AUSTRALIA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CHINA
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 14 January 2022
Document codes: WT/DS603/2
Complainant: China
Respondent: Australia
Third parties: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, U.S., Vietnam
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 9.3  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 1.1(a)(1), 1.1(b), 1.2, 2.1(c), 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 14(d)  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

AUSTRALIA – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON CERTAIN
PRODUCTS FROM CHINA
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CHINA
The following communication, dated 13 January 2022 , from the delegation of China to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 24 June 2021 the Government of the People's Republic of China ("China") requested consultations
with the Government of Australia ("Australia") pursuant to Article 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), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementatio n of Article
VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement) and Article 30
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) with respect to
Australia's measures imposing anti -dumping measures on impo rts of wind towers, deep drawn
stainless steel sinks (stainless steel sinks) and certain railway wheels (railway wheels), and
countervailing measures on imports of stainless steel sinks, in each case as exported from China to
Australia.
China held consultations with Australia on 11 August 2021. These consultations failed to resolve the
dispute.
As a result, in order to resolve the dispute, China respectfully requests, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and
6 of the DSU, Article XXIII :2 of the GATT 1994, Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) establish a panel to
examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.
A Measures at issue
The measures at issue are explained and identified below.
1 With respect to wind towers
By way of notices dated 14 April 2014, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry of
Australia imposed final anti-dumping duties in respect of wind towers imported into Australia from
China. The imposition of the duties was based on the findings and recommendations reported to the
Parliamentary Secretary in Anti-Dumping Commission Report No. 221 - Dumping of Wind Towers
Exported from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea (21 March 2014).
The specific legal instruments that i mposed those duties, and other legal instruments that were
subsequently published with respect to those instruments, are set out in the Appendix. The measures
at issue include those specific legal instruments and all annexes, amendments, modifications,
replacements, implementing acts or related measures in connection with those legal instruments.

2 With respect to stainless steel sinks
By way of notices dated 19 March 2015, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry
and Science of Australia imposed final anti-dumping and countervailing duties in respect of stainless
steel sinks imported into Australia from China. The imposition of the duties was based on the findings
and recommendations reported to the Parliamentary Secretary in Anti-Dumping Commission Report
No. 238 - Alleged Dumping of Deep Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks Exported from the People's Republic
of China and Alleged Subsidisation of Deep Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks (19 February 2015).
The specific legal instruments that imposed those duties, and other legal instruments that were
subsequently published with respect to those instruments, are set out in the Appendix. The measures
at issue include those specific legal instruments and all annexes, amendments, modifications,
replacements, implementing acts or related measures in connection with those legal instruments.
3 With respect to railway wheels
By way of notices dated 12 July 2019, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology of Australia
imposed final anti-dumping duties in respect of railway wheels imported into Australia from China.
The imposition of the duties was based on the findings and recommendations reported to the Minister
in Anti-Dumping Commission Report No. 466 – Alleged Dumping of Certain Railway Wheels Exported
from the People's Republic of China and France (1 March 2019).
The specific legal instruments that imposed those duties are set out in the Appendix. The measures
at issue include those legal instruments and all annexes, amendments, modifications, replacements,
implementing acts or related measures in connection with those legal instruments.
B Legal basis
1 Anti-dumping measures
The legal claims with respect to the anti -dumping measures relate to each of the measures
concerning wind towers, stainless steel sinks and railway wheels, unless otherwise stated.
China considers that the anti-dumping measures at issue are inconsistent with Australia's obligations
under the relevant Articles of the covered agreements as set out below.
1. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 o f the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT
1994, because in the determination of the margin of dumping Australia did not use the cost of
production of the products concerned in China, nor base the cost of production of the products
concerned on the cost of production in China, when China was the country of origin of the products.
For example:
a. in the case of wind towers, the cost for plate steel and flanges was a non -China cost
calculated by reference to information from a previous investig ation concerning hot rolled
plate steel, and in a related later measure the non -China cost was adjusted by an index
based on movements in the Steel Bulletin Board (Platts) benchmark from the original
investigation period;
b. in the case of stainless steel sinks, the cost for 304 stainless steel cold rolled coil was
calculated by reference to MEPS (International) Ltd -based average price using monthly
reported MEPS North American and European prices (excluding the Asian price), and in a
related later measure by reference to an average price of grade 304 stainless steel cold
rolled coil for North America and Europe published by Steel Business Briefing Ltd;
c. in the case of railway wheels, the cost for steel billet was calculated by reference to a steel
billet price paid by a French producer of railway wheels adjusted for selling, general and
administrative expenses of a third-party company.
2. Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994, because in the de termination of domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade for the
determination of the margin of dumping in the case of stainless steel sinks Australia did not use the

cost of production of the products concerned in China, being the country of origin o f the products.
Instead, the cost for 304 stainless steel cold rolled coil was calculated by reference to MEPS
(International) Ltd-based average price using monthly reported MEPS North American and European
prices (excluding the Asian price), and in a rela ted later measure by reference to an average price
of grade 304 stainless steel cold rolled coil for North America and Europe published by Steel Business
Briefing Ltd.
3. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT
1994, because in the determination of normal value Australia:
a. failed to determine whether the records kept by the exporters reasonably reflected the costs
of production associated with the production of the products concerned before determining
not to calculate the exporters' costs on the basis of their records;
b. wrongly determined that the costs of the exporters should not be calculated on the basis of
their records, where those records were kept in accordance with the generally accepted
accounting principles of China and reasonably reflected the costs of production associated
with the production of the products concerned.
4. Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994 because, in the ca se of stainless steel sinks, in treating the exporters ' sales of like
products in the domestic market as not being in the ordinary course of trade Australia:
a. failed to determine whether the records kept by the exporters reasonably reflected the costs
of production associated with the production of the products concerned before determining
not to calculate the exporters' costs on the basis of their records;
b. wrongly determined that the costs of the exporters should not be calculated on the basis of
their records, where those records were kept in accordance with the generally accepted
accounting principles of China and reasonably reflected the costs of production associated
with the production of the products concerned.
5. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2. 2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT
1994, because Australia did not properly determine:
a. whether the exporters' costs should be calculated on the basis of their records; and
b. the exporters' costs of production,
when:
c. in the case of the determinations relating to wind towers, Australia considered and used a
plate steel input cost difference to ascribe a higher cost of that input to the exporter, where
the cost difference was not a cost difference in the country of origin a nd was not based on
the records kept by the exporter;
d. in the case of the determination relating to railway wheels, Australia considered and used a
cost of an input, being a purchase cost of steel billet, where the exporter did not have such
a cost in it s financial records because steel billet was self -made by the exporter from raw
materials including iron ore and coking coal.
6. Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Australia:
a. used an item of cost in the calculation of the normal value for exporters under investigation
that was different to the cost of production in either and both the country of origin and their
records but then failed to make , or in the alternative failed to consider the requirement to
make, a due allowance to ensure a fair comparison between the export price and the normal
value for the effect of that cost difference on price comparability;
b. in the case of stainless steel sinks:

i. made a due allowance for taxation to an extent that did not exist;
ii. for one exporter, in one instance, made a due allowance for accessories that included
an amount for the exporter 's profit on its domestic sales of the stainless steel sinks
concerned where the accessories were produced by the exporter, but did not include an
amount for the exporter's profit on its domestic sales of the stainless steel sinks
concerned where the accessories were purchased by the exporter; and, in another
instance, failed to make a due allowance based on the actual costs of accessories of the
specific products as reported by the exporter;
iii. for another exporter, made a due allowance for accessories where the amount of the
due allowance was determined by comparing the cost of two export models, instead of
by comparing the cost of the export model and its comparable domestic model.
7. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994,
because:
a. in the cases of wind towers and stainless steel sinks, Australia failed to determine the amount
for profits based on actual data pertaining to production and sales of the product concerned
in the ordinary course of trade by the exporters under investigation;
b. in the case of railway wheels, Australia failed to determine the amount for profits on the
basis of the actual amounts incurred and realized by the exporter under investigation in
respect of production and sales in the domestic market of the country of origin of the same
general category of products;
c. in the case of wind towers, Australia considered the products that wer e destined for
consumption in the exporting country to be like products for the purposes of calculating the
amount for profits, but not to be like products for the purposes of considering whether there
were sales of like products in the domestic market. In so doing, Australia either:
i. improperly determined that the exporter's normal value could not be determined under
Article 2.1 due to a lack of domestic sales of like products; or
ii. improperly determined the amount for profit on the basis that there we re no domestic
sales of like goods for normal value purposes under Article 2.2 and 2.2.2.
8. Article 9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because the
amount of the anti-dumping duties imposed by Australia exceeds any margins of dumping that may
have been properly established under Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of
the GATT 1994.
2 Countervailing measures
The legal claims with respect to the countervailing measures relate to the measures concerning
stainless steel sinks, and only with regard to the alleged Program 1 - Raw Materials Provided by the
Government at Less than Fair Market Value ("the alleged program").
China considers that the countervailing measures at issue are inconsistent with Australia 's
obligations under the relevant Articles of the covered agreements as set out below.
1. Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, because Australia incorrectly determined that a
certain State-invested enterprise (SIE) was a "public body" within the meaning of that Article, based
on an erroneous interpretation of this term and/or in the absence of any evidence or any sufficient
evidence that the enterprise possessed, exercised or was vested with governmental authority.
2. Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement, because Australia failed to determine, or improperly
determined, that the alleged provision of goods conferred a "benefit" to the recipient, in
circumstances where the recipient was not or was not shown to be placed in a more advantageo us
position than it would have been in the absence of the alleged financial contribution.

3 Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement, because Australia wrongly determined that the alleged
provision of cold rolled stainless steel coil was made for less than adequate remuneration and failed
to determine the adequacy of remuneration for the cold rolled stainless steel coil in relation to
prevailing market conditions in the country of alleged provision.
4. Articles 1.2 and 2.1 (c) of the SCM Agreement, because Austral ia failed to make a proper
determination that the alleged provision of goods for less than adequate remuneration was specific
to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries and did not clearly substantiate its
determination on the basis of positive evidence. This includes, inter alia, Australia's:
a. failure to properly consider the existence or duration of a "subsidy programme", predominant
use by certain enterprises, whether disproportionately large amounts of the alleged subsidy
were granted to certain enterprises, and the manner in which the alleged subsidy was
granted; and
b. failure to account for the diversification of economic activities.
5. Articles 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 of the SCM Agreement, because Australia initiated the
countervailing investigation without sufficient evidence of the existence of the alleged program with
regard to the existence, amount and the nature of the subsidy in question, and without proper review
of the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application.
C Request
By imposing the anti -dumping and countervailing duties, Australia appears to have failed to carry
out and comply with its obligations under the agreements to which reference has been made. The
measures at issue appear to nullify o r impair benefits accruing to China directly or indirectly under
those agreements.
China asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement
Body to be held on 25 January 2022.

APPENDIX
A.1 Wind towers
The specific legal instruments that imposed the anti -dumping duties with respect to wind towers,
and other legal instruments that were subsequently published with respect to those instruments,
are set out below. The measures at issue include those specifi c legal instruments and all annexes,
amendments, modifications, replacements, implementing acts or related measures in connection
with those legal instruments.
No. Procedure Legal instrument Date of
instrument
Date of
Publication
1. Investigating
authority report
concerning anti-
dumping duty final
determination
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB –
Report Number 221 – Dumping of
Wind Towers Exported from the
People's Republic of China and the
Republic of Korea
21 March 2014 16 April 2014
2. Anti-dumping duty
final determination
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB – Wind
Towers Exported from the People's
Republic of China and the Republic of
Korea – Findings in relation to a
Dumping Investigation – Public
notice under subsections 269TG(1)
and (2) of the Customs Act 1901
14 April 2014 16 April 2014
3. Anti-dumping duty
final determination
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act
1975 – Wind Towers Exported from
the People's Republic of China and
the Republic of Korea – Notice under
subsection 8(5) of the Customs Tariff
(Anti-Dumping) Act 1975
14 April 2014 16 April 2014
4. Investigating
authority report
concerning expiry
review of anti-
dumping duty
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB –
Report No. 487 – Inquiry into the
Continuation of Anti-Dumping
Measures Applying to Wind Towers
Exported to Australia from the
People's Republic of China and the
Republic of Korea
12 March 2019 27 March 2019
5. Expiry review of
anti-dumping duty
determination
Anti-Dumping Notice No. 2019/33 –
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB – Wind
Towers Exported from the People's
Republic of China and the Republic of
Korea – Findings of the Continuation
Inquiry into Anti-Dumping Measures
– Notice under subsection
269ZHG(1) of the Customs Act 1901
25 March 2019 27 March 2019
6. Administrative
review body report
concerning expiry
review of anti-
dumping duty
determination
ADRP Report No. 100 – Wind Towers
Exported from the People's Republic
of China and the Republic of Korea
6 April 2020 9 July 2020
7. Administrative
review of expiry
review of anti-
dumping duty
determination
Customs Act 1901 – Notice under
section 269ZZM(4) – Wind Towers
Exported from the People's Republic
of China and the Republic of Korea
8 July 2020 9 July 2020

A.2 Stainless steel sinks
The specific legal instruments that imposed the duties with respect to stainless steel sinks, and other
legal instruments that were subsequently published with respect to those instruments, are set out
below. The measures at issue include those specific legal instruments and all annexes, amendments,
modifications, replacements, implementing acts or related measures in connection with those legal
instruments.
No. Procedure Legal instrument Date of
instrument
Date of
publication
8. Investigating
authority report
concerning anti-
dumping duty and
countervailing duty
final determination
Customs Act 1901 - Part XVB -
Report No. 238 - Alleged Dumping of
Deep Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported from the People's Republic
of China and Alleged Subsidisation of
Deep Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported from the People's Republic
of China
19 February
2015
26 March 2015
9. Anti-dumping duty
and countervailing
duty final
determination
Anti-Dumping Notice No. 2015/41 –
Deep Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported from the People's Republic
of China - Findings in Relation to a
Dumping and Subsidisation
Investigation - Customs Act 1901 –
Part XVB
26 March 2015 26 March 2015
10. Anti-dumping duty
final determination
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act
1975 – Deep Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks Exported from the People's
Republic of China – Notice pursuant
to subsection 8(5) and 8(5BA) of the
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act
1975
19 March 2015 26 March 2015
11. Countervailing duty
final determination
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act
1975 – Deep Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks Exported from the People's
Republic of China – Notice pursuant
to subsection 10(3B) and 10(3D) of
the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping)
Act 1975
19 March 2015 26 March 2015
12. Investigating
authority report
concerning anti-
dumping duty
review
determination
Customs Act 1901 - Part XVB -
Report No. 352 - Review of Anti-
Dumping Measures Applying to Deep
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported to Australia from the
People's Republic of China by
Shengzhou Chunyi Electrical
Appliances Co. Ltd.
October 2016 21 November 2016
13. Anti-dumping duty
review
determination
Anti-Dumping Notice No. 2016/107 –
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB –
Certain Deep Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks Exported from the People's
Republic of China by Shengzhou
Chunyi Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd -
Findings in Relation to a Review of
Anti-Dumping Measures – Notice
under subsection 269ZDB(1)(a)(iii)
of the Customs Act 1901 and
subsections 8(5BA) and 10(3D) of
the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping
Act 1975
17 November
2016
21 November 2016

No. Procedure Legal instrument Date of
instrument
Date of
publication
14. Administrative
review body report
concerning anti-
dumping duty
review
determination
ADRP Report No. 49 - Certain Deep
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported from the People's Republic
of China
27 February
2017
6 April 2017
15. Administrative
review of anti-
dumping duty
review
determination
Customs Act 1901 – Notice under
section 269ZZM(4) – Certain Deep
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported from the People's Republic
of China
31 March 2017 6 April 2017
16. Investigating
authority report
concerning anti-
dumping duty
review
determination
Customs Act 1901 - Part XVB -
Report No. 459 - Review of Anti-
Dumping Measures Applying to Deep
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported to Australia from the
People's Republic of China by
Shengzhou Chunyi Electrical
Appliances Co. Ltd.
April 2018 15 June 2018
17. Anti-dumping duty
review
determination
Anti-Dumping Notice No. 2018/75 –
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB –
Certain Deep Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks Exported from the People's
Republic of China by Shengzhou
Chunyi Electrical Appliances Co. Ltd
– Findings in Relation to a Review of
Anti-Dumping Measures – Notice
under subsection 269ZDB(1)(a)(iii)
of the Customs Act 1901
14 June 2018 15 June 2018
18. Investigating
authority report
concerning anti-
dumping duty
review
determination
Customs Act 1901 - Part XVB -
Report No. 461 - Review of Anti-
Dumping Measures Applying to Deep
Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported to Australia from the
People's Republic of China by
Guangdong Yingao Kitchen Utensils
Co. Ltd.
September 2018 12 October 2018
19. Anti-dumping duty
review
determination
Anti-Dumping Notice No. 2018/143 –
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB –
Certain Deep Drawn Stainless Steel
Sinks Exported from the People's
Republic of China by Guangdong
Yingao Kitchen Utensils Co. Ltd –
Findings in Relation to a Review of
Anti-Dumping Measures – Notice
under subsection 269ZCD(1)(a)(iii)
of the Customs Act 1901 and
subsections 8(5), 10(3B) and 10(3D)
of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping)
Act 1975
9 October 2018 12 October 2018
20. Investigating
authority report
concerning expiry
review of anti-
dumping duty and
countervailing duty
Customs Act 1901 - Part XVB -
Report No. 517 - Inquiry Concerning
the Continuation of Anti-Dumping
Measures Applying to Deep Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks Exported to
Australia from the People's Republic
of China
February 2020 28 February 2020

No. Procedure Legal instrument Date of
instrument
Date of
publication
21. Expiry review of
anti-dumping duty
and countervailing
duty determination
Anti-Dumping Notice No. 2020/003 –
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB –
Deep Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks
Exported to Australia from the
People's Republic of China – Findings
of the Continuation Inquiry No. 517
into Anti-Dumping Measures - Public
Notice under section 269ZHG(1) of
the Customs Act 1901 and sections
8(5), 8(5BA), 10(3B), and 10(3D) of
the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping)
Act 1975
27 February
2020
28 February 2020
22. Administrative
review body report
concerning expiry
review of anti-
dumping duty and
countervailing duty
ADRP Report No. 124 - Deep Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks Exported from
the People's Republic of China
5 June 2020 8 July 2020
23. Administrative
review of expiry
review of anti-
dumping duty and
countervailing duty
determination
Customs Act 1901 – Notice under
section 269ZZM(4) – Deep Drawn
Stainless Steel Sinks Exported from
the People's Republic of China
3 July 2020 8 July 2020
A.3 Railway wheels
The specific legal instruments that imposed the duties with respect to railway wheels are set out
below. The measures at issue include those specific legal instruments and all annexes, amendments,
modifications, replacements, implementing acts or related measures in connection with those legal
instruments.
No. Procedure Legal instrument Date of
instrument
Date of
Publication
24. Investigating
authority report
concerning anti-
dumping duty final
determination
Customs Act 1901 - Part XVB - Report
No. 466 - Alleged Dumping of Certain
Railway Wheels Exported from the
People's Republic of China and France
1 March 2019 16 July 2019
25. Anti-dumping duty
final determination
Customs Act 1901 – Part XVB – Certain
Railway Wheels Exported from the
People's Republic of China and France –
Findings in relation to a dumping
investigation (Investigation No. 466) –
Public notice under subsections
269TG(1) and (2) of the Customs Act
1901 – Anti-Dumping Notice (ADN)
2019/30
12 July 2019 16 July 2019
26. Anti-dumping duty
final determination
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975
– Certain Railway Wheels Exported from
the People's Republic of China and
France – Notice pursuant to subsection
8(5) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-
Dumping) Act 1975
12 July 2019 16 July 2019