KOREA - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON PNEUMATIC VALVES FROM JAPAN REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 10 June 2016
Document codes: WT/DS504/2
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Brazil, China, Ecuador, EU, Norway, Singapore, Turkey, U.S., Vietnam
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1  Anti-dumping

KOREA - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON PNEUMATIC VALVES FROM JAPAN
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY JAPAN
The following communication, dated 9 June 2016, from the delegation of Japan to the Chairperson
of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request th e establishment of a panel with respect to the
measures by the Republic of Korea ("Korea") imposing anti-dumping duties on valves for
pneumatic transmission ("pneumatic valves") from Japan. Japan submits this request pursuant to
Articles 4.7 and 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII of the Gene ral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("GATT 1994"), and Article17.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement").
On 15 March 2016, Japan requested consultations with Korea.
1 Japan and Korea held
consultations on 28 April 2016, with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution.
Unfortunately, the consultations failed to settle the dispute.
Korea's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on pneumatic valves from Japan are set forth in
the Korea Trade Commission's "Resolution of Final Determination on Presence of Dumped Facts of
Valves for Pneumatic Transmissions from Japan and Injury to the Domestic Industry", a
determination based on the Office of Trade Investigation's "Final Report on Dumping Fact and
Injury to Domestic Industry of Japanese Produced Valves for Pneumatic Transmissions" in
Investigation Trade Remedy 23-2013-5, both dated 20 January 2015, including any and all
annexes and amendments thereto.
2
Japan considers that these measures are inconsistent with Korea's obligations under the following
provisions of the AD Agreement:
1. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because Korea's analysis of a
significant increase of the imports under investigation did not involve an objective
examination based on positive evidence;
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because Korea's analysis of the
effect of the imports under investigation on prices in the domestic market for like
products did not involve an objective examination based on positive evidence; and
because Korea failed to properly consider whether the effect of the imports under
investigation was to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase,
which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree;
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because Korea's analysis of the
impact of the imports under investigation on the domestic industry at issue did not
involve an objective examination based on positive evidence, including an evaluation
of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the
domestic industry at issue;

1 WTO/DS504/1, circulated on 16 March 2016
2 These anti-dumping measures are identified in Korea’s notification G/ADP/N/280/KOR dated
6 April 2016.

4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to demonstrate
that the imports under investigation were, through the effects of dumping, causing
injury to the domestic industry based on an objective examination of the alleged
causal relationship between the imports under investigation and the alleged injury to
the domestic industry, on the basis of all relevant positive evidence before the
authorities;
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to consider
adequately all known factors other than the imports under investigation that were
injuring the domestic industry at the same time and therefore incorrectly attributed
injury caused by these other factors to the imports under investigation;
6. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea's demonstration of
causation lacks any foundation in its analyses of the volume of the imports under
investigation, the effects of the imports under investigation on prices, and/or the
impact of the imports under investigation on the domestic industry at issue,
irrespective and independent of whether Korea's flawed analysis of the volume
and/or flawed analysis of the effects of the imports under investigation on prices, on
the one hand, and Korea's flawed analysis of the impact of the imports under
investigation on the domestic industry on the other, would be inconsistent with,
respectively, Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of
the AD Agreement;
7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to make an
objective examination based on positive evidence in defining the domestic industry
producing the like product and consequently in making a determination of injury;
8. Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement because Korea treated allegedly confidential
information provided by the interested parties as confidential without good cause
shown;
9. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement because Korea: (a) failed to require the
applicants to furnish non-confidential summaries of their submissions, questionnaire
responses, and amendments thereof; and (b) where such summaries were provided,
they were not in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the
substance of the information submitted in confidence;
10. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to inform the interested
parties of the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the
decision to impose definitive anti-dumping measures;
11. Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to provide in sufficient
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law the
investigating authorities considered material by the investigating authorities; and
12. Article 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because Korea failed to make available all
relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to
the imposition of final measures.
As a consequence of the apparent breaches of the AD Agreement described above, Korea's anti-
dumping measures on the imports under investigation are also inconsistent with Article 1 of the
AD Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
Korea's measures also nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly under
the cited agreements.
Accordingly, Japan respectfully requests that, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU,
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, an d Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Dispute Settlement
Body establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in
Article 7.1 of the DSU.
Japan asks this request to be placed on the Agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement
Body to be held on 22 June 2016.