CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 18 June 2013
Document codes: WT/DS460/1; G/L/1030; G/ADP/D97/1
Complainant: EU
Respondent: China
Third parties: Japan, South Korea, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
 The following communication, dated 13 June 2013, from the delegation of the
European Union to the delegation of China 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 consultations with the Government of the
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement
on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD
Agreement") with respect to China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-
performance stainless steel seamless tubes ("HP-SSST") from the European Union, as set forth in
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") Notice No. 21 [2012] (the
"Preliminary Determination notice") and Notice No. 72 [2012] (the "Final Determination notice"),
including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.
The measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under the following
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement:
1. Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement because China did not determine the costs of production
and the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs on the basis of records and actual
data by the exporters or producers under investigation.
2. Article 2.4 and Article 2.4.2 of the AD Ag reement because China did not establish the
existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a fair comparison between the export price and
the normal value.
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because China's injury determination was not
based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of the
dumped imports under investigation and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic
market for like products.
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because China's injury determination was not
based on positive evidence, did not involve an ob jective examination of the consequent impact of
these imports on domestic producers of such products and improperly failed to evaluate or
disregarded relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry
indicating that the domestic industry did not suffer injury.
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because China failed to conduct an objective
examination, based on positive evidence, of th e causal relationship between the imports under
investigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry. China also failed to conduct an
objective examination, based on positive evid ence, of factors other than the imports under
WT/DS460/1 • G/L/1030 • G/ADP/D97/1

investigation which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry, and therefore improperly
attributed the injuries caused by these other factors to the imports under investigation.
6. Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement because China failed to disclose to the interested parties all
information that is relevant to the presentation of their cases used to establish the margins of
dumping and the effect of imports under investigation on prices of domestic market for like
products.
7. Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement because Chin a treated as confidential, without showing
good cause, information supplied by the applicants.
8. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement because China failed to require the applicants to furnish
non-confidential summaries which provided sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding
of the substance of the information submitted in confidence by the applicants.
9. Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement and paragrap h 7 of Annex I to the AD Agreement because
China refused to take into account information provided during the on-the-spot investigation.
10. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragrap h 3 of Annex II to the AD Agreement because
China failed to take into account all information pertaining to the determination of the margins of
dumping which was verifiable, which was appropriately submitted so that it could have been used
in the investigation without undue difficulties and which was supplied in a timely fashion.
11. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragrap h 1 of Annex II to the AD Agreement because
China improperly relied on facts available to determine the margin of dumping for all European
Union companies other than those for which individual margins of dumping were determined.
12. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because China failed to inform the interested parties of
the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision to impose definitive
anti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying the determinations of the
existence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of dumping and the determinations of
injury and causation.
13. Article 7.4 of the AD Agreement because China applied provisional measures for a period
exceeding four months.
14. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement be cause China failed to provide in sufficient
detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered material by the
investigating authorities, as well as all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and
reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures.
15. China's anti-dumping measures on HP-SSST from the European Union also appear 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.
China's measures, therefore, appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the European
Union directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
The European Union reserves the right to address additional measures and claims regarding
the above matters in the course of the consultations.
The European Union looks forward to receiving China's reply in due course to this request for
consultations. The European Union is ready to consider with China mutually convenient dates and
modalities for organising the consultations.