CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON STEEL WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU REPORT OF THE PANEL
Document: REPORT OF THE PANEL
Date: 21 December 2016
Document codes: WT/DS482/R
Complainant: Taiwan
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: EU, China, South Korea, Norway, UAE, U.S., Brazil
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.8, 1, 6.10, 7.1(ii), 7.5, 9.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 6.8, Annex II, 2.2, 9.3  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN
CARBON STEEL WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
REPORT OF THE PANEL

LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Working Procedures of the Panel (as amended) A-2
Annex A-2 Additional Working Procedures on Business Confidential Information A-7
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY
OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
Contents Page
Annex B-1 Executive summary of the first written s ubmission of the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
B-2
Annex B-2 Executive summary of the second written submission of the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
B-9
Annex B-3 Integrated executive summary of the statements of the Sepa rate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu at the first meeting of the
Panel
B-16
Annex B-4 Integrated executive summary of the statements of the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu at the second meeting of the
Panel
B-20
ANNEX C
ARGUMENTS OF CANADA
Contents Page
Annex C-1 Executive summary of the first written submission of Canada C-2
Annex C-2 Executive summary of the second written submission of Canada C-10
Annex C-3 Executive summary of the statement of Ca nada at the first meeting of the
Panel
C-18
Annex C-4 Executive summary of the statement of Canada at the second meeting of the
Panel
C-23
ANNEX D
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
Contents Page
Annex D-1 Executive summary of the arguments of Brazil D-2
Annex D-2 Executive summary of the arguments of the European Union D-5
Annex D-3 Executive summary of the arguments of Norway D-11
Annex D-4 Executive summary of the arguments of the United Arab Emirates D-14
Annex D-5 Executive summary of the arguments of the United States D-16

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
Short title Full case title and citation
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Panel Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear,
WT/DS121/R, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS121/AB/R, DSR 2000:II, p. 575
Argentina – Poultry
Anti-Dumping Duties
Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from
Brazil, WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, DSR 2003:V, p. 1727
China – Autos (US) Panel Report, China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain
Automobiles from the United States, WT/DS440/R and Add.1, adopted
18 June 2014, DSR 2014:VII, p. 2655
China – Broiler Products Panel Report, China  Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on
Broiler Products from the United States, WT/DS427/R and Add.1, adopted
25 September 2013, DSR 2013:IV, p. 1041
China – GOES Panel Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain
Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States, WT/DS414/R
and Add.1, adopted 16 November 2012, upheld by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS414/AB/R, DSR 2012:XII, p. 6369
EC – Bed Linen
(Article 21.5 – India)
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of
the DSU by India, WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, DSR 2003:III,
p. 965
EC – Bed Linen
(Article 21.5 – India)
Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by
India, WT/DS141/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS141/AB/RW, DSR 2003:IV, p. 1269
EC – Countervailing Measures
on DRAM Chips
Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea, WT/DS299/R, adopted
3 August 2005, DSR 2005:XVIII, p. 8671
EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R,
adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995
EC – Fasteners (China) Panel Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on
Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/R and Corr.1,
adopted 28 July 2011, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS397/AB/R, DSR 2011:VIII, p. 4289
EC – Hormones Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998,
DSR 1998:I, p. 135
EC – Salmon (Norway) Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed
Salmon from Norway, WT/DS337/R, adopted 15 January 2008, and Corr.1,
DSR 2008:I, p. 3
EU – Biodiesel (Argentina) Panel Report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from
Argentina, WT/DS473/R and Add.1, adopted 26 October 2016, as modified
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS473/AB/R
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,
WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996,
DSR 1996:I, p. 97
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Appellate Body Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random
Access Memories from Korea, WT/DS336/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted
17 December 2007, DSR 2007:VII, p. 2703
Mexico – Anti-Dumping
Measures on Rice
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef
and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice, WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted
20 December 2005, DSR 2005:XXII, p. 10853
Mexico – Anti-Dumping
Measures on Rice
Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice,
Complaint with Respect to Rice, WT/DS295/R, adopted 20 December 2005,
as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS295/AB/R, DSR 2005:XXIII,
p. 11007

US – Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties (China)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/AB/R,
adopted 25 March 2011, DSR 2011:V, p. 2869
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany,
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX,
p. 3779
US – Carbon Steel (India) Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, WT/DS436/AB/R, adopted
19 December 2014, DSR 2014:V, p. 1727
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application
of Zeroing Methodology, WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 19 February 2009,
DSR 2009:III, p. 1291
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel
Sunset Review
Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping
Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan,
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, p. 3
US – Countervailing Duty
Investigation on DRAMS
Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea,
WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005, DSR 2005:XVI, p. 8131
US – Countervailing Measures
(China)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on
Certain Products from China, WT/DS437/AB/R, adopted 16 January 2015
US – Hot-Rolled Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted
23 August 2001, DSR 2001:X, p. 4697
US – Oil Country Tubular
Goods Sunset Reviews
Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, WT/DS268/AB/R,
adopted 17 December 2004, DSR 2004:VII, p. 3257
US – Softwood Lumber V
(Article 21.5 – Canada)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on
Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by
Canada, WT/DS264/AB/RW, adopted 1 September 2006, DSR 2006:XII,
p. 5087
US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on
Stainless Steel from Mexico, WT/DS344/AB/R, adopted 20 May 2008,
DSR 2008:II, p. 513
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven
Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997,
and Corr.1, DSR 1997:I, p. 323
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology
for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing"), WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted
9 May 2006, and Corr.1, DSR 2006:II, p. 417
US – Zeroing (Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and
Sunset Reviews, WT/DS322/AB/R, adopted 23 January 2007, DSR 2007:I,
p. 3

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Description
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agree ment on Tariffs
and Trade 1994
BCI Business Confidential Information
CBSA Canada Border Services Agency
Chinese Taipei The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
CITT Canadian International Trade Tribunal
CSWP Carbon Steel Welded Pipe
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
Marrakesh Agreement Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969,
1155 UNTS 331; 8 International Legal Materials 679
SCM Agreement Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
SIMA Special Import Measures Act
SIMR Special Import Measures Regulations
WTO World Trade Organization

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Complaint by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
1.1. On 25 June 2014, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
(Chinese Taipei) requested consultations with Canada pursuant to Articles 1 and 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) and Article 17 of the Agreement
on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement) with respect to
provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Canada on imports of certain Carbon
Steel Welded Pipe (CSWP) originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei and the investigations
underlying the measures.1
1.2. On 7 November 2014, Chinese Taipei, in an addendum to its initial request for consultations,
requested further consultations with Canada on other aspects of the above -mentioned
anti-dumping measures and on certain provisions of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA) and
the Special Import Measures Regulations (SIMR).2
1.3. Consultations were held on 24 July 2014 and 4 December 2014, but faile d to resolve the
dispute. On 22 January 2015, Chinese Taipei requested the establishment of a panel.3
1.2 Panel establishment and composition
1.4. At its meeting on 10 March 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to the request of Chinese Taipei in document WT/DS482/2 , in accordance with Article 6
of the DSU.4
1.5. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:
To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by
the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the Separate Customs
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu , Kinmen and Matsu in document WT/DS482/2 and to
make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving
the rulings provided for in those agreements.5
1.6. Following the agreement of the parties, the Panel was composed on 12 May 2015 as follows:
Chairperson: Mr Jose Antonio Buencamino
Members: Ms Andrea Marie Dawes (née Brown)
Mr David Evans
1.7. Brazil, China, the European Union, the Republic of Korea, Norway, the United Arab Emirates,
and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.
1.3 Panel proceedings
1.3.1 General
1.8. After consultation with the parties, the Panel adopted its Working Procedures 6 and timetable
on 12 August 2015. The Panel revised its Working Procedure s on 17 December 2015. The Panel
revised its timetable on 17 December 2015, 13 January 2016, and 1 February 2016.

1 See Canada – Welded Pipe, Chinese Taipei's request for consultations, WT/DS482/1
(dated 25 June 2014, circulated 30 June 2014).
2 See Canada – Welded Pipe, Addendum to Chinese Taipei's request for consultations,
WT/DS482/1/Add.1 (dated 7 November 2014, circulated 12 November 2014).
3 See Canada – Welded Pipe, Chinese Taipei's request for the establishment of a panel, WT/DS482/2
(dated 22 January 2015, circulated 27 January 2015).
4 See Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of meeting held on 10 March 2015, WT/DSB/M/358
(circulated 20 April 2015).
5 See Canada – Welded Pipe, Constitution of the Panel, Note by the Secretariat, WT/DS482/3
(dated 10 March 2015, circulated 13 May 2015).
6 See the Panel's Working Procedures in Annex A-1.

1.9. The Panel held a first substantive meeting with the parties on 16 and 17 March 2016 .
A session with the third parties took place on 17 March 2016. The Panel held a second substantive
meeting with the parties on 28 and 29 June 2016 . On 5 August 2016 , the Panel issued the
descriptive part of its Report to the parties. The Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties
on 7 October 2016. The Panel issued its Final Report to the parties on 18 November 2016.
1.3.2 Working procedures on Business Confidential Information (BCI)
1.10. After consultations with the parties, the Panel adopted, on 15 September 2015, additional
procedures for the protection of Business Confidential Information (BCI).7
2 FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.1 The measures at issue
2.1. This dispute concerns the provisional and definitive anti -dumping measures applied by
Canada on imports of certain C SWP originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, as well as
certain provisions of SIMA and SIM R, in particular subsection 2(1), section 30.1, and
subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), 41(1), 42(1), 42(6), and 43(1) of SIMA, as well as
subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR.
2.2. On 14 May 2012, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) initiated investigations with
respect to dumping of certain CSWP from , among others, Chinese Taipei.8 On 15 May 2012, the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) issued a notice of commencement of a preliminary
injury inquiry.9
2.3. On 13 July 2012, the CITT determined that there was eviden ce that disclosed a reasonable
indication that the dumping of CSWP had caused injury or retardation or was threatening to cause
injury.10 The CBSA issued its preliminary dumping determination on 13 August 201211 and its final
dumping determination on 9 November 2012.12 On 11 December 2012, the CITT issued its final
(threat of) injury determination.13

7 See the Panel's Additional Working Procedures on Business Confidential Information, Annex A-2.
8 CBSA, Notice of Initiation of the Investigation, 14 May 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-4). See also CBSA,
Statement of Reasons concerning the initiation of investigations into the dumping of certain CSWP originating
in or exported from TPKM, India, Oman, Korea, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates and the
subsidizing of certain CSWP originating in or exported from India, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates,
29 May 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-5). The investigation also extended to the subsidizing of certain CSWP from
countries other than Chinese Taipei.
9 CITT, Commencement of Preliminary Injury Inquiry, 15 May 2012, Canada Gazette 2012.I.146.21
(26 May 2012), pp. 1382 and 1383, (Exhibit TPKM-6).
10 CITT, Determination, Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PI-2012-003, 13 July 2012, Canada
Gazette 2012.I.146.29 (21 July 2012), pp. 2095 and 2096, (Exhibit TPKM-7). See also CITT, Determination
and Reasons, Preliminary Injury Inquiry No. PI-2012-003, 30 July 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-8).
11 CBSA, Decision, Preliminary Determinations of Dumping and Subsidizing, 13 August 2012, Canada
Gazette 2012.I.146.34 (25 August 2012), p. 2518, (Exhibit TPKM-9). See also CBSA, Statement of Reasons
concerning the preliminary determinations with respect to the dumping of certain CSWP originating in or
exported from TPKM, India, Oman, Korea, Thailand, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates and the subsidizing
of certain CSWP originating in or exported from India, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, 28 August 2012,
(Exhibit TPKM-10).
12 CBSA, Decision, Final Determinations Dumping and Subsidizing, 9 November 2012, Canada Gazette
2012.I.146.47 (24 November 2012), pp. 3172 and 3173, (Exhibit TPKM-12). See also CBSA, Statement of
Reasons concerning the making of Final Determinations of Dumping and Subsidizing and the Termination of
Dumping and Subsidizing Investigations respecting certain CSWP originating in or exported from TPKM, India,
Oman, Korea, Thailand, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, 26 November 2012 (Statement of Reasons
concerning the Final Determination), (Exhibit TPKM-2).
13 CITT, Finding, Injury Inquiry No. NQ-2012-003, 11 December 2012, Canada Gazette 2012.I.146.51,
22 December 2012, pp. 3555 and 3556, (Exhibit TPKM-13). See also CITT, Finding and Reasons, Injury Inquiry
No. NQ-2012-003, 27 December 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-14).

3 PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to find that14:
a. With respect to the treatment of exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping Canada
violated:
i. Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada failed to immediately
terminate the investigation with respect to exporters with a de minimis margin of
dumping;
ii. Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada failed to determine only
one individual margin of dumping for each exporter in its determination of whether
to continue the investigation and the subsequent determination of duty rates;
iii. Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada appl ied provisional
anti-dumping measures in the absence of a preliminary affirmative determination of
dumping when it applied such measures to imports of certain CSWP from exporters
with a de minimis margin of dumping;
iv. Articles 7.5 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, in imposing provisional
and definitive anti -dumping duties on imports from exporters with a de minimis
margin of dumping, Canada caused anti-dumping duties to be collected from sources
found not to be dumped and causing injury; and
v. Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
the possibility to levy an anti-dumping duty only applies "in order to offset or prevent
dumping" and therefore not with respect to imports from exporters with a de minimis
margin of dumping.
b. With respect to the treatment of non -dumped imports and of factors other than the
dumped imports in the injury and causation analyses Canada violated:
i. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 , and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, for the
purpose of the injury and causation analyses, Canada failed to exclude from the
dumped imports, the imports of the exporters with a de minimis dumping margin
thereby failing to properly consider the volume of dumped imports, the effects of the
dumped imports on prices in the domestic market, the impact of the dumped imports
on the domestic industry and whether the dumped imports are causing injury and/or
threat of injury to the domestic industry.
ii. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada fa iled to
examine all known factors other than the alleged dumped imports which at the same
time were injuring the domestic industry – including the overcapacity of the domestic
industry and the subsidies – and failed to ensure that the injury caused by such
other factors was not attributed to the alleged dumped imports.
c. With respect to the dumping determination and determination of the duty rate for
"all other exporters" Canada violated:
i. Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraph 7, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because
Canada improperly applied facts available in determining the dumping margin and
duty rate applicable to "all other exporters " without complying with the conditions
laid down in those provisions.

14 See Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 318-321.

d. With respect to the treatment of new product types to b e exported by cooperating
producers Canada violated:
i. Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada imposed anti -dumping
duties on new product types of the cooperating exporters that exceed their margin of
dumping as established under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
ii. Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada resorted to
facts available for the calculation of the normal values with respect to imports of new
product types of the cooperating exporters, thus resorti ng to facts available even
though the conditions laid down in these provisions had not been met;
iii. Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada calculated normal values
for new product types of cooperating exporters on the basis of a methodology which
is not foreseen in Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
iv. Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada determined more than
one individual margin of dumping for cooperating exporters; and
e. As a consequence of the above -mentioned violations, Canada ac ted inconsistently with
Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
3.2. Furthermore, Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to find that the provisions of SIMA and SIMR
are inconsistent "as such " with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994, and more
specifically that:
a. subsection 2(1), section 30.1, and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), and 41(1) of SIMA
are incon sistent, as such, with Articles 1, 5.8, 7.1(ii), 7.5 , and 9.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994; and
b. subsections 42(1), 42(6 ), and 43(1) of SIMA and subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are
inconsistent "as such " with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 , and 3.7 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
3.3. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to also find that, as a consequence of the above , Canada
acted inconsistently with Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement insofar as it failed to take all steps to ensure the conformity of its laws,
regulations, and administrativ e procedures with the provisions of the GATT 1994 and of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. According to Chinese Taipei, this also results in the violation of Article 1
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
3.4. In light of the above, Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to recommend that the DSB request
Canada to bring its measures into conformity with its obl igations under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.
3.5. Canada requests that the Panel reject all of Chinese Taipei's claims in this dispute.
4 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
4.1. The arguments of the parties are reflected in their executive summaries, provided to the
Panel in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Working Procedures adopted by the Pan el
(see Annexes B-1 to B-4 and C-1 to C-4).
5 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
5.1. The arguments of Brazil, the European Union, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, and the
United States are reflected in their executive summaries, provided in accordance with
paragraph 20 of the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel (see Annexes D-1 to D -5).
China and Korea did not submit written or oral arguments to the Panel.

6 INTERIM REVIEW
6.1. On 7 October 2016, the Panel submitted its Interim Report to the parties. On
21 October 2016, Chinese Taipei and Canada each submitted written r equests for the review of
precise aspects of the Interim Report. On 4 November 2016, both parties submitted comments on
each other's requests for review. Neither party requested an interim review meeting.
6.2. In accordance with Article 15.3 of the DSU, this se ction of the Panel Report sets out the
Panel's response to the parties' requests made at the interim review stage. The Panel modified
aspects of its Report in the light of the parties' comments where it considered it appropriate, as
explained below. Due to changes as a result of our review, certain numbering of the paragraphs
and footnotes in the Final Report has changed from the Interim Report. The text below refers to
the numbers in the Interim Report, with the numbers in the Final Report in parentheses for ease of
reference.
6.3. In addition to the modifications specified below, the Panel also corrected a number of
typographical and other non -substantive errors throughout the Report, including those identified
by the parties. The Panel is grateful for the assistance of the parties in this regard.
6.1 Paragraphs 6.9, 6.49, 6.50, 6.51, 6.72, 6.91, 6.102, 6.113, 6.123, 6.149, 6.166, and
6.213 (paragraphs 7.9, 7.49, 7.50, 7.51, 7.73, 7.92, 7.103, 7.114, 7.124, 7.150, 7.167,
and 7.214 of the Final Report)
6.4. Chinese Taipei asks the Panel to supplement and/or amend its description of Chinese Taipei's
arguments in a number of parts of the Interim Report.
6.5. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.6. We have decided to accommodate the requests by Chinese Taipei. The amendments
proposed by Chinese Taipei all reflect arguments made in Chinese Taipei's submissions to the
Panel. Although the current summaries of those arguments are no t inaccurate, we see no reason
not to include further elements that more closely mirror the actual arguments made by
Chinese Taipei. With respect to paragraph 6.9, we consider it more appropriate to use a wording
that differs from Chinese Taipei's proposal in order to accurately reflect the arguments made. With
respect to paragraph 6.50, we have decided to include the proposed additional sentence in a
footnote at the end of that paragraph and with a slight modification to the suggested source
reference. Regarding paragraph 6.72, r ather than adding a supplementary description of
Chinese Taipei's arguments at the end of the paragraph, we consider it more appropriate to
include this description in a sentence that precedes that paragraph's last sentence.
6.2 Paragraph 6.14 (paragraph 7.14 of the Final Report)
6.7. Chinese Taipei proposes that the Panel supplements its description of Norway's arguments to
fully reflect the arguments presented by Norway.
6.8. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.9. We have decided to accommodate Chinese Taipei's request.
6.3 Paragraph 6.53 (paragraph 7.54 of the Final Report)
6.10. Canada requests that the footnote reference to "Canada's second written submission,
para. 47" be changed to "Canada's second written submission, paras. 49-52".
6.11. Chinese Taipei disagrees with the suggested change, to th e extent that paragraphs other
than paragraph 49 of Canada's second written submission should be referenced in this footnote.
6.12. We agree with Chinese Taipei that only paragraph 49 of Canada's second written submission
should be included in the footnote and have made the modification accordingly.

6.4 Paragraph 6.64 (paragraph 7.65 of the Final Report)
6.13. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to include discussion of Chinese Taipei's arguments in
relation Article 7.1(iii) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and its relevance to the issue before the
Panel. Chinese Taipei also does not support Canada's request to delete the reference to that article
in the paragraph.
6.14. Canada suggests that the statements relating to Article 7.1(iii) in the last three sentences of
the paragraph are outside of the Panel's terms of reference, and therefore requests deletion
thereof. Should the Panel decide to accede to Chinese Taipei's request, Canada asks that the Panel
also include Canada's response to Chinese Taipei's arguments.
6.15. We have not made any changes to our Report concerning this matter. Since there is no
claim under Article 7.1(iii), there is no need for us to examine this provision in great detail. We
refer to it merely to explain our treatment of certain arguments made by Chinese Taipei
concerning the object and purpose of Article 7.1.
6.5 Paragraph 6.79 (paragraph 7.80 of the Final Report)
6.16. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to amend its description of Canada's arguments in order
to clarify that observations relating to the case law invoked by Chinese Taipei were made by
Canada.
6.17. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.18. We have decided to accommodate Chinese Taipei's request.
6.6 Paragraph 6.84 (paragraph 7.85 of the Final Report)
6.19. Canada requests the Panel to modify this paragraph to accurately reflect Canada's position
as set out in paragraph 72 of its second written submission. Canada contends that it does not
argue that C hinese Taipei's claim is undermined by the fact that there are no Appellate Body
decisions that endorse the approach advanced by Chinese Taipei . Rather, Canada's point is that
the Appellate Body report cited by Chinese Taipei does not, contrary to Chinese Taipei's
submission, address the issue of whether imports from exporters with a de minimis margin of
dumping are to be excluded in an injury analysis.
6.20. Chinese Taipei disagrees with Canada and considers that the paragraph accurately reflects
Canada's argument.
6.21. We have decided to accommodate Canada's request by modifying the paragraph
accordingly.
6.7 Paragraphs 6.109 and 6.111 (paragraphs 7.110 and 7.112 of the Final Report)
6.22. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to modify paragraph 6.109 to more accurately reflect
Chinese Taipei's reliance in its submissions on specific statements made by the interested party
Knightsbridge in the C SWP investigation .15 In light of this modification, Chinese Taipei also
requests that paragraphs 6.109 and 6.111 be changed to no longer state that Chinese Taipei did
not specify exactly which statement made by Knightsbridge it was relying on.
6.23. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.24. We have decided to accommodate Chinese Taipei's request, albeit not in the exact manner
as suggested by Chinese Taipei.

15 Knightsbridge International Corp., Submission to CITT related to the Preliminary Injury Inquiry
PI-2012-003, 18 June 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-16).

6.8 Paragraphs 6.133 and 6.135 (paragraphs 7.134 and 7.136 of the Final Report)
6.25. Chinese Taipei understands that the Ministerial Specification is not a document that is
published and made available to the public. Chinese Taipei observes that it is thus not a "published
report", contrary to its characterization in these paragraphs.
6.26. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.27. We have decided to change the description of the documents referred to in
paragraph 6.133. Instead of referring to "published reports", we now refer to " documents in the
record of the investigation". A consequential change is made in paragraph 6.135 which now refers
to the "record's relevant documents".
6.9 Paragraph 6.142 (paragraph 7.143 of the Final Report)
6.28. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to insert a footnote following the paragraph's second
sentence. Chinese Taipei recalls its position that while the fact of imposing residual duties may
allow investigating authorities to preclud e circumvention and to provide a n incentive to cooperate,
this objective does not itself justify the use of one of the worst possible information available.
6.29. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.30. We have decided not to accommodate Chinese Taipei's request. The Panel's statement, in
respect of which Chinese Taipei seeks clarification of its argument, accurately reflects a specific
issue on which the parties' views did not diverge.
6.10 Paragraphs 6.144 and 6.145 (paragraphs 7.145 and 7.146 of the Final Report)
6.31. Canada requests the Panel to correct factual inaccuracies with respect to the Panel's
description of the operation of Canada's prospective normal value system.
6.32. Chinese Taipei makes no comment on Canada's request.
6.33. We have decided to correct the inaccuracies identified by Canada. In the interest of clarity,
we revised the relevant sentence in paragraph 6.145.
6.11 Paragraphs 6.170-6.173 (paragraphs 7.171-7.174 of the Final Report)
6.34. Chinese Taipei requests the Panel to address Chinese Taipei's argument that the conditions
set forth in Article 6.8 or Annex II of the Anti -Dumping Agreement were not met because the
information concerning new product types was not "held" by the cooperating exporters as such
information was non-existent at the time of the original investigation.
6.35. Canada makes no comment on Chinese Taipei's request.
6.36. We have decided not to accommodate Chinese Taipei's request. Addressing Chinese Taipei's
argument in addition to the reasoning contained in t he relevant parts of the Report is not
necessary for resolving the dispute. As we observed in the R eport, Canada did not contend that
relevant information was requested from the exporters when a determination based on facts
available was made in the original investigation. As a result, the issue of whether such information
was in fact "held" by the relevant exporters does not arise in the analysis under Article 6.8 and
Annex II.

7 FINDINGS
7.1 General principles regarding treaty interpretation, the applicable standard of
review, and burden of proof
7.1.1 Treaty Interpretation
7.1. Article 3.2 of the DSU provides that the dispute settlement system serves to clarify the
existing provisions of the covered agreements "in accordance with c ustomary rules of
interpretation of public international law". It is generally accepted that the principles codified in
Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention are such customary rules.
7.1.2 Standard of Review
7.2. Panels generally are bound by the standard of review set forth in Article 11 of the DSU, which
provides, in relevant part:
[A] panel should make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an
objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity
with the relevant covered agreements.16
7.3. The Appellate Body has stated that the "objective assessment" to be made by a panel
reviewing an investigating authority's determination is to be informed by an examination of
whether the agency provided a reasoned and adequate explanation as to: (a) how the evidence on
the record supported its factual findings; and ( b) how those factual findings supported the overall
determination.17
7.4. The Appellate Body has also commented that a panel reviewing an investigating authority's
determination may not conduct a de novo review of the evidence or substitute its judgment for
that of the investigating authority. A panel must limit its examination to the evidence that was
before the agency during the course of the investigation and must take into account all such
evidence submitted by the parties to the dispute. 18 At the same time, a panel must not simply
defer to the conclusions of the investigating authority. A panel's examination of those conclusions
must be "in-depth" and "critical and searching".19
7.5. Further to Article 11 of the DSU, Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement sets forth a
specific standard of review applicable to anti-dumping disputes, namely:
(i) in its assessment of the facts of the matter, the panel shall determine whether
the authorities' establishment of the facts was proper and whether their evaluation of
those facts was unbiased and objective. If the establishment of the facts was proper
and the evaluation was unbiased and objective, even though the panel might have
reached a different conclusion, the evaluation shall not be overturned; and
(ii) the panel shall interpret the relevant provisions of the Agreement in accordance
with customary rules of interpretation of public international law. Where the panel
finds that a relevant provision of the Agreement admits of more than one permissible
interpretation, the panel shall find the authorities' measure to be in conformity with
the Agreement if it rests upon one of those permissible interpretations.
7.1.3 Burden of Proof
7.6. The gener al principles applicable to the allocation of the burden of proof in WTO dispute
settlement require that a party claiming a violation of a provision of a WTO Agreement must assert
and prove its claim. 20 Therefore, Chinese Taipei bears the burden of demonstr ating that the

16 Emphasis added.
17 Appellate Body Report, US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, para. 186.
18 Appellate Body Report, US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS, para. 187.
19 Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 93.
20 Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 16.

Canadian measures are inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. The Appellate Body has stated that
a complaining party will satisfy its burden when it establishes a prima facie case, namely a case
which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter
of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party.21 Finally, it is generally for each party asserting a
fact to provide proof thereof.22
7.2 Immediate termination under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
exporter-specific or country-wide margins of dumping?
7.2.1 Introduction
7.7. This claim concerns the interpretation and application of the second sentence of Article 5.8 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which provides:
There shall be immediate termination in cases where the authorities determin e that
the margin of dumping is de minimis, or that the volume of dumped imports, actual or
potential, or the injury, is negligible.
7.8. Chinese Taipei's claim is brought under the first part of this provision, concerning terminat ion
of an investigation in respect of de minimis margins of dumping. Chinese Taipei submits that
Canada violated this provision by failing to terminate the investigation in respect of
two Chinese Taipei exporters for which the CBSA had determined de minimis final23 margins of
dumping. Canada asks the Panel to reject Chinese Taipei's claim, arguing that the second sentence
of Article 5.8 only requires immediate termination in respect of country -wide margins of dumping
that are de minimis.
7.2.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.9. Chinese Taipei's arguments are based principally on the Appellate Body's finding in Mexico –
Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice that the phrase "margin of dumping" in the second sentence of
Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement relates to the indi vidual margin of dumping of an
exporter or producer, rather than a country -wide margin of dumping .24 Chinese Taipei relies in
particular on the Appellate Body's finding that "the second sentence of Article 5.8 requires the
immediate termination of the investigation in respect of exporters for which an individual margin of
dumping of zero or de minimis is determined".25 Chinese Taipei further submits that the ordinary
meaning of the words used in Article 5.8 as well as the context provided by other provisions of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, including Article 3.3 and 9.4, do not support Canada's position that
Article 5.8 requires immediate termination of the investigation when the country -wide margin of
dumping is de minimis.26
7.10. Canada submits that the termination of an investigation under Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement is only required when the country -wide margin of dumping is
de minimis. Canada contends that the ordinary meaning of the terms used in the second sentence
of Article 5.8 is consistent with this approach.27 Canada contends that Chinese Taipei reads into
Article 5.8 the words "with regard to that exporter", without any basis in the text or context for
doing so. Canada contends that there is nothing in Article 5.8 o r elsewhere in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement that subdivides an investigation into any number of separate

21 Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 104.
22 Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 14.
23 Chinese Taipei's claim concerns Article 5.8 termination in the context of final margins of dumping that
are de minimis ("Canada violated Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it failed to immediately
terminate the investigation with respect to those exporters whose final margins of dumping were found to be
de minimis within the meaning of that provision"). (Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 43).
We confirm at paras. 7.63.-7.64 below that the second sentence of Article 5.8 only applies in respect of final
margins of dumping that are de minimis. Our findings here therefore only concern the issue of whether or not
Canada should have immediately terminated the investigation after finding that the final margins of dumping of
two Chinese Taipei exporters were de minimis.
24 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, paras. 216-221.
25 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 217. (emphasis original)
26 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, paras. 10-26.
27 Canada's first written submission, para. 56.

investigations that could be individually terminated for individual exporters. 28 Canada submits that
the immediate context of Article 5.8 taken as a whole shows that termination under the
second sentence of Article 5.8 pertains to a country, particularly since it is clear that termination in
respect of negligible volume or injury must pertain to a country.
7.11. Regarding broader context, Canada observes that Article 5 provides for the initi ation of a
single investigation in relation to a product of a country of export. 29 Canada also argues that
Chinese Taipei's interpretation of Article 5.8 would render Article 9.4 redundant, because there
would be no need any longer to exclude de minimis margins at the assessment stage if the
investigation had already been terminated in respect of exporters with individual de minimis
margins of dumping. 30 Canada further asserts that the specific reference in Article 3.3 to a
country-based margin of dumping, "a s defined" in Article 5.8, provides further confirmation that
the de minimis margin of dumping found in Article 5.8 is also country-based.31 Canada also argues
that Chinese Taipei's interpretation of Article 5.8 would result in inconsistent treatment of
exporters under Article 9.5. In particular, Canada contends that any termination pursuant to
Article 5.8 would not apply to new shippers, since the investigation would already have been
completed and measures put in place. Canada asserts that new shippers fou nd to have dumped
would therefore be subject to anti -dumping measures pursuant to Article 9.5, even if their margin
of dumping were only de minimis. Canada asserts that this inconsistent treatment does not occur
if termination under Article 5.8 for a de minimis margin of dumping pertains to a country. Canada
submits that its arguments provide cogent reasons for the Panel to depart from the interpretation
of Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement developed by the WTO adjudicators in Mexico –
Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice.32
7.2.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.2.3.1 Brazil
7.12. Brazil contends that if the factual background presented by Chinese Taipei is accurate, the
investigation should have been terminated with respect to those exporters whose final margins of
dumping w ere found to be de minimis. Brazil asserts that the combined interpretation of the
articles mentioned by Chinese Taipei, as supported by the jurisprudence of the DSB, leads to the
conclusion that during an investigation the competent authority should take into account individual
margins of dumping for each exporter or producer, whenever it is possible for the authority to
determine them. The investigating authority cannot rely on a country -wide margin of dumping
when the individual margins are determined.33
7.2.3.2 European Union
7.13. The European Union recalls that the Appellate Body has already clarified that the margin of
dumping in Article 5.8 refers to "individual" margins of dumping of the exporters, as opposed to a
"country-wide" margin of dumping. The European Uni on also recalls that panels are expected,
even in practice "obliged" to follow previous Appellate Body findings with respect to previously
decided legal issues.34
7.2.3.3 Norway
7.14. Norway disagrees with the position that the requirement to immediately terminate an
investigation pertains to a country rather than the individual producer. Norway holds that the
determination of de minimis dumping is by nature producer-specific. The wording of Article 5.8, as
well as the context and the consistency with the other a rticles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
clearly leads to this conclusion. Norway observes that the panel and the Appellate Body in
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice reached this very same conclusion on this exact

28 Canada's second written submission, para. 20.
29 Canada's second written submission, paras. 22 and 23.
30 Canada's second written submission, para. 30.
31 Canada's second written submission, para. 25.
32 Canada's first written submission, paras. 85-92; second written submission, paras. 12-44.
33 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 3.
34 European Union's third-party submission, paras. 7-10.

question.35 Norway contends that the context prov ided by Article 9.4 supports the interpretation
that the obligation to terminate an investigation under Article 5.8 when the margin of dumping is
de minimis pertains to the individual producer.36
7.2.3.4 United Arab Emirates
7.15. The United Arab Emirates shares the anal ysis provided by Chinese Taipei. The United Arab
Emirates considers that Chinese Taipei's claim is justified by the language of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and confirmed by previous panels and the Appellate Body.37
7.2.3.5 United States
7.16. The United States, while taking no position on the merits of the factual allegations made by
both parties, agrees with Chinese Taipei that a proper interpretation of Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that the investigating authority terminate an investigation with
respect to an exporter or producer for which an individual margin of dumping is determined as
zero or de minimis. Accordingly, the United States understands that Canada did not comply with
its Anti-Dumping Agreement obligations if, as was the case here, thes e two exporters were
included in the scope of the definitive anti-dumping measure.38
7.17. The United States contends that panels are not obliged to follow Appellate Body findings.
The United States asserts that, to the extent a panel finds prior Appellate Body o r panel reasoning
to be persuasive, a panel may rely on that reasoning in conducting its own objec tive assessment
of the matter. Nowhere in the DSU, however, is a panel given the authority not to assess
objectively the legal issues in dispute, including by applying customary rules of interpretation to
the text of the covered agreements, nor does the DSU require, or permit, a panel to follow –
without any examination – prior Appellate Body findings.39
7.2.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.18. The parties agree that the second sentence of Article 5.8 requires immediate termination of
an investigation in the event that the "margin of dumping" is de minimis.40 The parties disagree
whether the "margin of dumping" that triggers immediate termination relates to the exporting
country as a whole, or to each exporter or producer individually. This is the issue that we must
resolve.
7.19. The same issue was addressed by the panel and Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping
Measures on Rice. Both the panel and the Appellate Body found that the term "margin of dumping"
in Article 5.8 refers to the individual margin of dumping of an exporter or producer rather than to a
country-wide margin of dumping. The panel noted that A rticle 6.10 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that "the authorities shal l, as a rule, determine an individual
margin of dumping for each known exporter or producer concerned of the product under
investigation".41 The panel considered that this provision provides for the general rule of
calculating an individual margin of dumpin g for each known exporter or producer. The panel
observed that the exception to this rule is provided for in Article 9.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The panel stated that both the general rule and the exception to the
rule provide for the calculation of individual margins of dumping, and do not envisage the
calculation of a country -wide margin. The panel then examined the rest of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement to see whether there is anything in the Agreement that contradicts this
conclusion that the term "margin of dumping" in the Anti-Dumping Agreement is company-specific
rather than country-wide. The panel found that there was not. According to the panel, "whenever
the Agreement refers to the determination of a margin of dumping, it refers to the margin of

35 Norway's third-party submission, para. 5.
36 Norway's third-party statement, paras. 5 and 6.
37 United Arab Emirates' third-party submission, paras. 5 and 8.
38 United States' third-party submission, para. 3.
39 United States' third-party statement, para. 7.
40 The parties also agree that Article 5.8 only requires immediate termination in respect of final margins
of dumping that are de minimis.
41 See Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 7.137.

dumping determined for the individual exporter". 42 The panel also noted that, in Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the margin of dumping is juxtaposed to the volume of dumped imports.
The panel observed that while it is expressly stipulated that t he latter is to be examined on a
country-wide basis, no such stipulation is made with regard to the margin of dumping. This further
confirmed the panel's view that the reference to the margin of dumping in Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement is a ref erence to the individual margin of dumping determined on an
exporter-specific basis.43
7.20. The Appellate Body agreed with the reasoning of the panel. 44 The Appellate Body further
observed that:
The Panel's position – that the term "margin of dumping" in Article 5.8 refers to the
individual margin of dumping of an exporter or producer rather than to a country-wide
margin of dumping – is consistent with the use of the term "margins of dumping" in
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as stated by the Appellate Body in US –
Hot-Rolled Steel:
"[M]argins" means the individual margin of dumping determined for each
of the investigated exporters and producers of the product under
investigation, for that particular product.45
7.21. For our part, we consider that the ordin ary meaning of the text of the second sentence of
Article 5.8 does not unambiguously resolve the legal issue before us, since it does not clarify
whether the "margin of dumping" that triggers immediate termination should be established for an
exporting country or for individual exporters in a given exporting country. 46 The text of the phrase
"margin of dumping" offers no guidance in this respect. The "investigation" to be immediately
terminated is expressed in the singular, suggesting that it pertains to a s ingular investigation of
exports of a given product from some or all of the producers/exporters of that product in a given
exporting country as a whole. However, Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides for a
general rule that a margin of dumpin g is to be determined for each foreign producer/exporter.
Thus, a single investigation could be "terminated" in respect of some of those individual
producers/exporters (even if it remains active for others). 47 We agree with the panel and
Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice that, when viewed in the context of
other provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the "margin of dumping" that triggers immediate
termination under the second sentence of Article 5.8 should be understood to relate to the margin
of dumping established for each producer or exporter individually, rather than a margin of
dumping established for the exporting country as a whole.
7.22. The findings of the panel and Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice
have bee n adopted by the DSB. It is well established that adopted reports create legitimate
expectations, such that the same legal issues should be resolved in the same way in subsequent
cases, absent cogent reasons for finding differently. 48 Canada contends that t here are cogent
reasons why we should not follow the decisions of the panel and Appellate Body in Mexico –
Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice . Canada points to the reference to a country -wide margin of
dumping in Article 3.3, the alleged redundancy of part of A rticle 9.4, and the alleged inconsistent
treatment of de minimis exporters under Article 9.5. We shall address each of these elements in
turn.

42 Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 7.140.
43 Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, paras. 7.137-7.141.
44 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 217.
45 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 216. (fns omitted)
46 Canada asserts at para. 56 of its first written submission that the ordinary meaning of the
second sentence of Article 5.8 is "consistent" with termination occurring on a country-wide basis. We consider
rather that the ordinary meaning is ambiguous in this regard.
47 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 218.
48 See, for example, Appellate Body Reports, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 14; and US – Stainless
Steel (Mexico), para. 160.

7.2.4.1 Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.23. Canada submits that the interpretation of the phrase "margin of dumping " by the panel and
Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice is at odds with Article 3.3 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, which establishes conditions for the cumulative assessment of the
effects of imports from multiple exporting countries. Article 3.3 provides in relevant part:
Where imports of a product from more than one country are simultaneously subject to
anti-dumping investigations, the investigating authorities may cumulatively assess the
effects of such imports only if they determine that (a) the margin of dumping
established in relation to the imports from each country is more than de minimis as
defined in paragraph 8 of Article 5 … .
7.24. Canada observes that Article 3.3 refers to a single margin of dumping being established for
all impor ts from an exporting country, i.e. a country -wide margin of dumping. According to
Canada, the specific reference in Article 3.3 to the Article 5.8 de minimis standard "implies that the
type of margin of dumping is the same in both provisions – a margin of dumping with respect to a
country".49 Canada therefore concludes that Article 5.8, like Article 3.3, refers to a country -wide
margin of dumping. Canada contends that the panel ignored Article 3.3 in its analysis, and that the
Appellate Body endorsed the panel's analysis without referring to that error by the panel.50
7.25. We recall that the Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice panel reasoned that "whenever
the Agreement refers to the determination of a margin of dumping, it refers to the margin of
dumping determ ined for the individual exporter". 51 In making this statement, the panel did not
refer to Article 3.3 in its analysis. However, the Appellate Body did consider the relevance of this
provision, because Mexico made arguments regarding Article 3.3 to the Appel late Body that are
similar to those being made by Canada in the present case. The Appellate Body rejected Mexico's
arguments on the ground that "Article 3.3 does not add to the analysis of Article 5.8".52
The Appellate Body reasoned as follows:
First, Artic le 3.3 establishes conditions for cumulation of the effects of the imports
from more than one country, which is unrelated to the termination of an investigation
under Article 5.8. Secondly, although, as Mexico pointed out, Article 3.3 refers to
Article 5.8, this reference concern s uniquely the definition of a de minimis margin of
dumping (defined in the third sentence of Article 5.8 as a margin of less than two per
cent, expressed as a pe rcentage of the export price). Mexico's contention that the
Panel erre d in the interpretation of Article 5.8 does not relate to the definition of
"de minimis". Accordingly, we are of the view that the reference to Article 5.8 in
Article 3.3 is not relevant to Mexico's argument under Article 5.8. Thirdly, it is
explicitly pro vided in Article 3.3 that "the margin of dumping [is] established in
relation to t he imports from each country". It could be argued that this specific
language was incorporated into Article 3.3 to mark a departure from the general rule
that the term "margi n of dumping" refers to the individual margin of dump ing of an
exporter or producer. In other words, although Mexico contends that Article 3.3
provides context to suggest that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 5.8, it
could also be viewed as context that supports the Panel's interpretation of Article 5.8,
as no language similar to that of Article 3.3 ("the margin of dumping [is] established
in relation to imports from each country") can be found in Article 5.8. Accordingly, we
are of the view that, contrary to what Mexico argues, Article 3.3 does not provide
useful context for interpreting the term "margin of dumping" in Article 5.8.53
7.26. We agree. In our view, Article 3.3 marks a departure from the general rule that the term
"margin of dumping" r efers to the individual margin of dumping of an exporter or producer.
Neither Canada's argument that Article 3.3 refers to the margin of dumping "as defined" in
Article 5.8, nor Canada's suggestion that both provisions therefore refer to the same type of
margin of dumping (i.e. a country -wide margin) , persuade us otherwise. As the Appellate Body

49 Canada's first written submission, para. 83.
50 Canada's first written submission, para. 87.
51 Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 7.140.
52 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 220.
53 Ibid.

observed, this reference in Article 3.3 concerns uniquely the definition of de minimis.54 The fact
that Article 3.3 refers to the Article 5.8 de minimis standard doe s not mean that the basis for
determining the margin of dumping in Article 5.8 must necessarily be the same as the one referred
to in Article 3.3. It simply means that the definition of de minimis provided for in Article 5.8
(i.e. a margin of less than 2%) applies under Article 3.3. Under Article 3.3, this standard is applied
per country, whereas the same standard is applied per -exporter or producer under Article 5.8.
There is nothing to suggest that Article 3.3, a provision that concerns the unrelated matt er of
cumulation, is intended to import any meaning into Article 5.8.
7.2.4.2 Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.27. Canada also relies on Article 9.4, which regulates the maximum amount of anti -dumping
duty that may be imposed or collected in respect of import s from exporters that were not
individually examined, in cases where authorities limit their examination in accordance with the
second sentence of Article 6.10. Article 9.4 provides in relevant part that the anti -dumping duty
applied to imports from export ers not included in the investigating authority's examination shall
not exceed:
(i) the weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the
selected exporters or producers or,
(ii) where the liability for payment of anti -dumping duties is calculated on the basis
of a prospective normal value, the difference between the weighted average
normal value of the selected exporters or producers and the export prices of
exporters or producers not individually examined,
provided that the authorities sh all disregard for the purpose of this paragraph any
zero and de minimis margins and margins established under the circumstances
referred to in paragraph 8 of Article 6.
7.28. Canada suggests that the requirement in Article 9.4 to disregard zero or de minimis margins
of dumping of individual exporters when calculating a weighted average margin of dumping or a
weighted average normal value for non -examined exporters is most telling for interpreting
Article 5.8.55 Canada asserts that the application of duties contemp lated in Article 9.4 takes place
during the period of duty assessment, and therefore after an investigation has been completed.
Canada submits that, had the investigation already been terminated with respect to individual
exporters with zero or de minimis margins of dumping pursuant to Article 5.8, there would be no
need to exclude their margins under Article 9.4. According to Canada, the need to expressly
exclude zero or de minimis exporter-specific margins of dumping at this stage confirms that an
investigation is only terminated pursuant to Article 5.8 when the margin of dumping of a country is
de minimis. Canada contends that an interpretation of Article 5.8 supporting termination of an
investigation with respect to an individual exporter with a de minimis margin of dumping would
make part of Article 9.4 redundant, contrary to the principle of effectiveness in treaty
interpretation. Canada further observes that, unlike Article 3.3, Article 9.4 does not contain any
reference to the definition of a de minimis margin of dumping in Article 5.8. Canada submits that
the absence of such a reference indicates that the margin of dumping r eferred to in Article 9.4,
i.e. an exporter -specific margin of dumping, is not the same type as that in Article 5.8,
i.e. a country-based margin of dumping.56
7.29. We are not persuaded by Canada's argument. First, Article 9.4 provides that the
anti-dumping duties for non -examined exporters or producers shall not exceed the weighted
average normal values or weighted average margins of dump ing of investigated exporters or
producers. Nothing in this provision is inconsistent with the proposition that Article 5.8 requires
immediate termination in the event that an exporter has a de minimis individual margin of
dumping. It is worth emphasising that Article 9.4 is unrelated to the termination of an
investigation under the second sentence of Article 5.8. These provisions concern discrete issues,
and there is nothing in the text of Article 9.4 to suggest that it has any bearing on the termination
of an investigation under Article 5.8.

54 Ibid.
55 Canada's first written submission, paras. 80 and 81.
56 Canada's first written submission, para. 84.

7.30. Second, we consider that the distinction drawn by Canada between the investigation and
assessment phases is overly rigid. We do not consider that all elements addressed in Article 9
must necessarily be viewed as pertai ning only to a post -investigation phase of duty assessment.
Canada relies57 on the statement by the Appellate Body stated in EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 –
India) that the use of the present perfect tense in sub-paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 9:
[I]ndicates that the imposition and collection of anti -dumping duties under Article 9 is
a separate and distinct phase of an anti -dumping action that necessarily occurs after
the determination of dumping, injury, and causation under Articles 2 and 3 has been
made. Members have the right to impose and collect anti -dumping duties only after
the completion of an investigation in which it has been established that the
requirements of dumping, injury, and causation "have been fulfilled".58
7.31. EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) did not present the Appellate Body with the legal issue
currently before us , namely the relevance of Article 9.4 for the interpretation of Article 5.8 .
We note that t he Appellate Body also stated in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice that
"[t]he issuance of the order that establishes anti -dumping duties – or the decision not to issue an
order – is the ultimate step of the 'investigation' contemplated in Article 5.8".59
7.32. For us, there is a logical progression in the investigation and imposition of anti -dumping
duties. In order to issue an order imposing anti -dumping duties on non -examined exporters, an
investigating authority must determine the amount of anti -dumping duty to be imposed and
collected.60 In order to do that, it must first calculate the cei ling for the amount of duty that may
legitimately be imposed and collected in respect of imports from such exporters. It seems to us
that the calculation of that ceiling, governed by Article 9.4, would be part of the
authority's investigation of dumping, a nd be undertaken after the calculation of the investigated
exporters' individual margins of dumping, but before the imposition of any anti-dumping duty.61
7.33. Third, in any event , we recall that Article 9.4 provides that the ceiling for non -examined
exporters be fixed by reference to the margins of dumping established for investigated exporters.
The simple fact that an investigation has already been terminated in respect of an exporter having
a de minimis margin of dumping does not mean that the margin of dumpin g determined for that
investigated exporter would necessarily be excluded by the investigating authority when
determining the ceiling for non -examined exporters. The fact that the investigation has been
terminated in respect of an exporter does not remove that exporter from the category of exporters
that were investigated, i.e. the category that is used as the basis for determining the ceiling for
non-examined exporters. Nor does termination in respect of an investigated exporter mean that
the data pertaini ng to that exporter is expunged from the investigating authority's record. Since
the data pertains to an investigated exporter, it would seem reasonable that an investigating
authority might subsequently use that data when establishing the ceiling for duty collection in
respect of non-examined exporters, consistent with the general approach set forth in the first part
of Article 9.4 (up to and including sub -paragraphs (i) and (ii)). It is only the express textual
exclusion of zero and de minimis margins in the latter part of Article 9.4 that prevents the
authority from doing so. 62 Indeed, one might consider that this express textual exclusion is only

57 For example, Canada's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 14.
58 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India), para. 123. (emphasis original,
fn omitted)
59 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 219.
60 Indeed, the fact that the Article 12.2.2 public notice refers to the "conclusion … of an investigation in
the case of an affirmative determination providing for the imposition of a definitive duty" suggests to us that
the "determination providing for the imposition of a definitive duty" is made before the investigation is
concluded.
61 This would be consistent with the scope of the investigation envisaged by the Appellate Body in
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, discussed above at para. 7.31. Furthermore, the determination of a
duty rate for unexamined exporters, at some level below the calculated ceiling, could be viewed as the
corollary to the determination of margins of dumping for examined exporters under Article 2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
62 It is similarly possible that facts pertaining to an exporter with a zero or de minimis margin could be
used as facts available under Article 6.8 (if properly verified, etc.). For example, the authority may use cost
data pertaining to that exporter as facts available in constructing a normal value for a different exporter.
The fact that the investigation in respect of the exporter whose data is being used is terminated under
Article 5.8 does not necessarily undermine the utility of that exporter's data in the context of Article 6.8.
Absent any express exclusion of the use of such facts, there is no reason why they should not be used by the

required precisely because the zero or de minimis margins of dumping might otherwise be retained
by the investigating authority.
7.2.4.3 De minimis exporters in Article 9.5 new shipper reviews
7.34. Canada submits that, because the de minimis standard under Article 5.8 does not apply to
new exporter reviews under Article 9.5, a new exporter with a de minimis margin would be subject
to anti-dumping duties, while an exporter with the same margin would be subject to termination in
an original investigation.63
7.35. Canada's argument is premised on a conclusion of law concerning the relationship between
Articles 5.8 and 9.5, a question that has not been addressed in WTO dispute settlement.64 It is not
clear to us that, in the context of an Article 9.5 new shipper review, an anti-dumping duty could be
imposed on a new shipper for which a de minimis margin of dumping is determined in that
review.65
7.36. In any event, Article 9.5 is unrelated to the termination of an investigation under the
second sentence of Article 5.8. We do not consider that Article 9.5 informs the interpretation of the
second sentence of Article 5.8. These provisions concern disc rete issues, and there is nothing in
the text of Article 9.5 to suggest that it should import meaning into the second sentence of
Article 5.8.
7.2.4.4 Conclusion
7.37. We recall our view that the second sentence of Article 5.8, when read in light of the context
of the p hrase "margin of dumping" as used in other provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
requires immediate termination of an investigation in respect of exporters that have individual
de minimis margins of dumping. We further recall that this approach is cons istent with the
decisions of the panel and Appellate Body regarding the same issue in Mexico – Anti-Dumping
Measures on Rice. For the reasons explained above, we find that Canada has failed to establish
that there are cogent reasons for us to depart from t hose decisions. We therefore uphold
Chinese Taipei's claim that Canada violated the second sentence of Article 5.8 by failing to
immediately terminate the investigation in respect of two Chinese Taipei exporters with de minimis
margins of dumping.

investigating authority in the context of Article 6.8 simply because they pertain to an exporter in respect of
which the investigation has been terminated.
63 Canada's second written submission, paras. 39-44.
64 Canada observes that the Appellate Body stated at para. 341 of its report in EC – Fasteners (China)
that all of the paragraphs of Article 9 concern the imposition of duties. Canada understands that Article 9.5,
like the remainder of Article 9, only applies to the duty assessment phase, as distinct from the investigation
phase. We also observe that the Appellate Body found in US – Carbon Steel that the de minimis standard set
forth in the equivalent provision in the SCM Agreement (i.e. Article 11.9) did not apply in the context of sunset
reviews undertaken under Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement. (Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel,
para. 68). However, in neither of these cases was the Appellate Body considering the application of the
immediate termination mechanism in the context of new shipper reviews.
65 It may be that an Article 9.5 new shipper review should rather be viewed as a supplementary
investigation, bearing in mind that it is the first time that the margin of dumping is being established for that
shipper. Canada accepts that the Article 6.8 facts available mechanism applies in the context of Article 9.5
reviews, even though that provision applies when an interested party fails to provide necessary information or
significantly impedes the "investigation". (Canada's response to Panel question No. 7.4, para. 13). There is
some inconsistency, therefore, in Canada's argument that provisions pertaining to the "investigation" phase
should not apply in the context of new shipper reviews. Canada contends that there is no justifiable reason
why the criteria in Article 5.8 would be applicable to new shipper reviews. (Canada's response to Panel
question No. 7.4, para. 16). It seems to us that there is an obvious reason why the relevant parts of Article 5.8
might apply in this context, namely to ensure that new shippers with de minimis margins of dumping are not
subject to anti-dumping duties in the same way as exporters examined in the original investigation. The
first sentence of Article 9.2 may also apply in this context, to ensure appropriateness and non-discrimination in
respect of the anti-dumping duties.

7.3 Multiple margins of dumping: Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.3.1 Introduction
7.38. Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated the first sentence of Article 6.10, whereby:
The authorities shall, as a rule, determine an individual margin of dumping for each
known exporter or producer concerned of the product under investigation.
7.39. Canada asks the Panel to reject Chinese Taipei's claim.
7.3.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.40. Chinese Taipei submits that the CBSA failed to comply with the requirement in the first
sentence of Ar ticle 6.10 to determine a single margin of dumping for each known exporter.
Chinese Taipei asserts that the CBSA determined – and the exporters and producers were
confronted with – two margins for each exporter, namely one company-specific margin established
under Article 2, and a second, country -wide dumping margin used for assessing the need for
immediate termination under the second sentence of Article 5.8. Chinese Taipei stresses that what
violates Article 6.10 is not the simple fact that Canada has cal culated more than one margin of
dumping for each exporter, but rather that Canada used the additional, country -wide margin of
dumping for the purpose of applying Article 5.8.66
7.41. Canada rejects Chinese Taipei's claim on the basis that the CBSA complied with t he
Article 6.10 requirement to determine individual exporter -specific margins of dumping. Canada
asserts that the determination of an additional, country -wide margin of dumping is irrelevant
under Article 6.10.67
7.3.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.3.3.1 Brazil
7.42. Brazil considers that Canada has not violated Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Brazil asserts that the CBSA complied with the Article 6.10 obligation to "determine an individual
margin of dumping for each known exporter or producer". According to Bra zil, the mere fact that
the CBSA calculated a country-based margin of dumping does not in itself violate Article 6.10, and
such calculation may be used for other purposes in the Anti-Dumping Agreement, such as in
Article 3.3(a).68
7.3.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.43. We see neither a factual nor a legal foundation for Chinese Taipei's claim. Chinese Taipei
asserts, as a matter of fact, that the CBSA determined "two margins [of dumping] for each
exporter".69 However, the second allegedly exporter -specific margin of dumping identified by
Chinese Taipei is actually the country-wide margin established for Chinese Taipei as a whole. 70
By definition, the country-wide margin pertains to the country, rather than to any given exporter.
7.44. As a matter of law, nothing in the text of the first sentence of Article 6.10 precludes an
investigating authority from determining – in addition to exporter -specific margins of dumping –
a country-wide margin of dumping.71

66 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, paras. 36-39.
67 Canada's first written submission, para. 94.
68 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 6.
69 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 38.
70 See Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 38: "Canada determined – and the exporters
and producers were confronted with – two margins for each exporter, namely one company-specific margin
established under Article 2, and a second, country-wide dumping margin, which was to be applied to each and
every exporter from that country, in order to determine whether their dumping margin was de minimis". There
is nothing on the record to suggest that Canada somehow used the country-wide margin to determine whether
or not individual exporter margins were de minimis.
71 According to para. 39 of Chinese Taipei's second written submission, Chinese Taipei's main concern in
bringing this Article 6.10 claim is to address the manner in which the CBSA used the country-wide margin for

7.45. We therefore reject Chinese Taipei's claim that Canada acted in a manner inconsi stent with
the first sentence of Article 6.10.
7.4 Provisional measures on imports from a Chinese Taipei exporter with a preliminary
de minimis margin of dumping: Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.4.1 Introduction
7.46. Chinese Taipei claims that Canada acte d inconsistently with Article 7.1(ii) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by imposing provisional measures on imports from a Chinese Taipei
exporter with a preliminary margin of dumping below the 2% de minimis threshold set forth in
Article 5.8. Canada imposed p rovisional duties on this exporter after determining that the
preliminary country -wide margin of dumping for Chinese Taipei was greater than de minimis.
The amount of provisional duty was based on the individual exporter's preliminary margin of
dumping.72
7.47. Article 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides:
Provisional measures may be applied only if:
(i) an investigation has been initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 5,
a public notice has been given to that effect and interested parties hav e been given
adequate opportunities to submit information and make comments;
(ii) a preliminary affirmative determination has been made of dumping and
consequent injury to a domestic industry; and
(iii) the authorities concerned judge such measures necessa ry to prevent injury
being caused during the investigation.
7.48. Canada asks the Panel to reject Chinese Taipei's claim, principally on the basis that
provisional duties may be imposed in respect of any exporter found to have dumped.
7.4.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.49. Chinese Taipei submits that there can be no "preliminary affirmative determination … of
dumping" (within the meaning of Article 7.1(ii)) for a specific exporter if the preliminary margin of
dumping for that exporter is de minimis as defined by Article 5.8. Chinese Taipei relies in this
regard on a finding by the panel in EC – Salmon (Norway) that "a finding of de minimis dumping
margins is a finding that there is no legally cognizable dumping by the producer or exporter in
question".73 Chinese Taipei note s that the term "preliminary affirmative determination " can be
understood as "initial positive finding " of dumping. 74 Chinese Taipei submits that Canada' s
investigating authorities could not make such "initial positive finding " of dumping since imports
from exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping cannot be treated as "dumped".

the purpose of applying the second sentence of Article 5.8. This issue is already addressed in our evaluation of
Chinese Taipei's Article 5.8 claim, above.
72 On a number of occasions in its first written submission (see, for example, paras. 97 and 105 of
Chinese Taipei's first written submission), Chinese Taipei makes reference to the alleged WTO-inconsistency of
Canada's imposition of a 0% preliminary anti-dumping duty on imports from Chung Hung Steel Corporation, a
Chinese Taipei exporter with a preliminary margin of dumping of zero. We note that there is no claim regarding
this issue in Chinese Taipei's request for the establishment, which refers only to the imposition of provisional
measures in respect of exporters with de minimis margins of dumping. (Canada – Welded Pipe,
Chinese Taipei's request for the establishment of a panel, WT/DS482/2 (dated 22 January 2015, circulated
27 January 2015), p. 3, bullet 4). Nor is this issue referred to in para. 318 of Chinese Taipei's first written
submission, where Chinese Taipei summarizes the findings that it would like the Panel to make. Bearing in
mind that our terms of reference are circumscribed by Chinese Taipei's request for the establishment, we do
not address this issue in our findings.
73 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 69-74 (quoting Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway),
para. 7.625).
74 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, paras. 43-44; response to Panel question No. 1.15,
para. 33.

7.50. Chinese Taipei submits that, in accordance with Article 5.8, an investigation needs to be
terminated with regard to producers/exporters with a final margin of dumping that is de minimis.
Chinese Taipei asserts that it logically follows that no definitive anti -dumping duties can be
imposed on such imports since they are no longer part of the investigation. This also implies that
imports with a de minimis margin of dumping have to b e excluded from the injury analysis. 75
Chinese Taipei submits that the consistent interpretation of the term "dumped" requires that the
same reasoning be applied in the context of Article 7.1(ii) with regard to the imposition of
provisional measures, even i f Article 5.8 is not directly applicable at the preliminary stage of the
investigation. According to Chinese Taipei, it therefore follows that Article 7.1(ii) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement precludes the application of provisional anti -dumping measures on
exporters with an individual de minimis margin of dumping.76
7.51. Chinese Taipei also asserts that the conditions for the imposition of provisional measures
are stricter than those for the imposition of definitive measures since pursuant to Article 7.1(iii)
they must be "necessary to prevent injury being caused during the investigation" .77 Chinese Taipei
posits that if no definitive measure can be imposed on imports from exporters with a de minimis
margin of dumping pursuant to Article 5.8, a fortiori no anti-dumping measure may be applied at
the provisional stage on imports of such exporters. Chinese Taipei also argues that since no injury
can be caused "through the effects of dumping " by imports from exporters with a de minimis
margin of dumping, the imposition of provisional measures to offset de minimis margins of
dumping is unnecessary to prevent injury.78
7.52. Chinese Taipei contends that its interpretation is confirmed by the object and purpose of
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which is to balance the potentially
conflicting interests of offsetting injury caused by dumped imports with the due process rights of
investigated exporters. Chinese Taipei contends that the Anti-Dumping Agreement therefore
provides for a statutory threshold for t he margin of dumping, below which a product cannot be
considered as "dumped".79
7.53. Canada asserts80 that Chinese Taipei's claim must fail for two reasons. First, because the
specific reference in Article 7.1(i) to a single investigation being initiated in accor dance with the
provisions of Article 5 contradicts Chinese Taipei's argument that the preliminary affirmative
determination of dumping relates to individual exporters, rather than the exporting country as a
whole. Canada observes that there are not as many preliminary determinations as there are
exporters. Article 7.1(ii), read with the chapeau, sets out that "[p]rovisional measures may be
applied only if … a preliminary affirmative determination has been made". According to Canada,
this singular determination relates to the investigation as a whole, without reference to individual
exporters, per Article 7.1(i), and will be affirmative if dumping has been preliminarily found to be
occurring, per Article 7.1(ii).
7.54. Second, Canada asserts that there is no legal basis for Chinese Taipei's assertion that
exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping may not be considered as dumping. 81 Canada
asserts that the definition of dumping is found in Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
where a product is considered to be dumped if it is imported into a country at an export price less
than its normal value. The operation of comparing whether the export price is less than the normal
value to determine if dumping exists is a clear and simple comparison; there is no additi onal
threshold or percentage that must be factored in. According to Canada, this definition of dumping
does not distinguish between goods being dumped at a margin above de minimis or below
de minimis.

75 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 45.
76 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 46. Chinese Taipei makes a distinction between
terminating the investigation and applying the provisional duty. (Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question
No. 1.2, paras. 6 and 7; second written submission, paras. 49 and 50). According to Chinese Taipei, while the
investigation may continue in case of finding of preliminary de minimis margin of dumping, the authorities
cannot apply any measures during the remaining part of the investigation.
77 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 47; opening statement at the second meeting of
the Panel, para. 28.
78 Chinese Taipei's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 27.
79 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 1.15, para. 42.
80 Canada's second written submission, paras. 46-48.
81 Canada's second written submission, para. 49.

7.55. Canada also objects to Chinese Taipei's argument that t he object and purpose of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement provide for a statutory threshold for the margin of dumping, below which
a product cannot be considered to be dumped. Canada contends that there is no basis in the
Agreement for these arguments, either in terms of its object and purpose or in terms of
Chinese Taipei's assertion of the existence of a "statutory threshold". Canada observes that the
Appellate Body has noted specifically that the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not contain an
explicit indication o f its object and purpose. 82 Canada also observes that Chinese Taipei refers to
the panel report in US – Zeroing (EC) in an attempt to justify its argument regarding the object
and purpose of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. According to Canada, that reference is taken out of
context.83 Canada also refers to the findings of the panel in EC – Salmon (Norway) to argue that it
is the normal value that constitutes the point of reference when imposing anti -dumping duties, not
the normal value less an additional de minimis threshold. Moreover, Canada suggests that
Article 7.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides relevant context to Article 7.1(ii). Article 7.2
stipulates that provisional measures may be applied, through the imposition of duties or by use of
a security, in an amount "equal to the amount of the anti -dumping duty provisionally estimated,
being not greater than the provisionally estimated margin of dumping". Canada observes that
there is no exception in Article 7.2 that the provisional measure must not be ap plied if the margin
of dumping is de minimis, and no such exception should be read into that provision.84
7.4.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.4.3.1 Brazil
7.56. Brazil considers that neither provisional nor definitive anti -dumping duties may be imposed
on imports from exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping.85
7.4.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.57. Article 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that provisional measures may be
applied only if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions, set forth in sub -paragraph (ii),
is that "a preliminary affirmative determination has been made of dumping". Chinese Taipei's claim
is premised on two factors. First, that this "preliminary affirmative determination" needs to be
made for each foreign producer/exporter, rather than for each exporting country, and second, that
the term "dumping" in this context only refers to margins of dumping exceeding the
2% de minimis threshold set forth in Article 5.8.
7.58. Regarding the nature of the "preliminary affirmative determination" to be made, we have
already explained in the context of Chinese Taipei's Article 5.8 claim that determinations of
dumping are generally made in respect of individual exporters. 86 The fact that a single
investigation is undertaken is not inconsistent with this approach, since, as we have concluded
above, such an investigation may be terminated in respect of a given exporter. Similarly, a
"preliminary affirmative determination" may be made in respect of multiple exporters. In addition,
Article 7.2 provides that provisional measu res should take the form of a cash deposit or bond
equal to "the amount of anti -dumping duty provisionally estimated". Article 7.5 states that the
relevant provisions of Article 9 should be followed in the application of provisional measures. This
includes the requirement in Article 9.2 to collect anti-dumping duties from "all sources found to be
dumped". The Appellate Body has confirmed that the term "sources" relates to individual
exporters, rather than exporting countries. 87 Read together, these considerations indicate that the
"preliminary affirmative determination" should be made in respect of individual exporters. It is
difficult to conceive of the utility of Article 7.1(ii) providing for a country -wide preliminary
affirmative determination of dumping, if provisional duties are to be applied on the basis of
exporter-specific margins of dumping.

82 Canada's second written submission, para. 54 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood
83 Canada's second written submission, para. 54.
84 Canada's second written submission, para. 59.
85 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 9.
86 With the exception of the margin of dumping referred to in Article 3.3.
87 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 338.

7.59. We now turn to the second premise of Chinese Taipei's claim, namely that the
exporter-specific determination of dumping referred to in Article 7.1(ii) contains a de minimis
component. The term "dumping" is defined in Article 2.1 as referring to a situation where a
product is "introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value".
By virtue of this definition, a product is either dumped (i.e . the export price is less than normal
value), or it is not dumped (i.e. the export price is equal to or greater than normal value). There is
no scope in this definition for any notion of de minimis dumping, in the sense of the export price
being less than normal value by only a particular degree. Had the drafters intended to define
"dumping" with a de minimis component, they could readily have done so.
7.60. Chinese Taipei argues that its interpretation of Article 7.1(ii) is supported by case law.
We disagree. A s we explain below, the findings cited by Chinese Taipei were made by panels
addressing different issues than the one before us in this dispute. Furthermore, only one of the
panels provided any rationale for its findings, and that rationale does not apply in respect of
provisional measures.
7.61. Chinese Taipei refers88 to the findings of three panels that imports from exporters with
de minimis margins of dumping may not be treated as "dumped imports" for the purpose of the
Article 3 injury analysis. This is not t he issue currently before us. In the first two cases, namely
EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) and Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, neither panel
provided any rationale for its finding. While the Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties panel
stated that, "[o]n the basis of the ordinary meaning of the text … the term 'dumped imports' refers
to all imports attributable to producers or exporters for which a margin of dumping greater than
de minimis has been calculated" 89, that panel did not explain how the ordinary meaning of the
phrase "dumped imports" supported that finding. In particular, the panel made no reference to the
definition of the term "dumping" set forth in Article 2.1.
7.62. Chinese Taipei then notes that a similar approach was adopted by th e panel in EC – Salmon
(Norway). That panel explained its approach by refer ence to Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement:
We consider that imports attributable to a producer or exporter for which a de minimis
margin of dumping is calculated may not be treated as "dumped" for purposes of the
injury analysis in that investigation. Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement provides that
there shall be "immediate termination in cases where the authorities determine that
the margin of dumping is de minimis". Thus, it is clear that no anti -dumping duties
can be imposed on such imports. In our view, a finding of de minimis dumping
margins is a finding that there is no legally cognizable dumping by the producer or
exporter in question. If there is no legally cognizable dumping by a particular producer
or exporter, as a result of a finding of de minimis margins, then it seems inescapable
to us that imports attributable to such producer or exporter may not be treated as
"dumped" imports for any aspect of that investigation.90
7.63. We see logic in the panel referring to the second sentence of Article 5.8 when considering
the meaning of the phrase "dumped imports" in Article 3, since the requirement to immediately
terminate an investigation in respect of an exporter with a final de minimis margin of dumping
suggests that imports from that exporter should not be treated as dumped. However, the
relevance of the EC – Salmon (Norway) panel's finding in the present case is not apparent since ,
for the reasons outlined below , we do not consi der that the second sentence of Article 5.8 applies
in respect of preliminary affirmative determinations of dumping.
7.64. Article 7.2 makes it clear that the preliminary determination relates to "the amount of the
anti-dumping duty provisionally estimated", and the "provisionally estimated margin of dumping".
This "preliminary affirmative determination" of dumping is therefore no more than a provisional
estimate. This reflects the fact that the provisional determination may be based on data that is
incomplete, or that the investigating authority has not yet satisfied itself is accurate. We do not
consider that an investigating authority would be required to immediately terminate an

88 We are referring in particular to the explanation of Chinese Taipei's claim set forth in its response to
Panel question No. 1.15.
89 Panel Report, Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, para. 7.303.
90 Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.625. (emphasis added)

investigation on the basis of only a provisional estimate of the amount of dumping determined
using unverified data. Nor do we consider that the "legal cognizance" of dumping should be based
on no more than a provisional estimate. The parties also agree that it is only a final determination
of a de minimis margin of dumping that trigger s immediate termination under Article 5.8.
Chinese Taipei even goes so far as to assert that "[t] his finding rela ting to Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement is irrelevant to the issue of the application of provisional measures". 91 In
these circumstanc es, the findings of the EC – Salmon (Norway) panel are not relevant to the
interpretation of the term "dumping" in the context of Article 7.1(ii), and those findings therefore
provide no support for an argument that there is no legally cognizable dumping o nce a preliminary
affirmative determination of de minimis dumping has been made.92
7.65. In addition, Chinese Taipei also refers to the object and purpose of Article 7.1.
Chinese Taipei asserts that Article 7.1 is designed to strike a balance between the need to
safeguard free trade as long as there is no final determination that anti -dumping duties are
actually justified and the application of provisional measures in case these are necessary to
prevent injury being caused while the investigation is carried out. 93 As indicated by Canada, the
Appellate Body has already stated that no object and purpose of the Anti-Dumping Agreement has
been formulated. 94 Furthermore, even if Chinese Taipei had correctly identified the object and
purpose of Article 7.1, we note that such purpose is broadly reflected in the requirement, set forth
in Article 7.1(iii), that "the authorities concerned judge such measures necessary to prevent injury
being caused during the investigation". It is entirely possible that an investigating authori ty might
determine that provisional measures are not necessary to prevent injury being caused during the
investigation by imports from an exporter with a preliminary de minimis margin of dumping.
However, this determination would be made pursuant to Articl e 7.1(iii), rather than Article 7.1(ii).
Chinese Taipei has not pursued any claim under Article 7.1(iii).
7.66. For the above reasons, we reject Chinese Taipei's claim that Canada acted in violation of
Article 7.1(ii) by applying provisional measures in respect of imports from a Chinese Taipei
exporter with a preliminary de minimis margin of dumping.
7.5 Additional claims under Articles 1, 7.5, and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994
7.5.1 Introduction
7.67. Chinese Taipei contends that the imposition of provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties
on imports from exporters with de minimis margins of dumping is inconsistent with Articles 1, 7.5,
and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
7.68. The first sentence of Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that:
An anti-dumping measure shall be applied only under the circumstances provided for
in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations initiated and conducted in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.95
7.69. Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides in relevant part:
When an anti-dumping duty is imposed in respect of any product, such anti -dumping
duty shall be collected in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a
non-discriminatory b asis on imports of such product from all sources found to be
dumped and causing injury, except as to imports from those sources from which price
undertakings under the terms of this Agreement have been accepted.

91 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 53.
92 We note that the EC – Salmon (Norway) panel also stated that imports attributable to a de minimis
producer or exporter should not be treated as dumped "for any aspect of that investigation". However,
consistent with our reasoning above, we do not interpret this to be referring to the provisional measure stage
of the investigation.
93 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 48.
94 Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 118.
95 Fn omitted.

7.70. Article 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides:
The relevant provisions of Article 9 shall be followed in the application of provisional
measures.
7.71. The first sentence of Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 provides:
In order to offset or prevent dumping, a Member may levy on any dumped product an
anti-dumping duty not greater than the margin of dumping in respect of such product.
7.72. Canada asks the Panel to reject Chinese Taipei's claims.
7.5.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.73. Chinese Taipei asserts that exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping do not
constitute "sources found to be dumped" within the meaning of Article 9.2 first sentence of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Chinese Taipei contends that the imposition of definitive anti -dumping
duties on exporters with de minimis margins of dumping is therefore inconsistent with
Article 9.2.96 Chinese Taipei submits that Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement applies
equally to the imposition of provisional measures, by virtue of Article 7.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Chinese Taipei contends that the phrase "sources found to be dumped"
cannot be given a different meaning in the context of provisional measures. 97 According to
Chinese Taipei, therefore, Canada's imposition of provisional duties on imports from a
Chinese Taipei exporter with a preliminary de minimis margin of dumping is inconsistent with
Article 7.5.98
7.74. Chinese Taipei contends that Canada violated Article VI:2 first sentence of the GATT 1994
by imposing provisional anti -dumping duties on imports from exporters with preliminary
de minimis dumping ma rgins, and by imposing definitive anti -dumping duties on imports from
Chinese Taipei exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping.99 According to Chinese Taipei,
the existence of de minimis margins of dumping means that there was no dumping to offset or
prevent as required under Article VI:2 of the GATT 199 4. Chinese Taipei alleges that the violation
of Article VI:2 of the GATT 199 4 necessarily entails a violation o f Article 1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.100
7.75. Canada insists that the CBSA acted in accord ance with the requirements of Articles 7.5
and 9.2. In particular, Canada argues that Article 9.2 allows the imposition of anti -dumping duties
on all sources found to be dumped. Canada asserts that Article 9.2 contains no exception for
individual exporters with de minimis margins of dumping. 101 Canada contends that there is
therefore no basis to uphold Chinese Taipei's consequential claims under Article 1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.102
7.5.3 Evaluation by the Panel
7.76. We recall our fi nding that Canada violated the second sentence of Article 5.8 by failing to
terminate its investigation in respect of individual Chinese Taipei exporters with margins of
dumping of less than 2%. We also recall our findings that the second sentence of Artic le 5.8 only
applies in respect of final margins of dumping that are de minimis. It follows that exporters with
final de minimis margins of dumping should not have been treated as "sources found to be
dumped" for the purpose of duty imposition under Article 9.2. The investigation in respect of those
exporters should have been terminated immediately after final determinations of de minimis
margins of dumping were made for those producers, and no anti -dumping measures should have
been imposed on them. We there fore uphold Chinese Taipei's claim that the imposition of
definitive anti-dumping measures in respect of imports from these exporters is inconsistent with

96 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 87-93.
97 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 57.
98 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 94-97.
99 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 105.
100 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 107.
101 Canada's first written submission, para. 108.
102 Canada's first written submission, para. 112.

Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. As a result, we also uphold Chinese Taipei's claims
under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 in respect of the
imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on these exporters.
7.77. We have rejected Chinese Taipei's claim that Canada acted inconsistently with Article 7.1(ii)
by imposing provisional anti -dumping measures on a Chinese Taipei exporter with a preliminary
de minimis margin of dumping. At the stage of its preliminary determination, the CBSA was
entitled to treat this exporter as a "source [] found to be dumped" within t he meaning of
Article 9.2. At this preliminary stage, immediate termination under the second sentence of
Article 5.8 was not required. There is therefore no basis for us to find that the imposition of
provisional measures in respect of imports from this ex porter is inconsistent with Articl es 1 or 7.5
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, or Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
7.6 The treatment of imports from exporters with de minimis margins of dumping in the
injury investigation: Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.6.1 Introduction
7.78. Article 3, and the various sub -paragraphs thereof, require the investigating authority to
demonstrate that "dumped imports" are causing material injury to a domestic industry.
Chinese Taipei challenges the CITT's decision to treat imports from Chinese Taipei exporters with
final de minimis margins of dumping as "dumped imports" for the purpose of its injury and
causation determinations.
7.6.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.79. Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated each of the provisions of Article 3 that address
the treatment of "dumped imports" in the investigating authority's injury and causation
determinations (Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement). In particular,
Chinese Taipei asserts that Canada acted inconsistently with each of these paragraphs of Article 3
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by treating imports from exporters determined by the CBSA to
have de minimis margins of dumping as "dumped imports" within the meani ng of these
provisions.103 Chinese Taipei contends that imports from de minimis exporters may not be treated
as "dumped" within the meaning of Article 3, and refers to case law in support. 104 According to
Chinese Taipei, such imports should be excluded from the investigating authority's assessment of
the injurious effects of "dumped imports".
7.80. Canada contends that imports with a de minimis margin of dumping remain "dumped"
within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and are therefore properly
treated as "dumped imports" for the purpose of t he Article 3 injury and causation analyses.
Canada asserts that only non -dumped imports should be excluded from the category of "dumped
imports". In considering whether imports are "dumped", Canada contends that there is no
distinction between imports that are dumped at a margin above de minimis and imports that are
dumped at a margin below de minimis. Canada relies on findings by the Appellate Body in US –
Carbon Steel to support its position. 105 Canada rejects the case law relied on by Chinese Taipei,
either because it contends that those cases concerned exporters for which the margins of dumping
or duties were zero, or because it contends that the panels were only making obiter dicta.106

103 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 115; second written submission, para. 69.
104 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 118-128 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Bed
Linen (Article 21.5 – India); and Panel Reports, Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties; EC – Salmon
(Norway); and EC – Fasteners (China)).
105 Canada's first written submission, para. 122 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel,
para. 80).
106 Canada's first written submission, para. 123.

7.6.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.6.3.1 Brazil
7.81. Brazil agrees with Chinese Taipei that the term "dumped imports" does not include imports
from exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping. Brazil asserts that the DSB has already
addressed this issue on different occasions.107
7.6.3.2 United Arab Emirates
7.82. The United Arab Emirates agrees with Chinese Taipei's arguments and analysis that by
failing to exclude from the "dumped imports" the imports of exporters for which a de minimis
dumping margin had been determined, the investigating authority acts inconsistently with
Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.108
7.6.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.83. We have already examined, in the context of Chinese Taipei's Article 7.1(ii) claim, the
finding by the EC – Salmon (Norway) panel that imports from an exporter with a de minimis
margin of dump ing may not be treated as "dumped" for purposes of the injury analysis. 109
The panel's finding was based on the immediate termination requirement set forth in the second
sentence of Article 5.8. On the understanding that the finding by the EC – Salmon (Norway) panel
applies only in respect of a final determination of an exporter's margin of dumping, we agree with
that finding. Article 5.8 effectively means that there is no legally cognizable dumping by an
exporter with a final de minimis margin of dumping. As a result, imports from that exporter should
not be treated as "dumped" for the purpose of the analysis and final determination s of injury and
causation.
7.84. Canada suggests that the facts of the present case should be distinguished from the facts at
issue in EC – Salmon (Norway), because the definitive anti-dumping duty for the relevant exporter
in that case was zero. 110 Although Canada is correct as a factual matter that a zero duty was
applied in the EC – Salmon (Norway) case, the amount of the duty was irrele vant to the finding of
the panel. The panel's finding was based rather on the fact that a de minimis margin of dumping
had been established for that exporter. The panel stated expressly that "an interpretation of
'dumped imports' in Article 3 which would allow an investigating authority to include in the volume
of dumped imports for purposes of injury analysis imports attributable to a producer/exporter for
which a de minimis margin has been calculated is impermissible".111 The panel rejected arguments
by the respondent that the fact that no anti -dumping duties were ultimately imposed on this
exporter should justify the inclusion of its exports as "dumped imports".112
7.85. Canada also argues that, contrary to Chinese Taipei's proposition, there are no Appellate
Body decisions that endorse the approach advanced by Chinese Taipei.113 It is true that the
Appellate Body jurisprudence invoked by Chinese Taipei did not address the issue of whether
imports from exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping are to be excluded f rom the injury
analysis. Nevertheless, we consider this fact irrelevant. The findings of the EC – Salmon (Norway)
panel have been adopted by the DSB. As a result, they give rise to legitimate expectations on the
part of WTO Members, including Chinese Taipei.
7.86. Canada argues that there is Appellate Body support for its position that the phrase "dumped
imports" includes any imports that are dumped, including those with only a de minimis rate of
dumping. Canada refers in this regard to the finding by the Appella te Body in US – Carbon Steel

107 Brazil's third-party submission, para. 9.
108 United Arab Emirates' third-party submission, para. 14.
109 Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.628. We recall that the same finding was also made by
the EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) and Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties panels.
111 Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.628. (emphasis added)
112 Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), paras. 7.627 and 7.628.
113 Canada's second written submission, para. 71. We understand Canada to refer to Chinese Taipei's
reliance, at paragraphs 118 and 119 of its first written submission, on the Appellate Body report in EC – Bed
Linen (Article 21.5 – India), paras. 111 and 113.

that the meaning of the term "subsidization" in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures (SCM Agreement) is not confined to subsidization greater than de minimis.114
7.87. The facts of the present case are very different from the facts in US – Carbon Steel. In that
case, the Appellate Body was examining whether or not the de minimis standard set forth in
Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement applies in Article 21.3 sunset reviews. The Appellate Body
found that it did not:
[N]one of the words in Article 11.9 suggests that the de minimis standard that it
contains is applicable beyond the investigation phase of a countervailing duty
proceeding. In particular, Article 11.9 does not refer to Article 21.3, nor to reviews
that may follow the imposition of a countervailing duty.115
7.88. The Appellate Body in the above extract was considering only whether the equivalent
provision in the SCM Agreement should apply "beyond" the investigation phase. A different result
is warranted in the factual c ircumstances of the present case, which concerns an original
investigation. We are in no doubt that Article 5.8 applies in original investigations . The application
of Article 5.8 means that there is no legally cognizable dumping by an exporter with a final
de minimis margin of dumping. Accordingly, imports from that exporter may not be treated as
"dumped imports" for the purpose of the Article 3 injury analysis.
7.89. In light of the above, we find that Canada acted in a manner inconsistent with Articles 3.1,
3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by treating imports from two Chinese Taipei
exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping as "dumped imports" in the CITT's analysis
and final determinations of injury and causation.
7.7 The treatment of f actors other than dumped imports in the causation analysis:
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.7.1 Introduction
7.90. Chinese Taipei's claims are based on the so-called "non-attribution" requirement set forth in
Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. After the first sentence of Article 3.5 requires the
investigating authorities to demonstrate that the dumped imports are, through the effects of
dumping, as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 4, causing injury, the third sentence provides:
The authorities shall also examine any known factors other than the dumped imports
which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry, and the injuries caused by
these other factors must not be attributed to the dumped imports.
Previous panel and Appellate Body re ports have established that investigating authorities are
thereby required to "separate and distinguish" any injury caused by other known factors from the
injury caused by the subject imports.116

7.91. Following a negative determination of present material injury , the CITT made an affirmative
determination that dumped imports were causing a threat of material injury. In its threat
determination, the CITT considered the potential injury caus ed by two known other factors.
Chinese Taipei submits that the CITT should also have considered potential injury caused by
two additional factors, namely: (a) the effect of subsidies provided in respect of imports from India
(that were also dumped); and (b) overcapacity in the domestic industry.

114 Canada's first written submission, para. 122; second written submission, para. 73 (both referring to
Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 80).
115 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 68. (emphasis original, fn omitted)
116 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 226.

7.7.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.7.2.1 The effect of subsidization
7.92. Chinese Taipei argues that the CITT failed to separate and distinguish the effect of the
subsidy from the effect of the dumping in respect of imports from India that were both subsidized
and dumped. Chinese Taipei submits that Canada thereby acted inconsistently with Article 3.5 and,
as a result, Article 3.1. Chinese Taipei contends that Canada thereby rendered inutile the words
"through the effects of dumping " contained in the first sentence of Article 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.117 According to Chinese Taipei, the fact that Article 3.5 calls for a
demonstration that the dumped imports are causing injury "through the effects of dumping "
implies that the investigating authority needs to separate any effects that are not the resul t of
dumping. In Chinese Taipei's view, when the same goods are both dumped and subsidized, there
may be effects of subsidization that are not directly reflected in the dumping margin , particularly
in cases where subsidization leads to lower prices without increasing the dumping margin .118
Chinese Taipei submits that without analysing the relationship between the 36 subsidy programs
available in India, including some non -export-oriented programs, and dumping in that country,
Canada could not have assumed that there is no need to distinguish between the effects of
dumping and the effects of subsidization.119
7.93. Canada denies that an investigating authority is required to determine that injury or threat
thereof was caused by the effects of the dumping specifically, a s opposed to the dumped imports
more generally. Canada submits that the Appellate Body established in Japan – DRAMs (Korea)
that there is no requirement under the Anti-Dumping Agreement to determine that the effect of
the dumping specifically caused or thr eatened to cause injury. 120 The central issue is rather
whether dumped imports caused or threatened to cause injury. Canada submits that, because all
subsidized imports from India were also dumped, it was not improper for the CITT to include those
imports in its causation analysis, without separating and distinguishing the subsidy and dumping
effects embodied within those imports.121
7.7.2.2 Overcapacity
7.94. Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to separat e and distinguish the effect of alleged overcapacity.
Chinese Taipei submits that this factor was "known" to the CITT as a potential cause of injury.122
7.95. Canada understands Chinese Taipei to equate overcapacity with low utilization of
capacity.123 Canada conten ds that, pursuant to Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
capacity utilization is an indicator of injury rather than a potential cause of injury. 124 According to
Canada, therefore, there was no need for the CITT to examine this factor in the context of its
non-attribution analysis. Canada contends that, e ven assuming that excess capacity may be a
cause of injury in certain cases, Chinese Taipei has not demonstrated that it was a known cause of
injury in the CSWP inquiry that the CITT had to examine in its threat of injury analysis.125
7.7.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.7.3.1 Brazil
7.96. Brazil submits that, since Canada made a finding of threat of material injury, the
non-attribution requirement in Article 3.5 does not apply. In Brazil's opinion, the legal standard
that should guide the causation assessment in the present case should be that foreseen in
Article 3.7, which makes reference to the obligation of an investigating authority to take into

117 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 94.
118 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 95.
119 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 101.
121 Canada's second written submission, para. 92.
122 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 156 and 157; second written submission, para. 107.
123 Canada's first written submission, para. 146.
124 Canada's first written submission, paras. 146 and 147.
125 Canada's second written submission, para. 98.

consideration several factors that might contribute to a threat of damage to the domestic industry,
such as those enshrined in subheadings (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of Article 3.7.126
7.7.3.2 European Union
7.97. The European Union observes that, according to Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
an investigating authority must demonstrat e that the dumped imports, "through the effects of
dumping", are causing injury to the domestic industry within the meaning of that Agreement. The
European Union is of the view that, as long as the prices are found to be dumped, subsidi zation
causing the d umping is irrelevant for the injury and causation analysis under Articles 3.1 and 3.5
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.127 In the view of the European Union, such subsidi zation should
not be considered under non-attribution analysis as an "other factor" of injury causing injury to the
domestic industry at the same time as dumped imports, (i.e. it should not be considered as
another factor that must be separated from or must not be attributed to the effects of dumped
imports in the sense of Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement).128
7.7.3.3 United States
7.98. The United States considers that Chinese Taipei's claims lack legal merit. The United States
asserts that, by its plain text, Article 3.5 requires an examination of known factors other than the
dumped imports, whereas Chinese Taipei would somehow require a non -attribution analysis with
respect to these same dumped imports. The United States asserts that, by definition, in the
context of applying Article 3.5, the dumped imports cannot simultaneously be both "dumped
imports" and "factors other than the dumped imports".129
7.7.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.7.4.1 The effect of subsidization
7.99. Chinese Taipei's claim concerns the CITT's investigation of imports from India that were
both dumped and subsidized. Chinese Taipei claims that the CITT should have separated the
subsidy and dumping effects in those imports, and shown that injury was caused by the dumping
effect only. Chinese Taipei's position is that the non-attribution provision requires the investigating
authority "to separate any effects that are not the result of dumping".130
7.100. Chinese Taipei's claim is inconsistent with the text of Article 3.5. The text of this provision
focuses the injury analysis on the effect of the dumped imports, rather than on the effects of the
dumping per se . The f irst sentence of Article 3.5 requires the investigating authority to
"demonstrate[] that the dumped imports are, through the effects of dumping, as set forth in
paragraphs 2 and 4, causing injury". The first sentence of Article 3.5 therefore refers to inju ry
being caused by the dumped imports that are the subject of the investigation, rather than by the
effects of dumping. Moreover, "effects of the dumping" is modified by the phrase "as set for th in
[Articles 3.2 and 3.4]". Article 3.2 requires investigatin g authorities to consider the volume and
price effects of the dumped imports. Similarly, Article 3.4 requires investigating authorities to
examine "the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry". The focus on the dumped
imports continues in the non-attribution provision in the third sentence of Article 3.5, which
requires investigating authorities to examine any known factors "other than the dumped imports"
which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry, and ensure that any injury cau sed by
such other factors is not attributed "to the dumped imports". Logically, the imports subject to the
investigation cannot simultaneously be both the "dumped imports" referred to in these provisions
and factors "other than the dumped imports" referred to in the third sentence of Article 3.5.
7.101. Chinese Taipei suggests that a focus on the effect of the dumped imports, as opposed to
the effect of the dumping, reads the words "through the effects of dumping" out of the first
sentence of Article 3.5. We disagree. As discussed above, the first sentence of Article 3.5 requires
the investigating authority to demonstrate that dumped imports are causing injury through the

126 Brazil's third-party submission, paras. 16 and 17.
127 European Union's third-party submission, para. 15.
128 European Union's third-party submission, para. 16.
129 United States' third-party statement, para. 11.
130 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 94.

effects of dumping "as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 4". This textual formulation indicates th at
information relating to the volume and price effects (Article 3.2) and the consequent impact of the
dumped imports on the domestic industry (Article 3.4) define the "effects of dumping" for
purposes of determining whether material injury is caused by du mped imports through those
effects. Provided a proper consideration and evaluation are undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2
and 4 of Article 3, the authority may properly demonstrate that dumped imports are causing injury
through the effects of dumping.
7.102. Our understanding of the text of Article 3.5 is consistent with the findings of the Appellate
Body in Japan – DRAMS (Korea). That case concerned the equivalent provision of the
SCM Agreement, i.e. Article 15.131 Like Chinese Taipei in the present case, Korea ar gued before
the Appellate Body inter alia that the panel's focus on the subsidized imports, rather than the
effect of the subsidization, would read the "through the effects of subsidy" language out of
Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement. The Appellate Body r ejected Korea's appeal on the basis
inter alia that:
It is clear from the architecture of Articles 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 that, for determining
whether the "subsidized imports are, through the effects of subsidies, causing injury"
to the domestic industry, w hat is required is the examination of the effects of the
subsidized imports as set forth in Articles 15.2 and 15.4. These paragraphs neither
envisage nor require the two distinct types of examinations suggested by Korea,
namely, an examination of the effec ts of the subsidized imports as per Articles 15.2
and 15.4; and, a second examination of the effects of the subsidies as distinguished
from the effects of the subsidized imports on a case-by-case basis.
…
We are therefore of the view that, if an investigat ing authority carries out the
examination required under Articles 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5, such examination suffices
to demonstrate that "subsidized imports are, through the effects of subsidies, causing
injury" within the meaning of the SCM Agreement.132
7.103. Chinese Taipei argues that the Appellate Body's findings are of limited utility because while
the Appellate Body found that there is no obligation to distinguish the effects of subsidies from the
effects of the subsidized imports it "did not address at all the distinction between the effects of
dumping and the effects of the subsidies". 133 Chinese Taipei therefore maintains its position that
the phrase "'through the effects of dumping' implies that the investigating authority needs to
separate any effects that are not the result of dumping". 134 In making this argument,
Chinese Taipei fails to recognize the full implications of the Appellate Body's findings for its claim.
The Appellate Body confirmed that there is no need for the investigating authority to analyse the
effect of the subsidy, as opposed to the effect of the subsidized imports. The starting point for
Chinese Taipei's argument, namely the focus on the effect of the dumping or subsidy, is therefore
flawed. The proper starting point for the causation and non-attribution analysis in an anti-dumping
investigation is rather the effect of the dumped imports. There is no obligation to "separate any
effects that are not the result of dumping" (such as effects that are the result of subsidization),
because there is in any event no need to isolate the effects that are the result of dumping.
7.104. Chinese Taipei asserts that its position is supported by the findings of the Appellate Body
in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China) . That case concerned Article VI:5 of the
GATT 1994, which prohibits the concurrent application of anti -dumping and countervailing duties
to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization. In considering the
meaning of the phrase "same situation", the Appellate Body o bserved that domestic subsidies will

131 Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement is virtually identical to Article 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The reference in Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to the effects of
dumping "as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 4" is provided for in fn 47 to Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.
Furthermore, Ministers have recognized "the need for the consistent resolution of disputes arising from
anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures". (Ministerial Declaration on Dispute Settlement Pursuant to
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 or Party V
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures).
132 Appellate Body Report, Japan – DRAMs (Korea), paras. 264 and 268.
133 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, paras. 91-93.
134 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 94.

generally affect the prices at which a producer sells its goods in the domestic market and in export
markets in the same way and to the same extent, so that any lowering of prices attributable to the
subsidy will be ref lected on both sides of the dumping margin calculation. The Appellate Body
contrasted this to the situation of an export subsidy, which will result in a pro rata reduction in the
export price of a product but not the price of domestic sales of that product , resulting in a higher
margin of dumping. 135 Chinese Taipei contends that this finding supports its position that there
may be situations where the effects of subsidies are unrelated to the effects of dumping.136
7.105. We do not consider that the findings in US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties
(China) offer any guidance for the interpretation of Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
That case concerned a different provision of a different Agreement and an entirely different issue.
No reference was made by the Appellate Body to the provisions governing causation or
non-attribution requirements. Furthermore, the conclusion that Chinese Taipei seeks to draw from
these findings is at odds with the above -mentioned findings made by the Appellate Body in
Japan – DRAMs (Korea), concerning the very same issue arising under the essentially identical
provision in the SCM Agreement. 137 The fact that the Appellate Body has suggested in a different
context that subsidies and dumping can have different effects is irrelev ant, since the
causation/non-attribution analysis is not focused on the dumping or subsidy effect.
7.106. For these reasons, we reject Chinese Taipei's claim that the CITT acted inconsistently with
Article 3.5 (and Article 3.1) by failing to separate the effect o f the subsidization from the effect of
the dumping in respect of subsidized and dumped imports from India.
7.7.4.2 Overcapacity
7.107. The Article 3.5 non -attribution requirement applies only in respect of other injurious
factors that are "known" to the investigating au thority. Chinese Taipei identifies two grounds for
asserting that "overcapacity" was "known" to the CITT as a cause of injury that should have been
examined pursuant to the non-attribution requirement: (a) the CITT's reference to "the significant
unused ca pacity of the domestic industry "138; and (b) the written submission made by
Knightsbridge, an interested party in the investigation.139, 140
7.108. We understand the CITT's reference to "the significant unused capacity of the domestic
industry" as referring to the low capacity utilization rates prevailing in the domestic industry during
the period of investigation, rather than overcapacity. 141 Low capacity utilization and overcapacity
are different concepts. This is acknowledged by Chinese Taipei itself:
TPKM considers that "low capacity utilization rates" and "overcapacity" are two distinct
concepts that should not be equated. As explained in TPKM's replies to questions from

135 Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), para. 568.
136 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 97.
137 We emphasise that Ministers have recognized "the need for the consistent resolution of disputes
arising from anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures". (Ministerial Declaration on Dispute Settlement
Pursuant to the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 or Party V of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures).
138 See CITT, Finding and Reasons, Injury Inquiry No. NQ-2012-003, 27 December 2012,
(Exhibit TPKM-14), para. 129.
139 See Knightsbridge International Corp., Submission to CITT related to the Preliminary Injury Inquiry
PI-2012-003, 18 June 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-16).
140 See Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 154 (Chinese Taipei refers to "this huge
overcapacity" immediately after citing the CITT's reference to "the significant unused capacity of the domestic
industry") and fns 116 and 117; and second written submission, fn 102. See also Chinese Taipei's response to
Panel question No. 3.4, para. 66 ("overcapacity was also apparent from the submission of one of the interested
parties called Knightsbridge").
141 The reference to "the significant unused capacity of the domestic industry" is properly understood in
its context. The first paragraph (para. 125) of the section entitled "Production, Capacity and Capacity
Utilization" in Exhibit TPKM-14 addresses domestic production. The beginning of the first sentence of para. 126
refers to "stable" production capacity. The second part of that first sentence observes that there were,
however, "very low utilization rates". The remainder of the CITT discussion in that section discusses those
capacity utilization rates. In this context, the reference in para. 129 to "the significant unused capacity of the
domestic industry" is properly understood as a continued reference to those same "very low [capacity]
utilization rates". (CITT, Finding and Reasons, Injury Inquiry No. NQ-2012-003, 27 December 2012,
(Exhibit TPKM-14)).

the Panel, while "overcapacity" stands for a situation where producer has capacity
much larger th an what is required by the demand on the market, the term "low
capacity utilization rates " refers to the actual production as a percentage of the total
(over-) capacity.142
7.109. Since low capacity utilization and overcapacity are, in the words of Chinese Taipei,
"two distinct concepts that should not be equated", the fact that the CITT knew of, and refers to,
low capacity utilization is not sufficient to establish that overcapacity was also "known" to the CITT
as a cause of injury.143
7.110. Chinese Taipei refers to page 2 of Knightsbridge's submission which provides in relevant
part:
In this case, we are all aware of the economic downturn affecting the majority of
industry. We are all operating at less than 50% of where we were at . This is a reality
that all business must adjust to. The ERW Pipe and Tube from the named countries
are not to blame for reduced sales and profitability. There remains a need for this
product to be imported to give customers access to a full product range and
competitive prices.144
7.111. Canada contends that this statement does not indicate that excess capacity was a cause of
injury in the CSWP investigation. Canada suggests that Knightsbridge does not refer to excess
capacity, but rather to a decline in the utilization of capacity, an indicator of injury listed in
Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Canada notes that, in the same paragraph of its
submission, Knightsbridge also refers to reduced sales and profitability, two other listed indicators
of injury.145
7.112. We understand Knightsbridge's statement that "[w]e are all operating at less than 50% of
where we were at" to mean that the industry in general was utilizing less than half of the capacity
that it had previously utilized. In other words, this statement again refers to low capacity
utilization, rather than overcapacity. Since the decline in capacity utilization could be caused by
dumped imports, rather than overcapacity, this statement is not sufficient to establish that
overcapacity was "known" to the CITT as an "other factor" causing injury.
7.113. In light of the above, we find that Chinese Taipei has failed to establish that overcapacity
in the domestic industry was "known" to the CITT as a factor causing injury to the domestic
industry. Accordingly, there is no basis for us to find that the CITT acte d in a manner inconsistent
with Article 3.5 (and Article 3.1) by failing to undertake a non-attribution analysis in respect of this
factor.
7.8 The use of facts available in the determination of the dumping margin and duty rate
for "all other exporters": Arti cle 6.8 and Annex II, paragraph 7, of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.8.1 Introduction
7.114. Chinese Taipei challenges the way in which the CBSA used facts available for determining
the dumping margin and duty rate for imports from non -cooperating exporters from
Chinese Taipei, hereinafter also referred to as "all other exporters". 146 Chinese Taipei asserts that
Canada violated Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraph 7, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because

142 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 104.
143 Chinese Taipei argues at para. 105 of its second written submission that overcapacity "may be the
cause of low capacity utilization rates". This is true. However, the fact that overcapacity may cause low
capacity utilization simply confirms that the two concepts are distinct. And the fact that overcapacity "may"
cause low capacity utilization demonstrates that the existence of low capacity utilization does not in and of
itself demonstrate the existence of overcapacity. This is because the low capacity utilization may also be
caused by other factors, such as dumped imports.
144 Knightsbridge International Corp., Submission to CITT related to the Preliminary Injury Inquiry
PI-2012-003, 18 June 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-16), p. 2 (emphasis added), cited in Chinese Taipei's first written
submission, at para. 154.
145 Canada's second written submission, para. 103.
146 In this dispute, we use the term "all other exporters" as per the parties' use of this term.

the CBSA used facts available in determining the dumping margin and dut y rate applicable to "all
other exporters" without complying with the conditions laid down in those provisions.
Chinese Taipei's claim does not concern the CBSA's resort to facts available per se . It is rather
concerned with the nature of the available fac ts that the CBSA relied on and the methodology
followed by the CBSA to determine the facts available.147
7.8.1.1 The relevant provisions
7.115. Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its Annex II, paragraph 7, set out the
requirements under which facts available can be resorted to. Article 6.8 provides that:
In cases in which any interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not
provide, necessary information within a reasonable period or significantly impedes the
investigation, preliminary and final determin ations, affirmative or negative, may be
made on the basis of the facts available. The provisions of Annex II shall be observed
in the application of this paragraph.
7.116. Annex II is entitled "Best Information Available in Terms of Paragraph 8 of Article 6".
Paragraph 7 thereof allows an investigating authority to base its determination on information
from a secondary source, subject to certain conditions. Paragraph 7 provides that:
If the authorities have to base their findings, including those with respect to n ormal
value, on information from a secondary source, including the information supplied in
the application for the initiation of the investigation, they should do so with special
circumspection. In such cases, the authorities should, where practicable, che ck the
information from other independent sources at their disposal, such as published price
lists, official import statistics and customs returns, and from the information obtained
from other interested parties during the investigation. It is clear, howev er, that if an
interested party does not cooperate and thus relevant information is being withheld
from the authorities, this situation could lead to a result which is less favourable to the
party than if the party did cooperate.
7.8.1.2 Factual background
7.117. The CBSA established the dumping margin and duty rate of 54.2% for "all other exporters"
on the basis of facts available. 148 The margin and rate were determined using the highest amount
by which the normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction for a cooperative
producer from any country subject to the investigation. 149 The relevant transaction was made by a
cooperating producer from a country other than Chinese Taipei.150
7.118. The CBSA explained its determination of the dumping margin for "all other ex porters" as
follows:
For all other exporters that did not provide the requested information during the
course of the dumping investigation, normal values were determined in accordance
with subsection 29(1) of SIMA, as in the opinion of the President, suffi cient
information has not been furnished or is not available to enable the determination of
normal value as provided in sections 15 to 23 of the Act. In accordance with the
ministerial specification, the normal values of the goods sold to the importer in
Canada were determined by advancing the export prices of the goods as determined
under section 24 of SIMA by the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded
the export price on an individual transaction (54.2%) for a cooperative exporter.
For all of t he other exporters, import pricing information available from the CBSA 's
internal information systems was used for the purposes of determining export price.

147 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 140.
148 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), paras. 112 and 198.
149 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), para. 110.
150 See Canada's and Chinese Taipei's responses to Panel question No. 4.6, para. 49 and para. 90,
respectively.

The subject goods exported to Canada by all other exporters during the POI were
found to be dumped by a margin of dumping of 54.2%, expressed as a percentage of
export price.151
7.119. With regard to the applicable duty rate, the CBSA stated:
Exporters of subject goods who did not provide sufficient information in the dumping
investigation will have normal value s established by advancing the export price by
54.2% based on a ministerial specification pursuant to section 29 of SIMA.
Anti-dumping duty will apply based on the amount by which the normal value exceeds
the export price of the subject goods.152
7.120. The Ministerial Specification referred to by the CBSA provided the following:
Pursuant to subsection 29(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA), I hereby
specify that where, in your opinion, sufficient information has not been furnished or is
not available to en able the determination of the normal value or the export price as
provided for in sections 15 to 28 of SIMA, the normal value or the export price of the
subject goods originating in or exported from Chinese Taipei, the Republic of India,
the Sultanate of O man, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, and the
United Arab Emirates, as the case may be, shall be determined in the following
manner:
a) The normal value shall be determined on the basis of the export price as
determined under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA, plus an amount equal to 54.2% of
that export price.
b) The export price shall be the selling price to the Canadian importer declared on
customs entry documentation, adjusted by deducting therefrom all costs, charges,
expenses, duties and taxes described in subparagraph 24(a)(i) to (iii) of SIMA, where
this information is included with the customs documentation.153
7.121. Section 5.12.2 of the SIMA Handbook entitled "Ministerial Specifications for Dumping
Purposes" provides in relevant part that:
For the purposes of the final determination, and … in respect of goods for which an
exporter is required to provide information and fails to provide a complete response,
normal values will be established by a ministerial specification pursuant to
subsection 29(1) of SIMA. Nor mal values of the goods will be based on the export
price determined under section 24 or 25 of SIMA plus an amount equal to the highest
margin of dumping (expressed as a percentage of the export price), found for the final
determination from exporters who were required to provide information and who fully
complied with the Agency's request for information.154
7.8.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.122. Chinese Taipei submits that the CBSA's reliance on the highest transaction-specific amount
of dumping for a non -Chinese Taipei exporter in its use of facts available is inconsistent with
Article 6.8, and Annex II, paragraph 7. This claim is based on the following three grounds.
7.123. First, referring to WTO case law to the effect that facts available must not be applied to
punish n on-cooperation, Chinese Taipei submits that the CBSA's use of the highest

151 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), paras. 110-112.
152 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), para. 198.
153 CBSA, Ministerial Specification, (Exhibit TPKM-20). Section 29(1) of SIMA, referred to in the
Ministerial Specification, provides that "[w]here, in the opinion of the President, sufficient information has not
been furnished or is not available to enable the determination of normal value or export price … the normal
value or export price, as the case may be, shall be determined in such manner as the Minister specifies."
(Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-15 (last amended on 1 November 2014), (Exhibits TPKM-25
and CAN-12) (exhibited twice), section 29(1)).
154 CBSA, SIMA Handbook, sections 5.12-5.14, (Exhibit TPKM-17), section 5.12.2. The SIMA Handbook
is a non-binding reference guide for the CBSA and provides a collection of its administrative practice.

transaction-specific amount of dumping was punitive. 155 Chinese Taipei argues that the CBSA's
final dumping determination shows that the CBSA considered the failure to provide requeste d
information itself as being sufficient to justify the automatic use of the highest dumping margin. 156
In support of its characterization of the CBSA's approach as punitive, Chinese Taipei observes that
the CBSA selected the worst or among the most adverse information possible. Chinese Taipei also
relies on the reference contained in the SIMA Handbook that failure to provide necessary
information should not benefit the exporter.157
7.124. Second, Chinese Taipei contends that the CBSA mechanistically relied on the hig hest
transaction-specific amount of dumping, the approach essentially provided for at paragraph 5.12.2
of the SIMA Handbook, without evaluating and assessing in a comparative manner the available
information on file in order to identify the "best informati on available" to reasonably replace the
information that the "all other exporters" failed to provide. 158 In making this argument,
Chinese Taipei emphasizes that the CBSA's determination does not contain any explanation
reflecting why it used the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the export price on
an individual transaction for one cooperating exporter and which other available facts it had
considered. In fact, according to Chinese Taipei, the CBSA ignored other information available on
the re cord, in particular the information provided by the cooperating exporters from
Chinese Taipei.159
7.125. Third, Chinese Taipei argues that by resorting to information pertaining to the highest
transaction-specific amount of dumping for a non -Chinese Taipei producer, the CBSA failed to
consider what would be the "best information available" for determining the dumping margin and
duty rate applicable to "all other exporters" from Chinese Taipei.160 Chinese Taipei asserts that
there is no logical relationship between th e rate of 54.2% and the exports from Chinese Taipei.161
It recalls that individual dumping margins had been determined for cooperating Chinese Taipei
exporters accounting for a vast majority of exports from Chinese Taipei. It contends that
information concer ning those cooperating Chinese Taipei exporters would have been more
representative for the Chinese Taipei market and its exports as a whole, and thus would have been
the most fitting or most appropriate information to use in the calculation of the dumping margin
and duty rate for "all other exporters" from Chinese Taipei.162
7.126. Canada denies that the CBSA's use of facts available was punitive under the specific
circumstances of the case.163 It emphasizes that the use of facts available may legitimately lead to
less favourable results in case of non-cooperation, as foreseen in the third sentence of paragraph 7
of Annex II and recognized in WTO jurisprudence. 164 Canada stresses that the investigating
authority is allowed to draw adverse inferences from the exporter's failure to cooperate. Canada
also asserts that the CBSA's use of facts available was based on verified facts gathered during the
investigation, and on reasonable inferences concerning exporters that decided not to participate in
the investigation. 165 Moreover, Canada argues that the CBSA's approach could not be deemed
punitive because it serves a legitimate policy purpose, namely encouraging participation of
exporters in investigations and preventing circumvention through non -cooperation.166 Given that
the CBSA did not use information from the petition, it also rejected the proposition that the worst
information available had been used as facts available.

155 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 178 (referring to Panel Reports, Mexico –
Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 7.238; and China – GOES, para. 7.302); second written submission,
paras. 109-129.
156 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 178.
157 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, paras. 113, 123, and 128; first written submission,
para. 178.
158 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 179; second written submission, paras. 130-136.
159 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 180; second written submission, para. 135.
160 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 182; second written submission, paras. 137-141.
161 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 182; second written submission, para. 139.
162 Chinese Taipei's opening statement at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 46; second written
submission, para. 139.
163 Canada's first written submission, paras. 160-168; second written submission, para. 118.
164 See references to, e.g. the Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 4.468
and 4.469; and Panel Report, EC – Countervailing Measures on DRAM Chips, paras. 7.60 and 7.61.
165 Canada's first written submission, para. 168.
166 Ibid.

7.127. Canada asserts that the CBSA undertook a proper comparative assessment of all
information on the record, wit hout acting "mechanistically" or "automatically" when resorting to
the highest transaction -specific amount of dumping for a cooperating exporter. 167 It submits that
the CBSA properly determined that the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the
export price found on an individual transaction made by a cooperating non-Chinese Taipei exporter
was "an appropriate basis" for establishing normal values for "all other exporters" from
Chinese Taipei.168 According to Canada, this determination was based on a careful evaluation and
comparative assessment of all available evidence on the record of the investigation, including
information provided by cooperating exporters from Chinese Taipei.169 Canada asserts that this is
demonstrated by the record of the CSWP i nvestigation, either explicitly, or by necessary
implication.170 Canada argues that the CBSA's flexibility in evaluating facts available permitted the
CBSA to conduct its comparative evaluation and assessment as part of the overall assessment of
the informat ion on the record instead of conducting a discrete analysis. 171 Moreover, the CSWP
investigation should be distinguished from instances where violations of Article 6.8 and Annex II of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement have been found, such as cases where an investi gating authority
simply used facts provided by the petitioner without further scrutiny, selected facts in an arbitrary
manner, or made determinations devoid of any factual foundation. 172 Canada also suggests that
the general practice of the CBSA to consider whether to disregard anomalous or aberrant
transactions when selecting facts available necessarily involved taking into account every export
transaction which ensured that the CBSA did not apply facts available in a "mechanistic" or
"automatic" manner.173
7.128. Canada recognizes that the information selected in the application of facts available must
have a logical relationship to the information missing from the record. However, Canada asserts
that Chinese Taipei failed to establish that the information selected, which pertained to actual sales
transactions of subject goods during the period of investigation, lacks such logical relationship with
exports from Chinese Taipei.174
7.129. Canada also rejects Chinese Taipei's argument that the CBSA should have taken into
account information pertaining to exporters from Chinese Taipei.175 Canada argues that the
obligations under Annex II, paragraph 7, are procedural in nature and entrust the investigating
authority with discretion and flexibility when selecting facts available. 176 Hence, they do not
require the CBSA to rely specifically on information provided by the cooperating exporters from
Chinese Taipei. Nor do they guarantee a specific outcome among different legitimate options.
In any event, Chinese Taipei may not request the Pan el to conduct a de novo review as to what
specific information the CBSA should have used in order to establish the margin of dumping and
duty rate for "all other exporters" from Chinese Taipei.177
7.8.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.8.3.1 European Union
7.130. The European Union argues that adverse inferences may be drawn under the disciplines of
Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its Annex II, paragraph 7.178 Moreover, to the
extent that the facts selected for establishing normal values are not devoid of factual fou ndation
and can contribute to arriving at an accurate determination for the non -cooperating exporters, the

167 Canada's first written submission, paras. 169-173.
168 Canada's first written submission, para. 171.
169 Canada's first written submission, para. 172. See also Canada's opening statement at the first
170 Canada's first written submission, para. 170 and Canada's opening statement at the first meeting of
the Panel, para. 51.
171 Canada's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 74; response to Panel
question No. 9.1, para. 28.
172 Canada's first written submission, para. 173.
173 Canada's response to Panel question No. 4.3, para. 39; second written submission, paras. 109-111.
174 Canada's first written submission, para. 175.
175 Canada's first written submission, para. 176.
176 Canada's first written submission, para. 176. See also Canada's second written submission,
paras. 127-129.
177 Canada's second written submission, para. 130.
178 European Union's third-party submission, paras. 24 and 25.

European Union considers the selection of adverse facts to be consistent with Article 6.8, and
Annex II, paragraph 7.179
7.8.3.2 United States
7.131. The United State s argues that the alleged insufficiency of the CBSA's explanation of the
basis for its application of facts available should be addressed under Article 12 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and not Article 6.8 thereof. 180 In the view of the United States, the
Panel should assess in accordance with Article 6.8 and Annex II whether the other exporters
refused access to, or otherwise did not provide information that was necessary to the investigation
within a reasonable period, or significantly impeded the investiga tion by CBSA. The Panel should
also assess whether the CBSA provided a sufficient basis for its application of the facts available to
the "all other exporters".181
7.8.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.132. This claim raises the issue of whether Canada acted in accordance with Article 6.8 and
Annex II, paragraph 7, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in respect of the facts used by the CBSA to
determine the margin of dumping and duty rate for "all other exporters".
7.133. We begin our analysis by examining Chinese Taipei's argument that the CBSA failed to
conduct a comparative evaluation and assessment of all the available facts. According to
Chinese Taipei, Article 6.8, and Annex II, paragraph 7, required the CBSA to undertake a
comparative evaluation and assessment of all the available evi dence when selecting facts
available. We observe that Chinese Taipei's argument is consistent with the applicable legal
standard under Article 6.8, and Annex II, paragraph 7, developed by WTO adjudicators.
In particular, we observe that the panel in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice found in
respect of Article 6.8, and Annex II:
The use of the term " best information" means that information has to be not simply
correct or useful per se , but the most fitting or "most appropriate" information
available in the case at hand. Determining that something is "best" inevitably
requires, in our view, an evaluative, comparative assessment as the term "best" can
only be properly applied where an unambiguously superlative status obtains. It means
that, for the condit ions of Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and Annex II to be
complied with, there can be no better information available to be used in the
particular circumstances. Clearly, an investigating authority can only be in a position
to make that judgement correctl y if it has made an inherently comparative evaluation
of the "evidence available".182
The panel's approach was upheld by the Appellate Body. 183 We agree with the legal standard
applied by the panel and Appellate Body in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice , and shall
apply it in the present case. 184 The requisite comparative evaluation and assessment necessarily
involves consideration and comparison of "all substantiated facts on the record", and must be
sufficiently reflected in the investigation's published reports.185

179 European Union's third-party submission, para. 27.
180 United States' third-party submission, para. 19.
181 United States' third-party submission, para. 20.
182 Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 7.166 (emphasis original). See also
Panel Report, China  Broiler Products, para. 7.312.
183 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 289. Although instances may
arise in which a comparative evaluation and assessment may not necessarily be required (see Appellate Body
Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.434), none of the parties have invoked such circumstances to apply
in the case at hand and the Panel has no reason to consider that the CBSA was not required to conduct a
comparative evaluation and assessment.
184 Canada also accepts that this legal standard applies to the CBSA.
185 Appellate Body Reports, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 4.421 and 4.424; and US – Countervailing
Measures (China), para. 4.179.

7.134. In the CSWP investigation, there were two relevant documents in the record of the
investigation, namely the CBSA's Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determinations of
Dumping and Subsidizing186, and the Ministerial Specification.187 The Statement of Reasons, in the
relevant sections on the dumping margin and duty rate for "all other exporters", states:
In accordance with the ministerial specification, the normal values of the goods sold to
the importer in Canada were determined by advancing the export prices of the goods
as determined under section 24 of SIMA by the highest amount by which the normal
value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction (54.2%) for a
cooperative exporter.188
Exporters of subject goods who did not provide su fficient information in the dumping
investigation will have normal values established by advancing the export price by
54.2% based on a ministerial specification pursuant to section 29 of SIMA.189
7.135. The Statement of Reasons contains no comparative evaluation o f the facts available, nor
any explanation of why the CBSA relied on the highest amount by which the normal value
exceeded the export price on an individual transaction for a cooperative exporter. It also does not
contain any alternative considerations. Th e Statement of Reasons refers simply to the Ministerial
Specification. That Ministerial Specification, though, also contains no reference to any comparative
evaluation of facts on the record, but instead is limited in relevant part to the statement that:
The normal value shall be determined on the basis of the export price as determined
under section 24, 25 or 29 of SIMA, plus an amount equal to 54.2% of that export
price.190
7.136. There is therefore nothing in the record's relevant documents to suggest that the CB SA
conducted any comparative evaluation or assessment of all available facts on the record before
determining the basis for the margin of dumping and duty rate for "all other exporters".191
7.137. Canada alleges that the Ministerial Specification was established on ly after a careful,
comparative and systematic evaluation and assessment of all the evidence on the record, on the
basis of a three-step methodology employed by the CBSA.192 In particular, Canada submits:
[T]hat the record of the CSWP investigation establish es either explicitly, or by
necessary implication, that the CBSA performed the following steps when selecting
facts available in the determination of normal values for non-cooperating exporters:
 First, the CBSA examined all information on the record, inclu ding information
provided in the complaint, information provided by cooperating exporters, and
customs documentation.
 Second, the CBSA considered whether the information presented by the
cooperating exporters, rather than information provided in other seco ndary
sources (e.g., the complaint), was the best information on which to base the
methodology for determining normal values.

186 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2).
187 CBSA, Ministerial Specification, (Exhibit TPKM-20).
188 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), para. 110.
189 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), para. 198.
190 CBSA, Ministerial Specification, (Exhibit TPKM-20), p. 1.
191 We note that section 5.12.2 of the SIMA Handbook provides for increasing export prices by an
amount equal to the highest amount of dumping found for a cooperating exporter as the default methodology
when establishing facts available for the determination of normal values. It does not refer to any comparative
evaluation and assessment of all available record evidence. It appears that in the CSWP investigation the CBSA
followed the approach set out in section 5.12.2 of the SIMA Handbook. (CBSA, SIMA Handbook,
sections 5.12-5.14, (Exhibit TPKM-17)).
192 Canada's first written submission, paras. 170-172.

 Third, after determining that verified information from the cooperating exporters
was appropriate, the CBSA examined the differenc e between normal value and
export price for each individual transaction for the exporters who provided
sufficient information in order to identify an appropriate margin for the ministerial
specification. In this process, the CBSA considered whether it was necessary to
disregard any of those transactions as anomalies or aberrations. Based on its
standard practice, the CBSA also took into account whether it was necessary to
make any adjustments based on "[c]ommon sense, fairness and other practical
considerations".193
7.138. At the first substantive meeting with the parties, the Panel asked Canada to explain in
detail, by reference to record evidence and relevant documentation, the basis for its assertion that
the record establishes either explicitly, or by necessary i mplication, that the CBSA had engaged in
a systematic evaluation of all of the information on the record. 194 Canada was unable to identify
any precise element of the record in this regard. Instead, Canada merely referred to the entire
Statement of Reasons, t aken as a whole. 195 Canada points to the parts of the Statement of
Reasons according to which the CBSA had issued requests for information to all potential exporters
and importers, considered their responses, issued supplemental requests for information,
conducted on -site verifications, and provided its analysis in respect of each cooperating
exporter.196 In addition, Canada refers to the ruling letters 197 sent to the individual cooperating
exporters, in particular those from Chinese Taipei, as providing further detail on the methodologies
used to calculate each individual exporter's normal values and export prices and as showing how
the CBSA had conducted a systematic evaluation of all of the information on the record for each
exporter.198
7.139. At the second substantive meeting with the parties, Canada maintained that the CBSA had
considered it "appropriate" to resort to the highest margin of dumping found for a cooperating
exporter in respect of a single transaction when selecting facts available. The Panel requested
Canada to explain why the CBSA had considered this approach appropriate in the present case and
to indicate where in the record this explanation is reflected. 199 In response, Canada repeated the
elements already mentioned above.200
7.140. The factors identified by Cana da fail, individually or taken as a whole, to show that the
CBSA conducted a comparative evaluation and assessment of all the facts on record when
selecting facts available in respect of the margin of dumping and duty rate for "all other
exporters". No ele ment referred to by Canada expressly or implicitly addresses the issue of
whether and, if so, how the CBSA evaluated and assessed the available information specifically
with respect to and for purposes of determining the dumping margin and duty rate for "a ll other
exporters". The investigative and procedural steps taken by the CBSA, also invoked by Canada as
part of the three -step methodology201, are entirely unrelated to the specific issue of the selection
of facts available in respect of "all other exporter s". They simply demonstrate that the CBSA
collected and verified a large volume of data. Collecting data is not the same as undertaking a
comparative and systematic evaluation and assessment of that data for the purpose of applying
facts available. Nor doe s checking for anomalies, aberrations , or the need for adjustments equate

193 Canada's first written submission, para. 170. (fn omitted)
194 Canada's response to Panel question No. 4.4.
195 Canada's response to Panel question No. 4.4, para. 41.
196 Canada's response to Panel question No. 4.4, paras. 41-44 (referring to the Statement of Reasons
concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), paras. 42, 44, and 52-102). See also Canada's second
written submission, para. 112.
197 Ruling letters were issued by the CBSA to give notice of the final dumping determinations, including
the relevant exporter's dumping margin and future normal values.
198 Canada's response to Panel question No. 4.4, para. 44; second written submission, para. 113
(referring to the relevant ruling letters provided as Exhibits TPKM-22 (CBSA, Final Dumping Determination
regarding Chung Hung Steel Corporation, 9 November 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-22) (BCI)); TPKM-23 (CBSA, Final
Dumping Determination regarding Shin Yang Steel Co. Ltd., 9 November 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-23) (BCI)); and
TPKM-24 (CBSA, Final Dumping Determination regarding Yieh Phui Enterprise Co. Ltd., 9 November 2012,
(Exhibit TPKM-24) (BCI))).
199 Canada's response to Panel question No. 9.1(ii).
200 Canada's response to Panel question No. 9.1(ii), para. 28.
201 See para. 7.137 above.

to a comparative evaluation and assessment. 202 Despite several specific requests from the Panel,
Canada failed to provide any indication as to how the CBSA determined that the highest
transaction-specific dumping margin from a cooperating exporter was appropriate, and even the
best fitting information, for establishing dumping margins and duty rates for "all other
exporters".203
7.141. In light of the above, we conclude that the CBSA applied fac ts available in respect of the
margin of dumping and duty rate for "all other exporters" without undertaking a comparative
evaluation and assessment of all the available information on the record before applying facts
available in respect of "all other exporters".
7.142. Regarding Chinese Taipei's argument that the CBSA should have relied on information
concerning the cooperating Chinese Taipei exporters as the most fitting or most appropriate
information, we recall our finding that the CBSA failed to conduct a co mparative and evaluative
assessment of all the record evidence when determining that the highest amount of dumping for a
specific transaction for any cooperating exporter should be used as facts available. Absent any
such comparative and evaluative assessm ent by the CBSA, the Panel has no basis on which to
determine whether information concerning cooperative exporters from Chinese Taipei would have
been the "best information available".
7.143. Considering the above, we do not need to reach a definitive conclusion in respect of
Chinese Taipei's argument that the CBSA used facts available to punish "all other exporters" from
Chinese Taipei. We observe, however, that both parties accept that any punitive use of facts
available is inconsistent with the disciplines on f acts available.204 They also share the view that
duty rates for non -cooperating exporters – based on facts available – may serve to encourage
cooperation and prevent anti -dumping duty circumvention. We do not disagree. There may be a
fine line between, on th e one hand, incentivizing cooperation and preventing circumvention and,
on the other hand, punishing non-cooperating exporters. In the case at hand, it appears to us that
by singling out the highest transaction -specific amount of dumping from a cooperative exporter
without any comparative evaluation and assessment, and without any form of explanation, the
CBSA went beyond what was appropriate and necessary to achieve the objectives of encouraging
cooperation and preventing circumvention.205
7.144. In light of the above, we find that the CBSA acted in a manner inconsistent with Article 6.8
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and its Annex II, paragraph 7, when establishing the dumping
margin and duty rate for "all other exporters" on the basis of the highest amount by whic h the
normal value exceeded the export price on an individual transaction for a cooperative producer
from any country subject to the investigation.
7.9 The treatment of imports of new product models or types
7.9.1 Introduction
7.145. Under a prospective normal value duty a ssessment system as operated by Canada, the
amount of anti -dumping duty is generally equivalent to the difference between the export price
and the pre-determined, or prospective, normal value established for the particular product model
being imported. Prospective normal values are usually established during the investigation for the
models or types of the product subject to the investigation to the extent that such models or types
have been exported by foreign producers/exporters to Canada during the period of investigation.
7.146. A difficulty arises in the event that a producer/exporter exports new product models or
types after the investigation has been completed and an anti -dumping measure is imposed. Such

202 It is more than obvious that the fact that a transaction is not anomalous or aberrant or does not
need adjustment does not mean that it is appropriate to use as facts available.
203 See the second step of the CBSA's methodology invoked by Canada.
204 This is in line with established WTO case law. (See Panel Reports, China – GOES, para. 7.302; and
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 7.238; and Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India),
para. 4.468).
205 We do not exclude that there could be circumstances in which a single transaction made by a
cooperating exporter may appropriately be selected as facts available. However, the onus would be on the
investigating authority to explain the need for such an approach.

product models or types will not have been examined du ring the investigation, since they did not
exist or were not exported to Canada during the period of investigation. Consequently, the
investigating authority will not have established any normal values for them. Accordingly,
anti-dumping duties cannot be a ssessed by simply comparing the export price to a model -specific
prospective normal value. This claim concerns the determination by the CBSA of the alternative
basis for duty assessment to be used for new product models or types.
7.147. In its Final Determination , the CBSA established an amount of duty for imports of new
product models or types from two investigated and cooperative Chinese Taipei exporters using
facts available. The CBSA determined that the amount of duty would be the difference between the
export price and the export price increased by 54.2%. 206 This is the same methodology as it used
for establishing the facts available duty rate for "all other exporters" .207 This margin of dumping is
significantly higher than the de minimis margins of dumping that h ad been determined for the
Chinese Taipei exporters at issue in the original investigation.
7.148. Chinese Taipei pursues a number of claims concerning the CBSA's determination.
First, Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Article 9.3 because the anti -dumping duty
applied in respect of new product models or types is the same as the all others rate, and therefore
does not reflect the margin of dumping established for the relevant exporters during the original
investigation. Second, Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Article 6.8 and Annex II of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement because it resorted to facts available for the calculation of the normal
value for new product types without finding that the relevant exporters had failed to cooperate.
Third, Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
because it calculated normal values for new product models or types of cooperating exporters on
the basis of a methodology that is not foreseen in Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Fourth, Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
because, in establishing a second margin of dumping for new product models or types, Canada
determined more than one individual margin of dumping for the cooperating exporters. We discuss
each of these claims below.
7.9.2 The relevance of the margin of dumping established during the investigation :
Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.9.2.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.149. Chinese Taipei's claim is based on the chapeau of Article 9.3, which provides that
"the amount of the anti -dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping as established
under Article 2".
7.150. Chinese Taipei claims that Canada improperly applied anti -dumping duties on imports of
new product mode ls or types for investigated and cooperative exporters on the basis of the
residual duty rate, rather than using the margins of dumping established for those exporters
during the original investigation. 208 In particular, Chinese Taipei claims that in a prosp ective
normal value system, such as the one in Canada, the normal value calculated for the purposes of
determining the dumping margin during the original investigation constitutes the relevant
benchmark when determining the anti -dumping duty.209 Chinese Taipei claims that the margin of
dumping established by the CBSA for each exporter during the original investigation was
necessarily for the product under investigation as a whole for each exporter. 210 Chinese Taipei
submits that because new product types still fall within the category of the product under
investigation, a margin of dumping had already been established for those product types during
the investigation. Chinese Taipei contends that, consistent with the chapeau of Article 9.3, the
anti-dumping dutie s collected on imports of new product models or types should therefore not
exceed the margin of dumping established during the investigation.

206 See, for example, CBSA, Final Dumping Determination regarding Chung Hung Steel Corporation,
9 November 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-22) (BCI), appendices 2 and 3.
207 See above at para. 7.117.
208 Chinese Taipei's opening statement at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 56; second written
submission, para. 157.
209 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 163.
210 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 212.

7.151. Canada contends that Chinese Taipei ignores that the chapeau of Article 9.3 contains a
general obligation that is implemented through the more specific sub -paragraphs of that
provision.211 Canada suggests that the Appellate Body has found that Members comply with
Article 9.3 by refunding any excess duties collected:
The sub -paragraphs of Article 9.3 – including, of part icular relevance here,
sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 – specify in greater detail how investigating authorities are to
comply with this more general obligation, namely, by providing for refunds to
respondents whose duties have exceeded their dumping margins. Artic le 9.3.1 deals
with such refunds for Members employing a retrospective system for the assessment
and collection of anti -dumping duties, whereas Article 9.3.2 deals with those
Members, such as Mexico, employing a prospective system.212
7.152. According to Canada, Members that employ prospective normal value systems comply with
Article 9.3 by following the obligations under Article 9.3.2. Canada observes that, under
Article 9.3.2, a refund for overpayment of duties is available if: (a) an importer of subject goods
actually pays anti-dumping duties; and (b) that importer requests a refund for overpayment that is
duly supported by evidence. Canada asserts that, because no evidence on the record indicates that
Chinese Taipei exports of new product models have been subject to an initial duty assessment, let
alone an assessment that has been subject to a refund request, the CBSA cannot be said to have
violated Article 9.3.2 or the general obligation under Article 9.3.213 Canada submits that
Chinese Taipei's claim is therefore premature, and must be rejected on the basis that
Chinese Taipei has not established a prima facie case of violation.
7.153. Furthermore, Canada denies that the ceiling for anti -dumping duties under Article 9.3 is
limited to the margin of dumping established for the product as a whole in the original
investigation. Canada contends that Chinese Taipei's position is contradicted by case law
concerning the payment and collection of anti -dumping duties in prospective normal value
systems. First, Canada relies on the f inding by the Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties panel
that the margin of dumping established during the investigation was not the ceiling for the levy of
anti-dumping measures. 214 Canada also relies on the finding by the panel in EC – Salmon
(Norway), in the specific context of duty assessment conducted on a prospective basis, that
anti-dumping duties should not exceed the actual margin of dumping determined on the sales that
are subject to duty assessment.215
7.9.2.2 Main arguments of third parties
7.9.2.2.1 European Union
7.154. The European Union understands that Canada operates a prospective duty assessment
system, which is explicitly authorised under Article 9.3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
The European Union contends that it is in the nature of such a system that anti -dumping duties
assessed on a prospective basis are subject to final assessment, so that the importer of the
product is entitled to obtain, upon request, a prompt refund of any such duty paid in excess of the
margin of dumping. 216 The European Union asserts tha t there is no indication that the
Anti-Dumping Agreement excludes the possibility for an authority to assess the amount of duties
on a prospective basis in respect of product types or models for which a normal value has not
previously been determined, because such types or models of subject products were not exported
to the territory of that authority during the period of investigation. 217 Provided that all the
obligations in Article 9.3.2 are complied with, the European Union regards the operation of a
prospective duty assessment system, and its application to new types or models of products

211 Canada's first written submission, paras. 196 and 197; second written submission, para. 136.
212 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 311. (emphasis original)
213 Canada's first written submission, para. 199.
215 Canada's first written submission, para. 202.
216 European Union's third-party submission, para. 37.
217 European Union's third-party submission, para. 39.

subject to an anti -dumping investigation, as being consistent with the basic requirements of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.218
7.9.2.3 Evaluation by the Panel
7.155. The chapeau of Article 9.3 establishes a general requirement that the amount of
anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping. 219 As discussed elsewhere in this
Report, the phrase "margin of dumping" is exporter -specific.220 The Appellate Body has explained,
in reference t o the chapeau of Article 9.3, that investigating authorities "are required to ensure
that the total amount of anti -dumping duties collected on the entries of a product from a given
exporter shall not exceed the margin of dumping established for that export er".221 This finding
reflects the fact that the chapeau of Article 9.3 establishes a fundamental link between : (a) a
particular exporter's margin of dumping ; and (b) the maximum amount of anti -dumping duty
applicable to imports from that particular exporter. According to its title, Article 9 governs both the
imposition and collection of anti -dumping duties. The margin of dumping established for an
exporter therefore serves as a ceiling for the amount of anti -dumping duty imposed or collected in
respect of imports from that exporter.
7.156. Canada argues 222 that, in the context of a prospective normal value or variable duty
assessment system, the ceiling for anti -dumping duties under Article 9.3 need not be restricted to
the margin of dumping established in the origina l investigation. Instead, the ceiling may be
determined by reference to the "actual" margin of dumping referred to in Article 9.3.2. Canada's
argument is consistent with the finding by the panel in EC – Salmon (Norway) that:
[T]he obligation in Article 9.3 to ensure that anti -dumping duties are not collected in
excess of the "margin of dumping as established under Article 2" does not prohibit an
investigating authority from imposing and collecting anti -dumping duties in excess of
the margin of dumping calcu lated in the original investigation. In the specific context
of duty assessment conducted "on a prospective basis", which is the situation that is
before us at present as regards the application of the fixed duties, what is important
in terms of compliance with Article 9.3 (and Article 9.1) of the AD Agreement is that
any duties imposed and collected on investigated parties do not exceed the actual
margin of dumping determined on the sales that are subject to duty assessment.223
7.157. We agree with this finding. If an updated, "actual" margin of dumping is determined with
respect to particular imports at some time after the original investigation has been completed, that
updated margin of dumping serves as the ceiling for the amount of anti-dumping duty that may be
imposed or assessed on those imports. In other words, the ceiling for the imposition or collection
of anti-dumping duties is the exporter -specific margin of dumping prevailing at any given time.
However, recognizing that an exporter's margin of dumping may change over time is very different
from allowing a particular exporter's margin of dumping to be ignored, and the duty ceiling for that
exporter to be established by reference to some other exporter's data.
7.158. Even if the margin of dumping established in the original investigation is subsequently
replaced by an updated, "actual" margin of dumping, the updated margin of dumping still relates
to the particular exporter at issue. The findings of the EC – Salmon (Norway) panel do not
envisage anti-dumping duties be imposed or collected with respect to imports from one exporter
by reference to some other exporter's margin of dumping. The panel explicitly stated that the
updated, "actual" margin of dumping must "represent[] the difference between an investigated
party's normal value and the export price of the transaction subject to duty assessment". 224

218 European Union's third-party submission, para. 40.
219 We note that the Appellate Body has referred to the chapeau as containing a "general obligation".
(See Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 311). The Appellate Body has also
referred to the "overarching requirement" set forth in the chapeau of Article 9.3. (See Appellate Body Report,
220 See above, paras. 7.18-7.37.
221 Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (EC), para. 130.
222 Canada's second written submission, paras. 147-152.
223 Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.760 (fns omitted, emphasis original). The same
approach was taken by the panel in Argentina – Footwear (EC).
224 Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.749.

We emphasise in this regard the panel's reference to the updated margin of dumping still being
based on the "investigated party's normal value".
7.159. In this case, we are not dealing with a situation where the margins of dumping established
for the relevant exporters determined during the investigation were replaced by updated, "actual"
margins of dumping established for those same exporters. Nor did Canada use normal values
determined for those exporters in establishing a duty rate for imports of new models or types of
the product from those exporters. Rather, the CBSA established a duty rate for such imports from
these two exporters based on data collected during the origina l investigation from a different
exporter. The CBSA thereby failed to preserve the fundamental link, established by the chapeau to
Article 9.3, between the amount of the anti -dumping duty imposed or collected in respect of a
given exporter and a margin of dumping established for that exporter. There is no basis in the
findings of EC – Salmon (Norway) panel for the CBSA's approach and determination.225
7.160. Canada argues that Members comply with the chapeau of Article 9.3 by complying with the
obligations under Article 9.3.2. Canada refers in this regard to the Appellate Body's finding in US –
Continued Zeroing that "[t]he collection of anti -dumping duties on the basis of a prospective
normal value is only an intermediate stage of collection, since it is subject to final assessment and
'a prompt refund, upon request', under Article 9.3.2".226 Canada also refers to the Appellate Body's
finding in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice that "[t]he sub -paragraphs of Article 9.3 …
specify in greater detail how investigatin g authorities are to comply with [the] more general
obligation [set forth in the chapeau], namely, by providing for refunds to respondents whose
duties have exceeded their dumping margins."227
7.161. Canada's reliance on these Appellate Body findings is not well -founded. These cases
addressed different issues , and n othing in the Appellate Body's findings suggests that
anti-dumping duties may be imposed on imports from one exporter on the basis of the margin of
dumping established for another exporter. Nor do we read the Appellate Body as finding that the
fundamental link between the margin of dumping established for an exporter and the amount of
duty imposed or collected in respect of that exporter, established in the chapeau of Article 9.3,
does not apply at the intermediate stage of collection.228
7.162. We do not accept that the Appellate Body's findings should be interpreted to mean that, in
the context of a prospective normal value duty assessment system, a Member may initially impose
whatever anti -dumping duty it choose s, provided there is a refund mechanism consistent with
Article 9.3.2. Article 9.3.2 simply provides that, under a prospective assessment system,
"provision shall be made for a prompt refund". Such a refund mechanism certainly establishes one
means of ensuring that duty collection remains consistent with the requirements of the chapeau of
Article 9.3. However, this does not mean that the provision of an effective refund mechanism
addresses all potential violations of the chapeau of Article 9.3.229 If it did, there would be no need
for the chapeau.
7.163. In the context of a retrospective assessment system, the Appellate Body has stated that
"Article 9.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is subject to the overarching requirement in
Article 9.3 that the amount of anti -dumping duty 'shall not exceed the margin of dumping as
established under Article 2' of that Agreement".230 We consider that this statement applies equally

225 Canada also invokes the findings of the panel in Argentina – Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties. Although
that panel accepted the use of variable anti-dumping duties, there is nothing in the findings of that panel to
support the approach adopted by Canada in respect of new product model types.
226 Canada's first written submission, para. 204 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Continued
Zeroing, para. 295). (emphasis original)
227 Canada's second written submission, para. 138 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Mexico –
Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 311).
228 Indeed, the fact that the Appellate Body refers in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice to
refunds for respondents "whose duties have exceeded their dumping margins" rather confirms this
fundamental link. (Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 311
(emphasis added)).
229 Canada observes that Article 18.3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement refers to "refund procedures"
under paragraph 3 of Article 9. (Canada's response to Panel question No. 10.2, para. 34). We do not read this
to mean that Article 9.3 is concerned exclusively with refund procedures.
230 Appellate Body Report, US – Stainless Steel (Mexico), para. 102.

in respect of Article 9.3.2. 231 If the refund mechanism provided for in sub -paragraph 1 and 2 of
Article 9.3 remains "subject to" the "overarching requirement" of the chapeau, the chapeau must
have application independently of those refund mechanisms.
7.164. In addition, if the chapeau of Article 9.3 were understood to allow the approach taken by
Canada, any Member could impose an anti -dumping duty that is so high that imports effectively
cease, and argue that it was not acting inconsistently with Article 9.3 because its refund
mechanism ensured compliance. But the absence of imports would preclude any refund
proceeding, and interested parties could be left without recourse under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.232
7.165. Canada further contends that, without recourse to facts available, anti -dumping duties
could "never" be collected on new models. 233 This is also not correct. Withou t resolving the
question of how anti -dumping duties may be imposed or collected in respect of new product
models or types in a prospective normal value system, we note that Canada has explained that it
can initiate "re-investigations" to determine normal values for future imports of new product model
types not covered by the original investigation. 234 Anti-dumping duties in respect of new product
models or types could be collected once the re -investigation is complete. In the meantime,
reasonable security cou ld be required, pursuant to the first paragraph of the Ad Note to
Article VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 1994. Alternatively, anti -dumping duties in respect of imports of
new product models or types could initially be collected on the basis of the normal value(s)
established for the relevant exporter or other relevant information from the original investigation.
We note in this regard Canada's statement that "[i]t is a reasonable starting point to apply
information from the original investigation to imports of new product models subject to an ongoing
anti-dumping measure when there is no other information available in relation to those
imports".235 We do not disagree. However, in such a case, the information from the original
investigation to use as a starting point m ust pertain to the exporter in question, and not to some
other exporter.
7.166. Finally, we note Canada's argument that Chinese Taipei's Article 9.3 claim is premature,
because no imports of new product model types have yet been assessed, and no refund
proceeding has yet taken place. As explained above, we consider that the chapeau to Article 9.3
applies independently of Article 9.3.2 (or Article 9.3.1 in respect of retrospective assessment
systems).236 The chapeau applies whenever an anti -dumping duty is imposed or collected.
It therefore applies when an anti -dumping duty is imposed, even if the absence of imports means
that no duty is actually collected. Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that a
matter may be referred to the DSB provided "final act ion has been taken … to levy definitive
anti-dumping duties". Canada acknowledges that "final action" has been taken, in that the CBSA
has put in place a mechanism that will lead to the imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties
when new models or types are imported.237 For these reasons, we see no basis to conclude that
Chinese Taipei's claim is premature.

231 We also observe that Article 9.3.2 does not even refer to prospective normal value duty assessment
specifically (it refers more generally to duty assessment "on a prospective basis"). We therefore consider it
unlikely that provision of an effective refund mechanism would necessarily cover all possible issues arising in
such a duty assessment system.
232 Canada asserts that our interpretation of the chapeau of Article 9.3 would lead to the result that an
investigating authority would comply with Article 9.3 by providing an appropriate refund, yet violate Article 9.3
by collecting duties in excess of the appropriate amount. (Canada's response to Panel question No. 10.2,
para. 37). However, as explained above, the chapeau imposes a requirement that the amount of duty imposed
or collected in respect of imports from an exporter shall not exceed the margin of dumping established for that
exporter. Breach of this requirement cannot be remedied through the Article 9.3.2 refund mechanism.
233 Canada's first written submission, para. 209.
234 Canada's response to Panel question Nos. 5.10 and 7.3.
235 Canada's response to Panel question No. 5.9, para. 73.
236 This is consistent with the finding by the panel in EU – Biodiesel (Argentina) that the European Union
violated Article 9.3 by imposing anti-dumping duties in excess of the margin of dumping that should have been
established under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, independent of any finding under Articles 9.3.1
or 9.3.2. (Panel Report, EU – Biodiesel (Argentina), para. 7.367).
237 Canada's response to Panel question No. 10.2, para. 33. Canada contends that the fact that "final
action" has been taken does not allow a complaining party to disregard substantive elements of treaty
obligations. We recall that the chapeau to Article 9.3 imposes an overarching requirement of broad application,
independent of Articles 9.3.1 and 9.3.2. Accordingly, the substantive elements of the chapeau are not being
ignored.

7.9.3 The CBSA's use of facts available : Article 6.8 and Annex II of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.9.3.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.167. Chinese Taipei submits that Cana da violated Article 6.8 and Annex II of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by resorting to facts available for the calculation of the duty rate for
imports of new product models or types from cooperating Chinese Taipei exporters without
complying with the conditio ns laid down in those provisions. 238 Chinese Taipei contends that it is
only when the interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide, the necessary
information or when it significantly impedes the investigation that the investigating autho rity is
allowed to use other information for making its preliminary and final determinations. 239
Chinese Taipei notes that the CBSA never determined that the relevant exporters had failed to
cooperate with its investigation in any way. 240 Furthermore, Chinese Taipei submits that it cannot
be claimed that cooperating exporters refused access to or did not provide "necessary information"
given that such information was "non-existent". Otherwise, according to Chinese Taipei, this could
lead to the result that an i nterested party which fully participates and cooperates in the
investigation could be subject to facts available determinations simply because it did not provide
information that was non-existent.241
7.168. Chinese Taipei also submits that, even if the use of facts available had been warranted, by
using the highest margin of dumping calculated for a single transaction concerning an exporter
from another country, the CBSA failed to use the "best information available ", or the "most
appropriate information available ".242 Chinese Taipei asserts that the information provided by the
two cooperating exporters themselves in the original investigation would constitute the
"best information available".243
7.169. Canada justifies its recourse to facts available in respect of new product models or types
by arguing that, without recourse to facts available, anti -dumping duties could "never" be levied
on new models. 244 Referring to panel and Appellate Body reports concerning the use of facts
available for determining residual rates for unknown or non-existing exporters245, Canada suggests
that an investigating authority may resort to facts available in situations where they act to the best
of their ability to seek out all relevant information from interested parties under investigation.
Canada as serts that the CBSA sought all relevant information from exporters during the initial
investigation246 and the re -investigation.247 Canada submits that Chinese Taipei has presented no
evidence showing that the CBSA failed to consider information relevant to ne w product models.
Canada also contends that, when claiming that the CBSA's application of the ministerial
specification248 contravenes paragraph 7 of Annex II, Chinese Taipei fails to recognize the variety

238 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 217.
239 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 226.
240 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 227.
241 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 227; second written submission, para. 165.
242 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 232.
243 Ibid.
244 Canada's first written submission, para. 209.
245 Canada's first written submission, para. 210 and fn 165 (quoting Panel Reports, China – Autos (US),
para. 7.130: "a residual duty rate may be determined on the basis of facts available if the record of the
investigation shows that the [investigating authority] took all reasonable steps that might be expected from an
objective and unbiased [investigating authority] to specify in detail the information requested from unknown
producers"; China – Broiler Products, para. 7.302: "Article 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement implicitly
recognises that an anti-dumping duty may be applied even to the category of producers/exporters who did not
exist, or did not export during the POI, until they request an individual rate through a new-shipper review";
and China – GOES, para. 7.390: "[w]hile the Panel agrees that there is indeed a gap in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding how dumping margins should be calculated for unknown exporters,
Article 6.8 and Annex II are very explicit regarding the conditions that must exist before an investigating
authority may resort to facts available. The existence of a lacuna in the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not
mean that the conditions should be ignored in order to fill the gap. Although the lack of guidance in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement may leave investigating authorities with some discretion regarding the calculation of
margins of dumping for unknown exporters, in our view, this discretion should not extend to acting
inconsistently with the express terms of Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II").
246 Statement of Reasons concerning the Final Determination, (Exhibit TPKM-2), paras. 20 and 21.
247 See CBSA, Notice of Conclusion of Re-Investigation, Dumping case AD/1396, 7 May 2013,
(Exhibit TPKM-15).
248 See para. 7.120 above.

of review procedures under Canada's trade remedies r egime that fairly accommodate exporters
and importers of new product models of subject goods. Canada observes that importers may seek
re-determinations of the duty assessment and exporters may request re -investigations with
respect to their normal values. Canada asserts that, so long as an exporter cooperates with these
review procedures, duty assessments on new product models can be adjusted, and duties paid will
be refunded, if warranted, consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
7.9.3.2 Evaluation by the Panel
7.170. Article 6.8 provides that facts available may only be used when an interested party refuses
access to, or otherwise does not provide "necessary information" within a reasonable period, or
significantly impedes the investigation. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Annex II, use of facts available
is subject to the investigating authority having "specif[ied] in detail the information required", and
having ensured that the party is aware that if information is not supplied within reasonable time,
it may resort to facts available.
7.171. The CBSA did not apply facts available on the basis of the conditions set forth in Article 6.8
or Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Indeed, Canada acknowledges that these exporters
"fully cooperated in the original investigation". 249 Furthermore, Canada asserts that "because the
CBSA requires a model -specific normal value to assess duties, it uses facts available for product
models it has yet to investigate". 250 Since the CBSA had "yet to investigate" the new product
models or types at issue , there could be no basis for any determination that the Chinese Taipei
exporters failed to provide any necessary information requested by the CBSA in the investigation
thereof. In these circumstances, the CBSA's use of facts available did not meet the req uirements
of Article 6.8 or Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.251
7.172. Canada suggests that the CBSA's reliance on facts available in the present case is
supported by the approach taken in WTO dispute settlement to the application of facts available in
respect of the determination of all others rates for unknown exporters. According to Canada, these
decisions suggest that an investigating authority may resort to facts available in situations where
they act to the best of their ability to seek out all relevant information from interested parties
under investigation.252 Canada refers in this regard to the findings of the panels in China – Autos
(US), China – Broiler Products, and China – GOES.
7.173. None of these cases support the CBSA's resort to facts available in res pect of imports of
new product model types from cooperative exporters, since none of these cases allow the use of
facts available outside of the conditions identified in Article 6.8 and Annex II. Indeed, in China –
GOES, the panel stated specifically that although "there is indeed a gap in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding how dumping margins should be calculated for unknown
exporters, Article 6.8 and Annex II are very explicit regarding the conditions that must exist before
an investigating authority ma y resort to facts available. The existence of a lacuna in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement does not mean that the conditions should be ignored in order to fill the
gap."253 Furthermore, although in China – Autos (US) the panel accepted that facts available could
potentially be used to determine the all others rate for unknown exporters, the panel found in that
case that the investigating authority had failed to comply with the Annex II:1 requirement to
"specify in detail to the unknown exporters the information req uired from them for the
determination of the residual AD rate". 254 The panel in China – Broiler Products also insisted on
compliance with Annex II:1, ultimately finding that the need for the relevant necessary

249 Canada's response to Panel question No. 5.5, para. 51. Canada asserts that it requested information
in respect of new product models as part of its re-investigation that concluded on 7 May 2013. (Canada's
response to Panel question No. 5.8, para. 65; see also second written submission, paras. 159-161). However,
we note that facts available were applied for new product models or types in the CBSA's final determination for
the original investigation. Canada does not contend that relevant information was requested in the original
investigation.
250 See Canada's response to Panel question No. 5.6, para. 53.
251 In the alternative, even if the conditions for resort to facts available were considered to have been
met by Canada, the CBSA's actual selection of the facts on which to base its determination has already been
shown to be flawed. The facts relied on by the CBSA in this context are the same as used by the CBSA to
establish the rate for "all other exporters". As explained above, the CBSA failed to undertake any comparative
evaluation or assessment of all available information on the record in selecting those facts.
252 Canada's first written submission, para. 210.
254 Panel Report, China – Autos (US), para. 7.133.

information had been adequately communicated to interested parties. 255 In all three cases,
therefore, recourse to facts available was evaluated in light of the requirements of Article 6.8 and
Annex II. In the present case, as outlined above at paragraph 7.171 those requirement s have
plainly not been met, and the CBSA's use of facts available is inconsistent with those provisions.
7.174. Canada also argues 256 that Chinese Taipei has presented no evidence showing that the
CBSA failed to consider information relevant to new product models or types. This argument is not
persuasive, since the burden is on Canada to demonstrate that the investigating authority
informed interested parties of the information that was required of them and of the possibility that
facts available would be used if t hat information was not provided, and that those parties failed to
cooperate in the provision of that necessary information. There has been no such demonstration in
the present case. On the contrary, as noted above, Canada has confirmed that the relevant
exporters cooperated fully with the CBSA during the original investigation.
7.175. Finally, we note Canada's argument that the CBSA was required to resort to facts available
in order to fill a "gap" 257 in the WTO anti -dumping disciplines. We are not persuaded that t here is
any gap in the relevant WTO disciplines. As explained in the previous section, other methods were
open to Canada to impose or collect anti -dumping duties in respect of imports of new product
models or types from investigated and cooperative exporte rs, without resorting to facts available.
Furthermore, even if there were a gap in the disciplines, we agree with the abovementioned
finding of the panel in China – GOES that "[t]he existence of a lacuna in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement does not mean that the conditions [of Article 6.8 and Annex II] should
be ignored in order to fill the gap".258
7.176. For the above reasons, we uphold Chinese Taipei's claim that the CBSA's use of facts
available to determine the amount of anti -dumping duty imposed or collected on impo rts of new
product models or types from investigated and cooperative exporters is inconsistent with
Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
7.9.4 The determination of normal values for new product models or types: Article 2.2
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.9.4.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.177. Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
because it calculated normal values for imports of new product models or types from investigated
exporters on the basis of a metho dology that is not foreseen in Article 2.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.259
7.178. Canada notes that Chinese Taipei has not referred to a single shipment of a new product
model by one of its exporters that was subject to the treatment that Chinese Taipei alleges
violates Article 2.2.260 Moreover, even if the CBSA had applied the ministerial specification to
establish normal values for new product models, Chinese Taipei's argument under Article 2.2
would still be flawed because the obligations under Article 2.2 presuppose that an investigating
authority has the information necessa ry to calculate normal values. 261 Canada asserts that an
investigating authority is not in a position to determine model -specific normal values for new
product models when they are imported as they have yet to be investigated. Canada asserts that
Chinese Taipei ignores this, and does not explain how the CBSA could properly apply one of the

255 Panel Report, China – Broiler Products, para. 7.306.
256 Canada's first written submission, para. 210.
257 Canada's first written submission, para. 209.
258 Panel Report, China – GOES, para. 7.390. In its response to Panel question No. 5.7, at para. 61,
Canada similarly suggests that investigating authorities enjoy flexibility with regard to the treatment of new
model types for the purpose of duty assessment (because the Anti-Dumping Agreement is silent on this issue).
Canada argues that the CBSA's application of facts available to establish normal values for new product model
types was in line with that flexibility. We disagree. Whatever flexibility might exist for Members assessing
anti-dumping duties under a prospective normal value assessment system, the use of facts available is
circumscribed by the requirements of Article 6.8. Facts available may not be used outside of the conditions set
forth in that provision.
259 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 234; second written submission, para. 178.
260 Canada's first written submission, para. 214.
261 Canada's first written submission, para. 215.

Article 2.2 methodologies to new models of subject goods exported to Canada after the original
CSWP investigation.262 Canada submits that, in the absence of the required information, Article 6.8
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement permits the CBSA to use facts available from the original
investigation to determine a normal value for new product models or types.263
7.9.4.2 Evaluation by the Panel
7.179. We have already upheld Chinese Taipei's Article 9.3 and 6.8 claims concerning the CBSA's
determination of the amount of anti-dumping duty imposed or collected on imports of new product
models or types from investigated and cooperative exp orters. Chinese Taipei's Article 2.2 claim is
concerned with essentially the same issue regarding the CBSA's methodology. It is therefore not
necessary for us to also evaluate that additional claim in order to effectively resolve this dispute or
provide guidance in the event this issue arises in implementation.
7.9.5 The determination of an additional margin of dumping: Article 6.10 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement
7.9.5.1 Main arguments of the parties
7.180. Chinese Taipei submits that Canada violated Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
because it determined more than one individual margin of dumping for investigated Chinese Taipei
exporters.264 In particular, Chinese Taipei contends that after establishing an individual margin of
dumping for the product of each producer as a whole, the CBSA calculated the duty for new
product types on the basis of the highest dumping margin found for a different exporter. According
to Chinese Taipei, this additional step results in the determination for the same exporting producer
of two different dumping margins, namely the dumping margin established for the subject product
during the investigation and a residual dumping margin applicable to new model types of the
subject product.265
7.181. Canada contends that Chinese Taipei's claim is premised on an incorrect interpretation of
the term "margin of dumping" and a fundamental misunderstanding of Canada's prospective duty
assessment system. The CBSA would not be establishing two margins of dumping for cooperating
Chinese Taipei exporters in the event it applied the ministerial specification to establish normal
values for new product models.266
7.182. According to Canada, Chinese Taipei fails to take into account that, under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, "margins of dumping" are not specific to a particular product m odel or
export transaction, but instead are determined for all export transactions from a particular
exporter or producer, pertaining to products within the same defined scope over a designated
period of time.267 In US – Zeroing (Japan), the Appellate Body made this clear when it found that:
A product under investigation may be defined by an investigating authority. But
"dumping" and "margins of dumping" can be found to exist only in relation to that
product as defined by that authority. They cannot be found to exist for only a type,
model, or category of that product. Nor, under any comparison methodology, can
"dumping" and "margins of dumping" be found to exist at the level of an individual
transaction.268

262 Canada's first written submission, para. 216.
263 Canada's first written submission, para. 217.
264 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 243; second written submission, para. 183.
265 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 247.
266 Canada's first written submission, para. 221.
267 Indeed, at paras. 198 and 199 of its first written submission, Chinese Taipei itself acknowledges this.
(Canada's first written submission, para. 222).
268 Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (Japan), para. 115. (emphasis original, fns omitted)

7.183. Canada asserts that a "margin of dumping", by definition, cannot be based on transactions
pertaining only to specific product models. 269 Canada submits therefore that, what Chinese Taipei
claims is a second margin of dumping for new product models is nothing of the sort.
7.184. Canada further asserts that the general rule under Article 6.10 has limited relevance after
the conclusion of an anti -dumping investigation, since in Canada's system the margin of dumping
for a particular exporter calculated during the investigation phase has no relevance during the
enforcement phase. During the latter phase, the CBSA compares the relevant normal value to an
individual export transaction price to determine the appropriate amount, if any, of the
anti-dumping duty to be collected. Canada recalls that the calculation of an anti -dumping duty on
this basis does not constitute a determination of a "margin of dumping". This is the case
regardless of whether the normal value for a particular product model was established during the
investigation or is established by ministerial specification during the enforcement phase.270
7.9.5.2 Evaluation by the Panel
7.185. We have already upheld Chinese Taipei's Article 9.3 and 6.8 claims concerning the CBSA's
determination of the amount of anti-dumping duty imposed or collected on imports of new product
models or types from investigated and cooperative exporters. Chinese Taipei's Article 6.10 claim is
concerned with essentially the same issue (in the sense that Chinese Taipei alleges that the
residual margin of dumping established for new product models or types cons titutes a second
exporter-specific margin of dumping not envisaged by Article 6.10). It is therefore not necessary
for us to also evaluate that additional claim in order to effectively resolve this dispute or provide
guidance in the event this issue arises in implementation.
7.10 Additional claim under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of
the GATT 1994
7.10.1 Introduction
7.186. Chinese Taipei has also raised a claim under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article VI of the GATT 1994 regarding all the measures contested in the sections above.
7.10.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.187. Chinese Taipei argues that the alleged violations of the Anti-Dumping Agreement discussed
in the sections above entail a violation of Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of
the GATT 1994.271
7.188. Canada insists that it acted in accordance with its obligations under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and that there is therefore no basis for Chinese Taipei's consequential
claim under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.272
7.10.3 Evaluation by the Panel
7.189. We observe that t hese are consequential claims. As a consequence of the violations of
Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.8, 6.8, 9.2, and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and its
Annex II (including its paragraph 7) found above, we also find that Canada has acted
inconsistently with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
To the extent that we have rejected Chinese Taipei's claims above, we also reject its claim under
Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.

269 Canada's first written submission, para. 223 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Stainless Steel
(Mexico), para. 120).
270 Canada's first written submission, para. 225.
271 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 249; second written submission, para. 186.
272 Canada's first written submission, para. 229.

7.11 "As such" claims concerning subsection 2(1), section 30.1, and subsections 35(1),
35(2), 38(1), and 41(1) of SIMA
7.11.1 Introduction
7.190. Chinese Taipei claims that certain provisions of SIMA, n amely subsection 2(1),
section 30.1, and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), and 41(1) of SIMA, are inconsistent, "as such",
with Articles 1, 5.8, 7.1(ii), 7.5, and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI:2 of
the GATT 1994. 273 According to Chinese Taipei, the crux of these claims is the fact that the
challenged provisions of SIMA improperly provide for a de minimis-test on a country -wide, rather
than an exporter-specific basis.274
7.11.2 Main arguments of the parties
7.191. Chinese Taipei's "as such" claims are in substance similar to the "as applied" claims
addressed above. For the most part, Chinese Taipei's "as such" claims are therefore based on the
arguments already advanced in that context 275, in particular the argument that the second
sentence of Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires immediate termination in respect
of exporters with individual de minimis margins of dumping.
7.192. Canada also relies principally on the arguments it made in respect of Chinese Taipei's
"as applied" claims. 276 Regarding the Article 5.8 "as such" claim specifically, Canada denies that
this provision requires termination on the basis of exporter -specific margins of dumping. Canada
also asserts that subsection 43(1) of SIMA in any event provides the CITT with discretion to
exclude exporters with de minimis margins of dumping from the affirmative injury findings,
thereby terminating the investigation in respect of such exporters in accordance with the second
sentence of Article 5.8.277
7.193. Chinese Taipei disagrees that subsection 43(1) of SIMA gives the CITT discretion to
exclude exporters from the injury analysis specifically based on their de minimis margins of
dumping.278 Chinese Taipei asserts that there is no reference in the text of subsection 43(1) of
SIMA to exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping, and that this discretion appears to be
entirely unrelated to the challenged provisions. 279 Chinese Taipei also submits that it is not aware
of any instance in the CITT's past practice in which this provision has been used to exclude an
exporter on the basis of an individual margin of dumping being de minimis.280 Chinese Taipei cites
in this regard the example of Conares, an exporter from the United Arab Emirates in the CSWP
investigation, whose request for producer exclusion under subse ction 43(1) of SIMA was denied –
and an affirmative threat of injury determination was made – even though a zero dumping margin

273 In response to Panel question No. 11.10, paras. 14-17, Chinese Taipei clarified that it claims that:
(a) subsection 38(1) of SIMA, read together with subsection 2(1), section 30.1 as well as subsections 35(1)
and 35(2), is "as such" inconsistent with Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; (b) subsection 41(1) of
SIMA, read together with subsection 2(1) and section 30.1, is "as such" inconsistent with Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement; (c) subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), and 41(1) of
SIMA are "as such" inconsistent with Articles 7.5 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
(d) subsection 2(1), section 30.1, subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), and 41(1) of SIMA are "as such"
inconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. Canada does not
contest Chinese Taipei's understanding of the operation of SIMA, nor does it contest the scope of the SIMA
provisions challenged by Chinese Taipei.
274 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 255.
275 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 265-267, 269-274, 280-285, and 287-289.
276 Canada's first written submission, paras. 239, 244, and 249.
277 Canada's first written submission, paras. 245-247; second written submission, paras. 169-176.
We also understand Canada to invoke subsection 43(1) of SIMA in response to Chinese Taipei's "as such"
claims under Articles 1 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as under Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
(See Canada's first written submission, paras. 253 and 256 and fn 185).
278 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 6.1, paras. 119-124; second written submission,
paras. 197-204.
279 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 6.1, para. 120; second written submission,
paras. 200 and 201.
280 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 6.1, para. 121; second written submission,
para. 202.

had been found for this exporter.281 Chinese Taipei also refers to a statement made by the CITT in
the CSWP investigation in which it "reiterate[d] that producer exclusions are typically not
appropriate other than in the most specific set of circumstances". 282 In the view of Chinese Taipei,
this leaves no room for the CITT to exclude producers having de minimis margins of dumping.
7.194. In addition, Chinese Taipei advances three arguments according to which the exclusion of
exporters pursuant to subsection 43(1) of SIMA could not, in any case, satisfy the requirements of
the second sentence of Article 5.8. First, Chinese Taipei contends that Article 5.8 imposes a
positive obligation and does not allow for any type of discretion in deciding on the termination of
the investigation. 283 Second, Chinese Taipei contends that excluding an exporter from an injury
finding is not the same as terminating t he investigation in respect of such exporter. 284 Finally,
Chinese Taipei claims that for "immediate termination" as contemplated in Article 5.8 to occur,
termination would need to be decided by the CBSA, and not the CITT.285
7.195. Canada asserts that the CITT's past practice regarding the exclusion of de minimis
exporters under subsection 43(1) of SIMA is irrelevant to the assessment of Chinese Taipei's
claim.286 Canada suggests that the Panel should instead focus its analysis on the wording of
subsection 43(1) of SIMA .287 Canada also submits that Chinese Taipei has ignored
subsection 43(1) of SIMA in making its "as such" claims. 288 According to Canada, the burden is on
Chinese Taipei to demonstrate that subsection 43(1) of SIMA does not grant the CITT discretion to
exclude exporters with de minimis margins of dumping. Canada contends that Chinese Taipei has
failed to adduce evidence to this effect.289
7.196. Regarding Chinese Taipei's argument that Article 5.8 precludes any form of discretion to
exclude relevant exporters, Canada po ints out that this proposition is inconsistent with
WTO jurisprudence according to which an "as such" violation cannot be found if discretion exists
that allows a WTO Member to comply with its WTO obligations. 290 In addition, Canada argues that
the exclusion of de minimis exporters from the CITT's affirmative injury finding is consistent with
the Appellate Body's statement that "immediate termination" is in most cases achieved through
exclusion from the scope of the order establishing the definitive anti-dumping duties.291
7.11.3 Main arguments of third parties
7.11.3.1 United States
7.197. Without taking any position on the merits of the alleged "as such" inconsistency, the
United States submits that the Panel's assessment should focus on whether SIMA and SIMR
require WTO -inconsistent conduct or provide discretion to Canada's investigating authority to
comply with its WTO obligations.292 In case Chinese Taipei could show that SIMA and SIMR require
Canada to act in a WTO -inconsistent manner or preclude WTO -consistent action, Chinese Taipei

281 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 208; see also CITT, Finding and Reasons, Injury
Inquiry No. NQ-2012-003, 27 December 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-14), para. 181.
282 Chinese Taipei's second written submission, para. 203 (quoting CITT, Finding and Reasons, Injury
Inquiry No. NQ-2012-003, 27 December 2012, (Exhibit TPKM-14), para. 181).
283 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 6.1, para. 122; second written submission,
paras. 205-207.
284 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 6.1, para. 123; second written submission,
para. 208.
285 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 6.1, para. 124; second written submission,
para. 209.
286 Response of Canada to a question put by Chinese Taipei through the Panel at the first substantive
meeting. See also Canada's second written submission, paras. 180 and 182; and opening statement at the
second meeting of the Panel, para. 104.
287 Canada's second written submission, para. 183.
288 Canada's response to Panel question No. 11.2, para. 48; comments on Chinese Taipei's response to
289 Canada's second written submission, paras. 177 and 180.
290 Canada's second written submission, para. 179.
291 Canada's second written submission, paras. 186 and 187.
292 United States' third-party submission, para. 25.

should prevail on its claims. Moreover, the United States submits that past practice may serve, in
certain circumstances, as evidence for the "as such" inconsistency of a challenged measure.293
7.11.4 Evaluation by the Panel
7.198. The crux of Chinese Taipei's "as such " claims concerns the fact that SIMA bases the
de minimis-test on a country -wide, rather than an exporter -specific margin of dumping.
We therefore begin with this claim. In doing so, we recall our earlier finding that the second
sentence of Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires immediate termination of the
investigation in respect of exporters for whom a final determination has established individual
de minimis margins of dumping. We also recall our rejection of many of the arguments that
Canada also relies on to rebut Chinese Taipei's "as such" claim under Article 5.8.
7.199. With regard to the final dumping determination, the application of a country -wide
de minimis-test is provided for in subsection 41(1) of SIMA.294 In the circumstances of this case, to
prevail with its "as such" claim under Article 5.8, Chinese Taipei must demonstrate that
subsection 41(1) of SIMA necessarily leads to WTO -inconsistent conduct or prevents
WTO-consistent conduct, by precluding the termination of an investigation in res pect of exporters
with an individual de minimis margin of dumping. 295 Chinese Taipei has shown that this provision
of SIMA requires a final dumping determination to be made in respect of all goods of a country,
i.e. including those from exporters with individual de minimis margins of dumping, if that country's
margin of dumping is 2% or more. 296 The text of subsection 41(1) of SIMA only provides for
termination of the investigation when there is a country -wide de minimis margin of dumping.
It does not provide f or immediate termination in respect of exporters with individual de minimis
margins of dumping, contrary to the requirement of the second sentence of Article 5.8.
We therefore conclude that Chinese Taipei has established a prima facie case that
subsection 41(1) of SIMA is "as such" inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 5.8.297
7.200. Canada contends that subsection 43(1) of SIMA provides the CITT with discretion to
immediately terminate investigations in respect of exporters with de minimis margins of dumping,
as required by Article 5.8. We shall therefore consider whether this provision is sufficient to rebut
the prima facie case of WTO-inconsistency established by Chinese Taipei.298
7.201. Subsection 43(1) of SIMA reads in relevant part:
[The CITT shall] not late r than one hundred and twenty days after the date of receipt
of notice of a preliminary determination with respect to the goods, make such order or

293 United States' third-party response to Panel question No. 3.1, paras. 10 and 13.
294 Consistent with Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 11.10, para. 16, we read
subsection 41(1) of SIMA together with subsection 2(1) and section 30.1 of SIMA.
295 Appellate Body Reports, US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 172; and US –
Carbon Steel, para. 157.
296 Section 41(1) of SIMA provides, in relevant part, that a final determination of dumping shall only be
made if, among others, "the margin of dumping of … the goods of that country or of any of those countries is
not insignificant". (Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-15 (last amended on 1 November 2014),
(Exhibits TPKM-25 and CAN-12) (exhibited twice)).
297 Where the meaning and content of the challenged provision are clear on its face, as it is the case
here, an analysis of its text may suffice to establish the "as such" inconsistency of the challenged provision.
(See Appellate Body Reports, US – Carbon Steel, para. 157; and US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset
Review, para. 168).
298 Our conclusions in respect of subsection 43(1) of SIMA apply irrespective of which party bears the
burden of proof regarding the operation of this provision. Nevertheless, we do not accept Canada's argument
that it was Chinese Taipei's burden to establish that subsection 43(1) of SIMA does not allow the CITT to
exclude exporters based on their de minimis margin of dumping. Nothing in the text of the relevant provisions
suggests that the mandatory provision of subsection 41(1) of SIMA should be viewed in light of the discretion
contained in subsection 43(1) of SIMA. The provisions concern the distinct issues of dumping and injury
determinations to be made by different authorities. Past practice also indicates that exclusions under
subsection 43(1) of SIMA are made on the basis of the potential for injury, rather than the extent of an
exporter's margin of dumping. In the absence of any apparent nexus between subsections 41(1) and 43(1) of
SIMA, Chinese Taipei was not required to identify, and discharge a burden of proof with respect to,
subsection 43(1) of SIMA in making its "as such" claim in this case. The burden was rather on Canada, as the
defending party, to assert and demonstrate that subsection 43(1) of SIMA provides sufficient discretion for
Canada to act in a manner consistent with the second sentence of Article 5.8.

finding with respect to the goods to which the final determination applies as the
nature of the matter may r equire, and shall declare to what goods, including, where
applicable, from what supplier and from what country of export, the order or finding
applies.299
7.202. Upon completion of an injury inquiry, the CITT makes an affirmative or negative finding in
respect of whether the dumped imports have caused or are threatening to cause material injury to
the domestic industry. 300 Subsection 43(1) requires the CITT to specify to what goods, suppliers
(i.e. exporters) or countries such an affirmative finding applies. In exerci sing its discretion under
subsection 43(1), the CITT can exclude certain goods, exporters or countries from the application
of an affirmative final injury finding. Canada argues that absent any express limitations, this
discretion is sufficiently broad to allow the CITT to exclude exporters with de minimis margins of
dumping from the affirmative injury findings. 301 When specifically asked by the Panel, Canada
confirmed that the CITT is able to make such exclusion solely on the basis of an exporter's
individual margin of dumping being de minimis.302 Canada also confirmed to the Panel that, in the
absence of any statutory limitation on the CITT's discretion under subsection 43(1) of SIMA, such
exclusion would be consistent with the mandate and statutory role of the CITT.303
7.203. Bearing in mind the absence of any express textual limitations on the type of exporter
exclusion that may be made by the CITT under subsection 43(1) of SIMA, and taking into account
the assurances provided by Canada in this respect, we do not excl ude that subsection 43(1) of
SIMA might operate in the manner explained by Canada. 304 However, the second sentence of
Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that the termination of the investigation in
respect of de minimis exporters must be "imm ediate". As explained in the following, we are not
persuaded that any termination of an investigation by way of a producer exclusion under
subsection 43(1) of SIMA would occur with the degree of immediacy required by Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
7.204. In Canada's bifurcated anti -dumping regime, the final dumping determination is issued by
the CBSA, and the final injury determination is issued by the CITT. Exclusion under
subsection 43(1) of SIMA only becomes effective once the CITT issues its final injury
determination, and that final injury determination is only m ade approximately one month
(or more) after the CBSA's final dumping determination. 305 Thus, even though the CBSA
determines that an exporter's final margin of dumping is de minimis, the investigation will continue
to apply in respect of that exporter until such time as the CITT issues its final injury determination.
7.205. The text of the second sentence of Article 5.8 Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that
"[t]here shall be immediate termination in c ases where the authorities determine that the margin
of dumping is de minimis". It is the final determination of an exporter's de minimis margin of
dumping that triggers the obligation to terminate the investigation. Textually, termination must
follow "immediately" thereafter. The text of Article 5.8 does not allow for the continuation of the
investigation in respect of that exporter beyond the final dumping determination, pending issuance
of the final injury determination at some later date, as envisaged u nder subsection 43(1) of

299 Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-15 (last amended on 1 November 2014),
(Exhibits TPKM-25 and CAN-12) (exhibited twice). The term "preliminary determination" refers to the
preliminary dumping determination issued by the CBSA pursuant to subsection 38(1) of SIMA; the term "final
determination" refers to the final dumping determination issued by the CBSA pursuant to subsection 41(1) of
SIMA; the terms "order or finding" refer to the actual decision made by the CITT pursuant to subsection 43(1)
of SIMA following its injury analysis conducted under subsection 42(1) of SIMA as to whether or not dumped
imports have caused or are threatening to cause injury. (See Canada's response to Panel question No. 11.3,
para. 50).
300 Canada's second written submission, para. 170.
301 Canada's second written submission, para. 177; opening statement at the second meeting with the
Panel, para. 104; and response to Panel question No. 11.8, paras. 64 and 66.
302 Canada's response to Panel question No. 11.8, para. 64.
303 Canada's response to Panel question No. 11.8, para. 66.
304 Such an approach would be contrary to current CITT policy. However, we do not exclude that the
CITT has sufficient discretion to change that policy in light of a proper interpretation of Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
In the underlying CSWP investigation, the CBSA issued its final dumping determination on 9 November 2012,
and the CITT issued its final injury determination on 11 December 2012.

SIMA.306 Subsection 43(1) of SIMA therefore does not result in the "immediate" termination
required by Article 5.8.
7.206. Our interpretation of "immediate" termination under Article 5.8 is consistent with our
findings in relation to Articl e 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, interpreted in light of Article 5.8.
Imports from exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping should not be treated as
"dumped imports" in the CITT's final injury analysis, precisely because the investigation shoul d
already have been terminated in respect of such exporters. 307 Our approach is also consistent with
the fact that the Canadian anti -dumping legislation foresees termination of the investigation
immediately after the determination of a country-wide de minimis margin of dumping is made. 308
Thus, the CBSA terminated the CSWP investigation in respect of Turkey (based on Turkey having a
de minimis country-wide margin of dumping) on the same day that the CBSA issued its final
dumping determination, i.e. on 9 November 2012.309
7.207. Canada argues that the Appellate Body's findings in Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on
Rice provide support for its position that exclusion from the CITT's final injury determination under
subsection 43(1) of SIMA constitutes immediate termination within the meaning of Article 5.8.
Canada refers in this regard to the Appellate Body's statement that "the only way to terminate
immediately an investigation, in respect of producers or exporters for which a de minimis margin
of dumping is determined, is to exclude them from the scope of the order" that establishes the
anti-dumping duties.310
7.208. The facts of the present case are very different from those in Mexico – Anti-Dumping
Measures on Rice . That case concerned Mexico's unitary anti -dumping system, under w hich the
dumping and injury determinations are made simultaneously by the same investigating authority,
and the issuance of the order imposing anti -dumping duties is the ultimate step of the
investigation following those final determinations.311 The situation is very different under Canada's
bifurcated system. Here the CITT issues its final injury determination approximately one month
(or more) after the CBSA issues its final determination.
7.209. The Appellate Body did not contemplate how immediate termination shou ld occur in such
situations, where further investigative steps are taken following issuance of the final dumping
determination.312 There is nothing in the Appellate Body's findings to suggest that, in such
circumstances, termination under Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, rather than being
"immediate", may be delayed until those additional investigative steps have been undertaken.
Furthermore, the fact that the CBSA terminates the investigation in respect of countries with
de minimis margins of dumpi ng at the same time that it issues its final dumping determination
demonstrates that exclusion from the order (via exclusion from the CITT's injury determination) is
not "the only way" to immediately terminate an investigation in the context of Canada's bi furcated
system.

306 The term "immediate" is commonly defined to mean "present or nearest in time; most urgent,
occurring or taking effect without delay; done at once, instant". (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn,
A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 1330). An investigation could not be said to be
terminated "without delay" or "at once" if it could continue following the final determination of a de minimis
margin of dumping.
307 Under Canada's approach, provisional duties would continue to be levied in respect of de minimis
exporters until the CITT's injury determination is issued. (See Canada's response to Panel question No. 11.6,
para. 58). We see no basis for imposing provisional duties on exporters in respect of which the investigation
should already have been terminated pursuant to a final determination of de minimis dumping. Even if those
provisional duties are subsequently refunded, exporters subject to such duties suffer commercial inconvenience
that should normally be avoided as a result of immediate termination of the investigation under Article 5.8 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
308 See Special Import Measures Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. S-15 (last amended on 1 November 2014),
(Exhibits TPKM-25 and CAN-12) (exhibited twice), subsection 41(1)(b).
309 CBSA, Decision, Final Determinations Dumping and Subsidizing, 9 November 2012, Canada Gazette
2012.I.146.47 (24 November 2012), pp. 3172 and 3173, (Exhibit TPKM-12).
310 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 219. (emphasis original)
311 See Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, paras. 2.6 and 2.7 and fn 4; and
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 219.
312 The Appellate Body specifically qualified its analysis with the remark that "in most cases" termination
of the investigation in respect of a de minimis exporter would occur through the order imposing anti-dumping
duties. (Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 219). In other cases,
therefore, an alternative means of termination may be required.

7.210. We conclude that exclusions from the injury findings under subsection 43(1) of SIMA do
not constitute immediate termination as required under Article 5.8. Accordingly, we find that
subsection 43(1) of SIMA is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of WTO -inconsistency
established by Chinese Taipei in respect of subsection 41(1) of SIMA. We therefore find that
subsection 41(1) of SIMA, read together with section 30.1 and subsection 2(1) of SIMA, is
"as such" inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 5.8.
7.211. Chinese Taipei also claims that subsection 38(1) of SIMA, read together with
subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1) and 35(2) of SIMA, is "as such" inconsistent
with Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because this provision requires an affirmative
preliminary dumping determination to be made for exporters with de minimis margins of dumping
when the country -wide margin of dumping is more than de minimis.313 Above, we have rejected
Chinese Taipei's "as applied" claim that Canada acted inconsistently with Article 7.1(ii) by imposing
provisional anti -dumping measures on a Chinese Taipei exporter with a preliminary de minimis
margin of dumping. Similarly, there is no basis for us to find that subsection 38(1) of SI MA is
"as such" inconsistent with Article 7.1(ii). We therefore reject Chinese Taipei's "as such" claim
under Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
7.212. Chinese Taipei also challenges subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2),
38(1), and 41(1) of SIMA as being inconsistent "as such" with Articles 7.5 and 9.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Chinese Taipei submits that these provisions of SIMA require affirmative
preliminary and definitive dumping determinations to be made for exporters wi th de minimis
margins of dumping when the country -wide margins of dumping is above the de minimis level,
thereby causing anti -dumping duties to be collected from such exporters. 314 Canada does not
contest that the challenged provisions of SIMA result in duty imposition on imports from such
exporters. We recall our earlier finding that the imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties in
respect of imports from exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping is inconsistent with
Article 9.2. Accordingly, we find that the challenged provisions of SIMA are "as such" inconsistent
with Article 9.2, to the extent that they result in the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on
exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping . Above, however, we have rejec ted
Chinese Taipei's "as applied" claim that the imposition of provisional measures in respect of
exporters with a preliminarily determined de minimis margin of dumping is inconsistent with
Article 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Consequently, we also r eject Chinese Taipei's
"as such" claim under Article 7.5.
7.213. Chinese Taipei also claims that subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2),
38(1), and 41(1) of SIMA are inconsistent "as such" with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. To the extent that we have found subsection 2(1), section 30.1
and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1) , and 41(1) of SIMA to be "as such" inconsistent with
Articles 5.8 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, we also find that these pr ovisions of SIMA
are, as a consequence, "as such" inconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. To the extent that we have rejected Chinese Taipei's claims
concerning subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsecti ons 35(1), 35(2), 38(1) , and 41(1) of SIMA
under Articles 7.1(ii) and 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, we also reject its claim of "as such"
inconsistency under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
7.12 "As such" claims c oncerning subsections 42(1), 42(6), and 43(1) of SIMA and
subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR
7.214. Chinese Taipei argues that subsections 42(1), 42(6) , and 43(1) of SIMA and
subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are, as such, inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Chinese Taipei contends that these provisions result in the
treatment of imports from exporters with de minimis margins of dumping as "dumped imports" in
the analysis and determinations of injury and causation, contrary to th e referenced paragraphs of
Article 3.315

313 Chinese Taipei's response to Panel question No. 11.10, para. 16.
314 Ibid.
315 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 291; second written submission, para. 215.

7.215. Chinese Taipei relies on the same arguments made in the context of its corresponding
"as applied" claims, in particular invoking case law regarding the interpretation of the term
"dumped imports".316
7.216. Canada does not contest that, in the context of the preliminary and final determinations of
injury and causation, the challenged provisions result in the treatment of imports from exporters
with a de minimis margin of dumping as "dumped imports". As above in the context of t he "as
applied" claims, Canada denies, however, that the meaning of the term "dumped imports" is
limited to imports that are dumped at a margin above the de minimis threshold.317
7.217. We have already addressed the issue of the interpretation of "dumped imports" u nder
Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We have found that Canada acted in a manner
inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 by treating imports from two Chinese Taipei
exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping as "dumped impor ts" in the CITT's final
determinations of injury and causation. The same reasoning applies in respect of Chinese Taipei's
"as such" claims. We therefore find that subsections 42(1), 42(6), and 43(1) of SIMA and
subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are "as such" inco nsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.7 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to the extent that the challenged provisions relate to the final
determinations of injury and causation. To the extent that the challenge is brought in relation to
the preliminary determinations of injury and causation, we reject the claims.
7.13 Additional "as such" claims concerning subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and
subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), 41(1), 42(1), 42(6), and 43(1) of SIMA and
subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR
7.218. Chinese Taipei pursues additional "as such" claims of violation of Article XVI:4 of the
Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in respect of
subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), 41(1), 42(1), 42(6), and 43(1)
of SIMA and subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR.
7.219. Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement provides that:
Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative
procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements.
7.220. Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that:
Each Member shall take all necessary steps, of a general or particular character, to
ensure, not later than the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement for it, the
conformity of its laws, regulation s and administrative procedures with the provisions
of this Agreement as they may apply for the Member in question.
7.221. Chinese Taipei argues that it follows from the alleged inconsistencies of SIMA and SIMR
addressed in the sections above that Canada has not ensured confo rmity of its laws with the
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, contrary to Article XVI:4 of the
Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.318 Moreover,
Chinese Taipei separately challenges these provisions of SIMA and SIMR "as such" under Article 1
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.319
7.222. Referencing its arguments set forth above, Canada submits that Chinese Taipei's claims
are without merit.320

316 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, para. 298.
317 Canada's first written submission, paras. 264 and 265.
318 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 304-315.
319 Chinese Taipei's first written submission, paras. 316 and 317.
320 Canada's first written submission, paras. 267-270.

7.223. We observe that these are consequential claims. They are therefore addressed in light of
the Panel's evaluation of the claims on which they depend. In respect of the final dumping and
injury determinations, we found above that subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1),
35(2), 38(1), 41(1), 42(1) , 42(6), and 43(1) of SIMA and subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are "as
such" inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 , 3.7, 5.8, and 9.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. As a result, we also uphold Chinese Taipei's corresponding
consequential claims under Ar ticle XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI
of the GATT 1994. In relation to the preliminary dumping and injury determinations, we rejected
above Chinese Taipei's "as such" claims under Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 , 3.7, 7.1(ii), and 7.5 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1),
35(2), 38(1), 41(1), 42(1), 42(6), and 43(1) of SIMA and subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR. To the
same extent, we therefore also reject Chinese Taipei's consequential claims under Article XVI:4 of
the Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as under
Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
8.1. For the reasons set forth in this Report, the Panel concludes as follows:
a. Canada acted inconsistently with the second sentence of Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to immediately terminate the investigation in respect
of exporters from Chinese Taipei with final de minimis margins of dumping;
b. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that Canada acted inconsistently with Article 6.10 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to determine only one individual margin of
dumping for each exporter from Chinese Taipei with a de minimis margin of dumping
when basing the de minimis-test on a country-wide margin of dumping;
c. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that Canada acted inconsistently with Ar ticle 7.1(ii) of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by applying provisional anti -dumping measures in respect
of imports from a Chinese Taipei exporter with a preliminary de minimis margin of
dumping;
d. Canada acted inconsistently with Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by imposing
definitive anti -dumping duties on imports from Chinese Taipei exporters with final
de minimis margins of dumping;
e. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that Canada acted inconsistently with Article 7.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by imposing provisional anti -dumping duties on imports from
Chinese Taipei exporters with preliminary de minimis margins of dumping;
f. Canada acted inconsistently with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, to the extent that Canada imposed definitive
anti-dumping duties on imports from Chinese Taipei exporters with final de minimis
margins of dumping. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that Canada acted inconsistently
with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, to the
extent that Canada imposed provisional anti -dumping duties on imports from
Chinese Taipei exporters with preliminary de minimis margins of dumping;
g. Canada acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 , and 3.7 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by treating imports from two Chinese Taipei exporters with
final de minimis margins of dumping as "dumped imports" in the analysis and final
determinations of injury and causation;
h. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that Canada acted in consistently with Articles 3.1 and
3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to undertake a non -attribution analysis in
respect of the effect of subsidization for imports from India and the effect of
overcapacity in the domestic industry;

i. Canada acted i nconsistently with Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and its
Annex II, paragraph 7, by establishing the dumping margin and duty rate for "all other
exporters" on the basis of the highest amount by which the normal value exceeded the
export price o n an individual transaction for a cooperative producer from any country
subject to the investigation;
j. Canada acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by imposing
anti-dumping duties on new product models or types from investigated and cooperative
exporters from Chinese Taipei that exceeded their margin s of dumping as established
under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
k. Canada acted inconsistently with Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and its
Annex II, by using fact s available to determine the amount of anti -dumping duty
imposed or collected on imports of new product models or types from investigated and
cooperative exporters from Chinese Taipei;
l. Canada acted inconsistently with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI
of the GATT 1994, to the extent that Canada has been found to violate Articles 3.1, 3.2,
3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.8, 6.8, 9.2, and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and its Annex II
(including its paragraph 7). Chinese Taipei failed to establish that Canada acted
inconsistently with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the
GATT 1994, to the extent that Chinese Taipei's claims under Articles 3.1, 3.5, 6.10,
7.1(ii), and 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement have been rejected;
m. subsection 41(1) of SIMA, read together with section 30.1 and subsection 2(1) of SIMA,
is inconsistent "as such" with the second sentence of Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement because it bases the de minimis-test for the final dumping
determination on a country-wide, rather than an exporter-specific margin of dumping;
n. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that section 38(1) of SIMA, read together with
subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1) and 35(2) of SIMA, is inconsistent
"as such" with Artic le 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it requires an
affirmative preliminary dumping determination to be made for exporters with de minimis
margins of dumping when the country-wide margin of dumping is more than de minimis;
o. subsection 2(1), sect ion 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1) , and 41(1) of SIMA
are inconsistent "as such" with Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to the extent
that these provisions of SIMA result in the imposition of definitive anti -dumping duties
on imports from exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping;
p. Chinese Taipei failed to establish that subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and
subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1) , and 41(1) of SIMA are inconsistent "as such" with
Article 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to the extent that these provisions of SIMA
result in the imposition of provisional anti -dumping duties on imports from exporters
with preliminary de minimis margins of dumping;
q. subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1) , and 41(1) of SIMA
are inconsistent "as such" with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2
of the GATT 1994, to the extent that these provisions of SIMA have been found to be
inconsistent "as such" with Articles 5.8 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Chinese Taipei failed to establish that subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and
subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1) , and 41(1) of SIMA are inconsistent "as such" with
Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, to the
extent that the se provisions of SIMA have not been found to be inconsistent "as such"
with Articles 7.1(ii) and 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
r. subsections 42(1), 42(6) , and 43(1) of SIMA and subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are
inconsistent "as such" with Articles 3.1, 3.2 , 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, to the extent that these provisions of SIMA and SIMR result in
the treatment of imports from exporters with final de minimis margins of dumping as
"dumped imports" in the final determination s of injury and causation. Chinese Taipei

failed to establish that subsections 42(1), 42(6) , and 43(1) of SIMA and
subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are inconsistent "as such" with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 ,
and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to the extent that these provisions of SIMA and
SIMR result in the treatment of imports from exporters with preliminary de minimis
margins of dumping as "dumped imports" in the preliminary determinations of injury and
causation; and
s. subsection 2(1), section 30.1 and subsections 35(1), 35(2), 38(1), 41(1), 42(1), 42(6) ,
and 43(1) of SIMA and subsection 37.1(1) of SIMR are inconsistent "as such" with
Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and
Article VI of the GATT 1994, to the extent that these provisions of SIMA and SIMR have
been found to be inconsistent "as such" with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.8, and 9.2
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, namely in relation to the final determ inations of
dumping and injury. To the extent that these provisions of SIMA and SIMR have not
been found to be inconsistent "as such" with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 7.1(ii),
and 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, namely in relation to the prelimina ry
determinations of dumping and injury, Chinese Taipei failed to establish that they are
inconsistent "as such" with Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and Article VI of the GATT 1994.
8.2. We do not consider it necessary to address Chinese Taipei's claims under Articles 2.2
and 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning the determination of the amount of
anti-dumping duties imposed or collected on im ports of new product models or types from
investigated and cooperative exporters from Chinese Taipei.
8.3. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations
assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of
nullification or impairment. We conclude that, to the extent that the measures at issue are
inconsistent with certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994 and the
Marrakesh Agreement, they have nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Chinese Taipei under
those agreements.
8.4. Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, we recommend that Canada bring its measures into
conformity with its obligations under the above-mentioned Agreements.