UNITED STATES - IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS OF COLOUR TELEVISION RECEIVERS FROM KOREA
Document: Request for Consultations by Korea
Date: 16 July 1997
Document codes: WT/DS89/1; G/ADP/D5/1; G/L/171
Complainant: South Korea
Respondent: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 11.2, 11.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES - IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
ON IMPORTS OF COLOUR TELEVISION RECEIVERS FROM KOREA
Request for Consultations by Korea
The following communication, dated 10 July 1997, from the Permanent Mission of Korea to
the Permanent Mission of the United States and to 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 pursuanttoArticle17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of ArticleVI of GATT 1994
(A-D Agreement), Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXII of GATT 1994, regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duties
by the United States on imports of colour television receivers (CTVs) from the Republic of Korea.
Factual Summary
1. The United States has levied A-D duties on imports of Korean CTVs from April 1984 to the
present. During this period, Korean CTV makers moved much of their production abroad and,
since 1991, exports of Korean-made CTVs to the United States have ceased. Furthermore, a de minimis
dumping margin of less than 0.5%, as defined in the US Tariff Act, had been assessed on CTVs made
in Korea by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (Samsung) for the six year period from April 1985 until
the time when the product ceased to be imported into the United States in early 1991.
2. Thus, for the past twelve years (from April 1985 to the present), the United States has maintained
an A-D order on Samsung's CTVs despite the absence of dumping and the cessation of exports from
Korea, but it has never examined the necessity of continuing to impose those duties. Samsung's four
applications for revocation review based on its history of no dumping were all rejected on mere
procedural, rather than substantive, grounds concerning the timing of such applications. The fifth
application for revocation review filed by Samsung on 20 July 1995 was not acted upon for 11 months
with no legitimate justification given for the delay. Since the United States' eventual decision on
24 June 1996 to initiate the review, over one year has elapsed without any definitive result. The
Government of the United States has explained that the result of this review must await the outcome
of circumvention proceedings initiated in 1996.
3. Apart from this failure to review the need for the continued imposition of the A-D duties, the
United States decided, on 19 January 1996, to initiate a circumvention investigation by receiving a
petition from certain US labour unions. Eighteen months have since passed without a determination
on this matter.

A-D measures and reviews
4. In principle, maintaining A-D duties on imports which cause no material injury (in this case,
due to the absence of dumping and the cessation of exports) contravenes Article VI.6(a) of GATT 1994
and Article 11.1 of the A-D Agreement. In addition, certain other actions by the United States violate
various provisions of the A-D Agreement, including Articles 3.1, 3.2, 5.8 and 11.4.
5. Articles VI.1 and VI.6(a) of GATT1994 and Articles1 and 11.1 of the A-D Agreement stipulate
that A-D measures shall be applied only if there is dumping and if it causes or threatens material injury.
They also establish the important principle that A-D measures shall be applied to the minimum extent
necessary, specifying that A-D duties shall remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary.
6. Therefore, it is a contravention of Article VI of GATT 1994 and Article 11.1 of the A-D
Agreement that the United States has maintained A-D duties for the past twelve years. The order should
have been revoked in light of the absence of Samsung's dumping and its subsequent cessation of exports
of CTVs tothe United States from Korea. Underthese circumstances, there is noconceivable possibility
of dumping and material injury.
7. The lack of material injury is clear when the circumstances are assessed under the A-D
Agreement's guidelines to determine the effect of imports on the domestic industry, provided for in
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement. Article 3.1 states that a determination of injury shall involve
an objective examination of both (a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped
imports on prices, and (b) the consequent impact on domestic producers of the like product. Article 3.2
provides that with regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the investigating authorities shall consider
whether there has been a significantincrease indumped imports. Consequently, the absence of dumping
for six years and the cessation of exports for the subsequent six years fully demonstrate that, under
the standards set out in Articles 3.1 and 3.2, there can be no injury. In this regard, the United States
is in violation of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the A-D Agreement.
8. With regard to CTVs manufactured by Samsung, the existence of dumping cannot be substantiated
since the company has been assessed di minimis margins for six consecutive years through the US
Department of Commerce's annual administrative reviews.
9. Article 5.8 of the A-D Agreement, which demands immediate termination of an investigation
in the case of de minimis dumping margins, is relevant to the application of Article 11.2, which provides
for revocation of an A-D order if it is no longer necessary to counteract dumping. Having found
de minimis margins for Samsung for six consecutive years through its annual reviews, the United States
should have immediately initiated a revocation review on its own initiative under Article 11.2 and,
consequently, terminated its A-D order pursuant to Articles 5.8 and 11.2 upon the completion of this
review.
10. The provision of the US Tariff Act which defines a de minimis margin of less than 0.5% as
eligible for revocation is in contravention of Article 5.8 of the A-D Agreement which stipulates a
de minimis margin of less than 2%.
11. In order to implement Article 11.1 of the A-D Agreement, Article 11.2 of the same agreement
specifies that the authorities shall review the need for the continued imposition of A-D duties on their
own initiative, or upon request by any interested party. Thus, despite the fact that there is no material
injury and (in Samsung's case) no history of dumping, the United States has neglected its obligation
to self-initiate a revocation review, as required in the first sentence of Article 11.2. Moreover, the

United States has refused to consider Samsung's repeated requests for revocation, insisting on strict
adherence to procedural provisions of US domestic regulations (missing in the A-D Agreement), and
has also failed to act on Samsung's request for a changed circumstances review for eleven months -
acts that all violate the second sentence of Article 11.2 by unduly restricting the right of interested
parties to request a review for the purpose of obtaining revocation.
12. By failing to self-initiate a revocation review and by restricting Samsung's right to request
a review, the United States has evaded its Article 11.2 obligations. As a consequence, it still maintains
A-D duties, which, if reviewed, should have been revoked pursuant tothe third sentence of Article 11.2.
All of these actions also constitute a violation of Article 11.1 of the A-D Agreement.
13. In addition, the failure to reach a determination thus far in the Commerce Department's
revocation review initiated on 24 June 1996 also violates Article 11.4, which provides for expeditious
conclusion of such reviews within the normal 12 months of their initiation.
Circumvention investigation
14. The circumvention investigation initiated on 19 January 1996 is in contravention of Article VI
of GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the A-D Agreement, and should thus be immediately terminated.
15. Article VI.1 of GATT 1994 defines dumping as the introduction of products of one country
into the commerce of another country at less than normal value, and Article 2.1 of the A-D Agreement
defines it as a situation in which the export price of the product exported from one country to another
is less than the comparable price for the like product in the exporting country.
16. It is clear from these provisions that if another country becomes the exporting country,dumping
should be separately determined because this change would result in a consequent change of the two
basic parameters in determining whether there is dumping: an export price and a normal price in the
exporting country. Nonetheless, by effectively considering exports from Korea and exports from Mexico
and Thailand as identical through its circumvention concept, the United States misinterpreted the basic
concept of dumping established throughout the GATT and the A-D Agreement, thus apparently violating,
in particular, Article VI.1 of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the A-D Agreement.
17. It is, therefore a violation of Article VI of GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the A-D Agreement
to initiate a circumvention investigation as an extension of existing A-D measures without initiating
a new dumping (and injury) investigation under the GATT and the A-D Agreement.
18. Setting aside issues of principle, the US circumvention investigation violates many provisions
of the A-D Agreement, including Articles 3.1, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4 and 5.10.
19. Labour unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and others, the
petitioners of the circumvention investigation in question, are composed of employees of assemblers
and producers of a diverse variety of electric or electronic products. Therefore, they cannot be said
to represent employees of the domestic industry of the like product, namely, CTVs.
20. The US authorities neglected to examine the petitioners' representativeness of the domestic
industry, and further refused Korean companies' request for such an examination, thus violating
Articles 3.1, 3.6, 4.1 and 5.4 of the A-D Agreement.

21. Failure to make a determination in the ongoing investigation after 18 months also violates
Article 5.10 of the A-D Agreement.
Link between the revocation review and the circumvention investigation
22. It was arbitrary and illogical for the United States to quickly respond to the request for a
circumvention investigation while delaying for one year its response to Samsung's request for a revocation
review. This action is all the more questionable, given that a circumvention investigation, even if it
were to be justified under the WTO Agreement, can only be undertaken if there is an A-D order to
circumvent.
23. Furthermore, the Korean Government believes that it is unreasonable for the United States
to investigate the alleged circumvention without first verifying the justification of the A-D order.
Similarly, the attempt to link the results of the circumvention investigation with the revocation
determination constitutes a further breach of the proper procedural sequence. Indeed, a decision by
the US authorities to revoke the A-D order against the Korean CTVs would remove the legal basis
for the anti-circumvention investigation, which would need to be terminated forthwith.
24. Thus, extending the review period by making the above-mentioned linkage constitutes a violation
of Article 11.1 of the A-D Agreement. This Article is interpreted to require the immediate termination
of the A-D order in the absence of dumping which is causing injury.
In light of the above, the Government of Korea considers that the benefits accruing to it under
GATT 1994 and the A-D Agreement are being nullified or impaired by the US actions regarding the
A-D and related measures against imports of CTVs from Korea.
The Government of Korea reserves its rights to raise any additional factual or legal points
concerning this issue during the consultations.
I look forward to receiving your reply to this request and to fixing a mutually convenient date
for consultations.