CHINA – PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON CERTAIN IRON AND STEEL FASTENERS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
Document: Request for Consultations by the European Union
Date: 12 May 2010
Document codes: WT/DS407/1; G/L/920; G/ADP/D83/1
Complainant: EU
Respondent: China
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.10, 7, 12.2.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, X:3(a)  GATT 1994

CHINA – PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON CERTAIN IRON
AND STEEL FASTENERS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

Request for Consultations by the European Union

 The following communication, dated 7 May 2010, from the delegation of the European Union
to the delegation of China and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 The European Union ("EU") hereby requests consultations with the Government of the
People's Republic of China ("China") pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 17.3 of th e Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the GATT 1994 (" Anti-Dumping Agreement ") and Article 4 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"). The issues which the European
Union would like to raise in the course of the consultations include, but are not limited to, the
following measures:
– Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Notice no. 115 (2009),
including its annex, imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on certain iron or steel
fasteners from the European Union;
– Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping.

1. The EU considers that Ministry of Commerc e of the People's Republic of China, Notice
no. 115 (2009), including its annex, imposing provi sional anti-dumping duties on certain iron or steel
fasteners from the European Union ("Provisional Imposition") is inconsistent, among others, with
China's obligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the
GATT 1994.
(1) Article 2.2 and Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994, because the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and
profits established by China for the sole cooperating EU company were not calculated
on the basis of a reasonable method as China used an unreasonable profitability rate,
denied many reasonable adjustments, and because the export price concerned a
special product not representative of the products normally sold by the company.
(2) Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994
because by selecting an export price concerning a special product not representative

of the products normally sold by the cooperating company, China precluded a fair
comparison between the export price and the normal value.
(3) Article 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to make an
objective examination, on the basis of positiv e evidence, of the effect of the dumped
imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and the consequent impact
of these imports on domestic producers of such products, including the factors listed
in Article 3.4, as all injury indicators were positive with the sole exception of ending
stocks, and since the loss-making situati on improved over time and the EU export
prices were significantly higher than domestic prices.
(4) Article 3.1 and Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to
make an objective determination, on the basis of evidence, that the dumped imports
are, through the effects of dumping, causing injury, as China failed to objectively
examine the temporal disconnect between a lleged dumping and alleged worsening of
the situation for the domestic industry.
(5) Article 6.1.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to ensure the
prompt availability of the full text of th e written application as the main figures about
the Chinese industry were omitted or indexe d despite the large number of domestic
producers.
(6) Article 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to
provide timely opportunities for all inter ested parties to see all non-confidential
information relevant to the defence of their interests.
(7) Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to ensure the
provision of non-confidential summaries of c onfidential information relating to the
injury investigation or, where provided, fa iled to give summaries in sufficient detail
to enable a reasonable understanding of that information.
(8) Article 6.5.1 and Article 6.5.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed
to determine that the request for confidentia lity of the names of the complainants was
not warranted.
(9) Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the sample of EU exporting
producers selected by China was not based on th e largest percentage of the volume of
the exports from the EU which could reas onably be investigated because the Chinese
authorities asked for a disproportionate amount of information for the selection of the
sample which had the effect to discourage several EU exporters from cooperating.
(10) Article 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because in its public notice of the
imposition of provisional measures, or in a separate report, China did not set forth
sufficiently detailed explanations for th e preliminary determinations on injury,
together with references to the matters of fact and law which have led to arguments
being accepted or rejected. Furthermore, and in particular, China failed to meet its
obligations with regard to considerations relevant to the injury determination,
Article 12.2.1(iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and with regard to the main
reasons leading to the determination, Article 12.2.1(v) of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.

 The European Union also considers, including for the detailed reasons stated above, taken
individually and collectively, that the Provisional Im position was taken contrary to the provisions of
paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

2. The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on
Anti-Dumping
1 is inconsistent, among others, with China' s obligations under the following provisions
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the DSU and the GATT 1994.
(1) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
because China fails to meet its obligation that no specific action against dumping of
exports from another Member can be taken except in accordance with the provisions
of GATT 1994, as interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
(2) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article 23 of the DSU, in particular Article
23.1 thereof, because China fails to meet its obligation to have recourse to, and abide
by, the rules and procedures of the DSU when seeking the redress of a violation of
obligations or other nullification or im pairment of benefits under the covered
agreements or an impediment to the a ttainment of any objective of the covered
agreements.
(3) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since China fails
to meet its obligation to accord immedi ately and unconditionally any advantage,
favour, privilege or immunity granted to any product originating in or destined for
any other country to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all
other WTO Members, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind
imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation, and with respect to the
method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and
formalities in connection with importation and exportation, and with respect to all
matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III of the GATT 1994.
(4) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China
on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article X:3(a) of the GATT since China fails to
meet its obligation to administer in a uni form, impartial and reasonable manner all its
laws, regulations, decisions und rulings describ ed in paragraph 1 of Article X of the
GATT 1994.
 The European Union considers that the Provisiona l Imposition also has to be seen in the light
of Article 56 of the Regulations of the People' s Republic of China on Anti-Dumping and that the
Provisional Imposition is a further incidence of these inconsistencies described above.

1 As specified in WTO document G/ADP/N1/CHN/2, Article 56 provides, in the translation made by
China for reference by WTO Members, that "[w]here a country (region) discriminatorily imposes anti-dumping
measures on the exports from the People's Republic of China, China may, on the basis of actual situations, take
corresponding measures against that country (region)".

 The European Union reserves the right to address additional measures and claims under other
provisions of the WTO Agreement regarding the above matters during the course of the consultations.
 The European Union looks forward to receivi ng in due course a reply from China to this
request. The European Union is ready to consider with China mutually convenient dates to hold
consultations in Geneva.