establishing that the effect of the
dumping is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established domestic industry.

2. Articles 11.4 and 6.8 and paragraphs 3 and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, because, to
the extent that Korea used the third party data regarding the production capacity of the
Japanese exporters and thus resorted to facts available, inter alia, (a) Kore a failed to take
into account the information regarding actual production capacity which each of the
Japanese exporters submitted, even though such information was verifiable, was
appropriately submitted so that it could be used in the investigation withou t undue
difficulties and was supplied in a timely fashion, and (b) Korea adopted information from a
secondary source regarding the production capacity of Japanese exporters without special
circumspection, and, more specifically, Korea did not examine the a ccuracy of the
information from a secondary source by comparing it with the information obtained from the
Japanese exporters;

3. Articles 11.4, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement, because Korea, inter alia, (a) treated the
information provided by the appl icants as confidential information without good cause
shown; (b) failed to require the applicants to furnish non -confidential summaries thereof;
and (c) failed to require that such summaries be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable
understanding of t he substance of the information submitted in confidence, should such
summaries have been provided;
WT/DS553/1 • G/L/1248 • G/ADP/D125/1

4. Articles 11.4 and 6.9 of the AD Agreement, because Korea failed to inform all interested
parties of the essential facts under consideration which forme d the basis for the decision to
extend the anti-dumping duties. Specifically, Korea merely informed the Japanese exporters
that the Resolution of Final Determination and the Final Report, as well as the Office of
Trade Investigation 's "Preliminary Report r egarding the Sunset Review of Anti -dumping
Duties on Japanese, Indian, and Spanish Stainless Steel Bar (Amended after Public
Hearing)" ("Preliminary Report") in so far as its contents did not contradict those of the Final
Report, constituted such essential facts. However, none of the Resolution of Final
Determination, the Final Report and the Preliminary Report fully disclosed the essential facts
underlying the determination of the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury,
notably, inter alia, with regard to the cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports
under review, and the determination of the nexus between the expiry of the duties and a
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury; and

5. Articles 12.3, 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Ag reement, because Korea failed to provide in
sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law that the
investigating authorities considered material, as well as all relevant information on the
matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the sunset review determination,
including, inter alia, with respect to Korea 's determination that a cumulative assessment of
the effects of the imports under review is appropriate in light of the conditions of
competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the
imported products and the like domestic product.

Korea's determination to continue the imposition of anti -dumping duties on SSB from Japan also
appears to be inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a
consequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement described above.

Korea's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or
indirectly under the cited agreements.

Japan reserves the right to address further factual claims and legal issues under other provisions
of the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.

Japan looks forward to receiving Korea's reply to the present request in due course. Japan is ready
to consider with Korea mutually convenient dates and venue for consultations.