INDIA - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
Document: Request for Consultations by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
Date: 1 November 2004
Document codes: WT/DS318/1; G/L/702; G/ADP/D56/1
Complainant: Taiwan
Respondent: India
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.4, 12.1, 12.2, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

INDIA - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS
FROM THE
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU

Request for Consultations by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu

 The following communication, dated 28 Oct ober 2004, from the delegation of the Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to the delegation of India and to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 My authorities have instructed me to request c onsultations with India pursuant to Article 4 of
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governi ng the Settlement of Disputes, Article XXIII:1 of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994") and Article 17.3 of the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the
"Anti-Dumping Agreement") regarding the pr ovisional and definitive anti-dumping measures
imposed by India on certain products as listed in the Annex.

The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that, in the
cases mentioned in the Annex, the investigations were conducted and the dete rminations were made
in violation of India’s obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Our
concerns include, but are not limited to, the following aspects:

- the Indian authorities seemed to reject quasi-s ystematically the information provided by our
exporters, without providing reasons why they did not accept the submitted evidence or
information and without providing the exporters with the opportunity to provide further
information;

- the Indian authorities did not seem to satisfy themselves during the course of the investigation
as to the accuracy and reliability of information s upplied by interested parties, in particular by
the domestic industry;

- the Indian authorities initiated anti-dumping investigations and imposed anti-dumping duties
while no imports of the product concerned appear ed to have been made from us into India
during the Period of Investigation;

- where the determination of the normal value and export price was based on the “best available
information”, the Indian authorities did not see m to have established clearly the source and
reliability of such information;

- the Indian authorities did not correctly determine the normal value and export price;

- the determination of injury appears not to be based on positive evidence and not to involve an
objective examination;

- the Indian authorities did not examine all injury factors mentioned by Article 3.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;

- the Indian authorities seemed to make its determination of the threat of material injury not on
facts but merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility;

- the Indian authorities have not demonstrated that the dumped imports were causing the
alleged injury, and failed to examine any other known factors and to ensure that alleged injury
caused by those other factors was not attributed to dumping;

- the Indian authorities did not provide interested parties with the full opportunity for the
defence of their interests;

- provisional measures were imposed for more than the period of time allowed under
Article 7.4;

- the Indian authorities did not inform the in terested parties the essential facts under
consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures;

- the petitions for the initiation of investigations appear not to be sufficiently substantiated on
the existence of dumping, injury and the estab lishment of the normal value and the export
price;

- the notice of initiation of investigations did no t contain all the grounds that support dumping
and injury;

- the notice of definitive findings did not contain all relevant information of facts and law and
reasons which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures.

For the above reasons, the anti-dumping measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with
India’s obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, thereby nullifying or
impairing the benefits accrued to us under those Agreements.

More specifically, we consider that the anti-dumping measures at issue are violating, inter
alia, the following provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement:

- Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994;
- Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7.4, 12.1 and 12.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

We reserve the right to raise additional claims and legal matters regarding the measures listed
in the Annex and determinations during the course of the consultations.

We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date and venue for consultations in this regard.

Annex: Indian anti-dumping measures imposed on certain products

originating in Chinese Taipei

 Product Case number Date of imposition of
definitive measures

1

Acrylic fibres

No. 27/1/99-DGAD

18/07/2000

2

Analgin

No. 66/1/2000-DGAD

08/10/2001

3

Potassium
permanganate

No. 46/1/2000-DGAD

01/11/2001

4

Paracetamol

No. 60/1/2000-DGAD

27/03/2002

5

Sodium nitrite

No. 54/1/2001-DGAD

29/11/2002

6

Caustic soda

No. 14/39/2002-DGAD

14/11/2003

7

Green veneer tape

No. 14/50/2002-DGAD

9/02/2004