EGYPT – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MATCHES FROM PAKISTAN
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Pakistan
Date: 10 June 2005
Document codes: WT/DS327/2
Complainant: Pakistan
Respondent: Egypt
Third parties: China, EU, Japan, U.S.
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.2, 6.9, 6.13, 12.1, 12.2, 2.1, 2.2, 6.6, 6.8, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1  GATT 1994Art. 1, 18  Anti-dumpingArt. XXIII:1(a), VI:2  GATT 1994

EGYPT – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MATCHES FROM PAKISTAN

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Pakistan

 The following communication, dated 9 June 2005, from the delegation of Pakistan to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

 Upon instructions from my authorities, I wish to convey the request of the Government of
Pakistan for the establishment of a panel pursuan t to Article XXIII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT"), Articles 4 and 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "D SU"), and Article 17 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the Gene ral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the
"Anti-Dumping Agreement") regarding the imposition by the Arab Republic of Egypt ("Egypt") of
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ma tches in boxes from Pakistan under Decree
No. 667/2003 dated 18 November 2003, as well as any amendments or extensions to this Decree.
 1

 On 21 February 2005, Pakistan requested cons ultations with Egypt un der Article XXIII:1 of
the GATT, Article 4 of the DSU, and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
2 Consultations
were held in Geneva on 21 March and 3 June 2005. However, these consultations failed to settle the
dispute.

 Pakistan considers that Egypt's measures are inconsistent with the provisions of GATT and
the Anti-Dumping Agreement described below:

Procedural/Disclosure Issues

1. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6. 1, 6.1.3 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
by failing to furnish the application for the inv estigation to the known Pakistani exporters and the
Government of Pakistan.

1 The measures at issue in this dispute consist of all decisions and determinations by Egypt leading to
the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of matches in boxes from Pakistan. Other
documents published or disclosed by Egypt in the course of its investigation and determination to impose
definitive measures include (i) The Final Report of the Ministry of Foreign Trade, Anti-dumping, Subsidy and
Safeguard Department, Notice No. (6)/2003 Regarding the Imposition of Definitive Anti-dumping Duties on the
Imports of Matches (in Boxes) Exported From or Origina ting in Pakistan; (ii) The Notice of Initiation No (8)
concerning the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation into the dumped imports of matches (in boxes),
published in the Official Gazette on 11 August 2002; and (iii) The Essential Facts and Conclusions Report of the
Investigation provided to the interested parties on 17 April 2003.
2 WT/DS327/1, G/L/731, G/ADP/D61/1 (24 February 2005).

2. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.1, 6.5, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by granting confidential treatment to information contained in the domestic industry's
application without requiring the applicants to pr ovide showing of good cause for such a treatment
and without requiring the applicants either to fu rnish non-confidential summaries "in sufficient detail
to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence" or
to give any indication that such informati on could not be summarized and the reasons why
summarization was not possible.

3. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 12.1 and 12.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to provide in the public notice of the initia tion of the investigation the information required
under Article 12.1.1, including the basis on whic h dumping was alleged in the application and a
summary of the factors on which the allegation of injury was based.

4. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9 and 6.13 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by failing to disclose th e essential facts under consideration that formed the basis of the
decision to impose definitive measures in Egypt's Essential Facts and Conclusions Report and to
provide the Pakistani exporters a full opportunity to defend their interests while taking due account of
the difficulties faced by them.

5. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to provide in the final report containing th e determination of dumping, injury and causal link
all relevant information on the matters of fact a nd law and reasons, which led to the imposition of the
definitive anti-dumping duty.

Issues Relating to the Determination of Dumping

Mohsin Match Factory (Pvt) Ltd.

6. Regarding the determination of dumping marg ins for the Pakistani exporter Mohsin Match
Factory (Pvt) Ltd. ("Mohsin"), Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, and
2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, by using co nstructed value as the basis for determining the
normal value for Mohsin without properly establishing that no sales of the like product were made in
the ordinary course of trade or that domestic sales do not permit a proper comparison. In particular,
Egypt's treatment of the entirety of Mohsin's sales in the domestic market as outside the ordinary
course of trade by reason of price is inconsistent w ith the specific requirements of Articles 2.2, 2.2.1,
2.2.1.1, 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Egypt failed to properly establish that any sales
below per unit costs were made "within an extende d period of time, in substantial quantities and at
prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time".

7. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.6, 6.8 (read with Annex II), and 6.13, as well as
Articles 2.2, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement, by determining that Mohsin had
failed to provide necessary information regarding its costs of production, including selling, general
and administrative expenses ("SG&A") and profits during the course of the investigation.

8. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, by failing to use data provided by M ohsin regarding its costs of production, including
SG&A expenses and profits, and instead using data from other sources in its construction of the
normal value for this exporter.

9. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.6, 6.8 (read with Annex II), and 6.13 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, by failing to use data provide d by Mohsin regarding its costs of production,
including SG&A expenses and profits, and instead us ing data from other sources in its construction of
the normal value for this exporter.

10. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.6, 6.8 (read with Annex II) and 6.13 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement by failing to use special circum spection in its use of cost of production data
from other sources to calculate the constructed value, including SG&A expenses and profits, for
Mohsin.

11. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by failing to use the company's actual data or an other reasonable method to calculate the
SG&A expenses and profits for Mohsin.

12. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2. 2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 6.8 (read with Annex II), and 6.13
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to prope rly determine the export price for Mohsin and to
make due allowance for differences affecting pri ce comparability claimed by Mohsin, and by failing
to make a fair comparison between export pri ce and normal value in determining the dumping
margins for Mohsin.

Khyber Match Factory (Pvt) Ltd.

13. Regarding the determination of dumping ma rgins for the Pakistani exporter Khyber Match
Factory (Pvt) Ltd. ("Khyber"), Egypt acted inconsiste ntly with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2, as well
as Articles 6.6, 6.8 (read with Annex II), and 6.13, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, by determining
that Khyber had failed to provide necessary inform ation regarding cost of production, including
SG&A expenses and profits, during the course of the investigation.

14. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, by failing to use data provided by Kh yber regarding its costs of production, including
SG&A expenses and profits, and instead using data from other sources in its construction of the
normal value for this exporter.

15. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.6, 6.8 (read with Annex II), and 6.13 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, by failing to use data provi ded by Khyber regarding its costs of production,
including SG&A expenses and profits and instead us ing data from other sources in its construction of
the normal value for this exporter.

16. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 6.6, 6.8 (read with Annex II) and 6.13 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement by failing to use special circumspection in its use of data from other sources to
calculate the constructed value, including SG&A expenses and profits, for Khyber.

17. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by failing to use the company's actual data or an other reasonable method to calculate the
SG&A expenses and profits for Khyber.

18. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 2. 2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 6.8 (read with Annex II), and 6.13
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to properly determine the export price for Khyber and to
make due allowance for differences affecting pri ce comparability claimed by Khyber, and by failing
to make a fair comparison between export pri ce and normal value in determining the dumping
margins for Khyber.

Issues Relating to the Determination of Injury and Causal Link

19. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3. 1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 6.6 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by using inaccurate information, not b ased on positive evidence, regarding the volume of
imports under investigation in its examination of th e volume of the dumped imports, the effect of the

dumped imports on prices in the domestic market and the consequent impact of these imports on
domestic producers, as well as in its examina tion of the causal link between dumped imports and
injury.

20. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, in its analysis of the price effects of the imports under investigation, by failing to examine
whether the dumped imports resulted in significant undercutting, suppression or depression of
domestic prices.

21. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
by failing to collect information relating to shipme nts and other relevant ec onomic factors or indices
having a bearing on the state of the industry from all companies included within the definition of the
domestic industry and other Egyptian producers.

22. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to properly analyse all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of
the domestic industry in reaching its injury determination.

23. Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to properly examine known factors other th an dumped imports which at the same time were
injuring the domestic industry; including Egypt's failure to examine, inter alia : (i) the impact of
imports from third countries on the domestic industry, (ii) the effects of the removal of a safeguard
measure on the products subject to investigation; and (iii) the effects of financial and managerial
difficulties faced by the largest domestic producer.

 By imposing anti-dumping measures in the circ umstances described above, Egypt has also
acted inconsistently with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT, as well as Articles 1 and 18 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. In addition, Pakistan cons iders that the benefits accruing to it directly or
indirectly under the WTO Agreement and the An ti-Dumping Agreement have been nullified or
impaired within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT.

 Accordingly, Pakistan requests the establishm ent of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the
GATT, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

 Pakistan requests that the establishment of a pa nel in this matter be placed on the agenda of
the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body scheduled for 20 June 2005.