EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY CHIPS FROM KOREA
Document: Request for Consultations by Korea
Date: 31 July 2003
Document codes: WT/DS299/1; G/L/641; G/SCM/D56/1
Complainant: South Korea
Respondent: EU
Third parties: China, Taiwan, Japan, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 32  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:3  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
ON DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY CHIPS FROM KOREA
Request for Consultations by Korea
The following communication, dated 25 July 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Korea to
the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission and to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the European Commission
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes ("DSU"), Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM
Agreement"), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"),
with regard to provisional measures against dynamic random access memory chips ("DRAMs") from
Korea, announced in Commission Regulation (EC) No. 708/2003, published at OJ L 102, 24.4.2003,
p.7, and with regard to any final measures on the same products, which have been presented in draft
form in the Final Disclosure Document of the European Commission and which may be finalized and
implemented later this year.
The Government of Korea considers these determinations by the European Commission to be
inconsistent with its obligations under the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994 and the SCM
Agreement, including, but not limited to:
1. Article 1 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the European Commission failed
to demonstrate the existence of a financial contribution by the Government of Korea
within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement.
2. Articles 1 and 14 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the European
Commission failed to demonstrate that a benefit was conferred on the respondent
Hynix Semiconductor Inc., given available market benchmarks.
3. Articles 1 and 14 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the credit rating and
other related analysis undertaken by the European Commission are inconsistent with
obligations under the SCM Agreement.
4. Articles 1 and 2 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the European
Commission imposed and applied an improper burden of proof on respondents and, in
turn, the European Commission did not base its decisions on affirmative, objective,
and verifiable evidence.

5. Article 2 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the European Commission failed
to demonstrate that the alleged subsidies were specific to the respondent Hynix
Semiconductor Inc. on the basis of positive evidence.
6. Article 11 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the European Commission did
not base its decision to initiate its countervailing duty investigation on sufficient
evidence.
7. Article 12 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the European Commission
improperly applied "facts available" instead of considering the information on the
record.
8. Article 15 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the European Commission
improperly found material injury caused by the allegedly subsidized imports without
proper evidentiary or legal foundations.
9. Article 17 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the European Commission
imposed provisional measures based on flawed analysis of financial contribution,
benefit, and other factual and legal issues that were inconsistent with obligations
under the SCM Agreement.
10. Article 22 of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia , the European Commission
failed to provide all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons
for its determinations.
11. Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of the GATT
1994 because, inter alia, the European Commission failed to conduct its investigation
and make determinations in accordance with fundamental substantive and procedural
requirements
The Government of Korea reserves its rights to raise additional factual and legal issues during
the course of the consultations and in any request for the establishment of a panel. We look forward
to the response of the European Commission to this request so that we can schedule a mutually
convenient date to begin consultations.