UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY ARGENTINA
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 6 September 2023
Document codes: WT/DS617/3
Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, EU, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Taiwan, Türkiye, Ukraine
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 4  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 17.2, 17.3  Anti-dumpingArt. XXIII:1  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS
FROM ARGENTINA
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY ARGENTINA
The following communication, dated 1 September 2023 , from the delegation of Argentina to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 19 May 2023, the Government of the Republic of Argentina ("Argentina") requested consultations
with the United States of America ("United States") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("Anti-Dumping Agreement"), and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (GATT 1994), concerning the final anti-dumping ("AD") measure imposed on oil country tubular
goods ("OCTG") from Argentina as well as concerning certain prov isions of the United States'
legislation regarding cumulation of imports in assessing injury caused by imports in AD and
countervailing duty ("CVD") investigations.
The consultations took place in Washington, D.C. on 6 July 2023 and failed to resolve the matter.
I. Identification of the Measures
The following measures appear to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under certain
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.
A. The Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Oil Country Tubular Goods ("OCTG") from Argentina
This request concerns the definitive AD measure imposed by the United States on OCTG from
Argentina pursuant to the preliminary and final AD determinations issued by the U.S. Department
of Commerce ("USDOC"), and the United States International Trade Commission ("USITC"), and the
resulting AD order issued by the USDOC, following AD investigations by the USDOC and the USITC
on imports of OCTG from Argentina, Mexico, the Russian Federation and CVD investigations on
imports of OCTG from Russia and South Korea. The USDOC's AD order on OCTG from Argentina
was published in the Federal Register on 21 November 2022.1 The AD order imposes definitive AD
duties on OCTG from Argentina based on USDOC's calculation of a final weighted-average AD margin
of 78.30 percent for Siderca S.A.I.C. ("Siderca") and all other Argentine exporters of subject
merchandise, with cash deposits (pursuant to the USDOC preliminary and final AD determinations)
effective starting from May 11, 2022. The definitive AD measure on OCTG from Argentina is based
on a number of intermediary determinations that are equally part of this request such as in
particular:
• The USITC determination to commence the preliminary phase injury investigations, notice
of which was published in the Federal Register on 13 October 2021. See Oil Country Tubular
Goods From Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea: Institu tion of Anti-Dumping and

1 Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation: Antidumping Duty
Orders and Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination for the Russian Federation, 87 Federal
Register 70,785 (November 21, 2022).

Countervailing Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations , 86
Federal Register 56,983 (Oct. 13, 2021).
• The USDOC determination to initiate the investigation into alleged dumping. See Oil Country
Tubular Goods From Argentina, Mexico, and the Russian Federation: Initiation of Less-Than-
Fair-Value Investigations, 86 Federal Register 60,205 (Nov. 1, 2021).
• The USITC's preliminary determination that there was a "reasonable indication that an
industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of oil country tubular
goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea." See Oil Country Tubular Goods
from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea , 86 Federal Register 67,491 (Nov. 26,
2021).
• The USDOC's preliminary affirmative determination in the AD investigation of OCTG from
Argentina. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina: Preliminary Affirmative
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, Postp onement
of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures, 87 Federal Register 28,801
(May 11, 2022).
• The final affirmative less-than-fair-value ("LTFV") determination with respect to OCTG from
Argentina issued by USDOC and published in the F ederal Register on September 29, 2022.
See Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 87 Federal
Register 59,054 (September 29, 2022).
• The USITC's consolidated views published in Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina,
Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Final),
USITC Pub. 5381 (November 2022) ("Views of the Commission").
• The USITC's final injury determination as published in the Federal Register on November 18,
2022. See Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, Mexico, Russia, and South Korea, Inv.
Nos. 701-TA-671-672 and 731-TA-1571-1573 (Final), 87 Federal Register 69,331 (Nov. 18,
2022).
This panel request relates to the definitive AD measure on OCTG from Argentina and further includes
any notices, annexes, decision memoranda, orders, amendments, or other instruments issued by
the United States in connection with that measure.
B. Section 771(7)(G) of the United States Tariff Act of 1930
This request also concerns on an "as such" basis Section 771(7)(G) of the United States Tariff Act
of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G), which is the U.S. statutory provision covering
cumulation for determining material injury. In particular, 19 USC § 1677(7)(G) provides that the
USITC shall cumulatively assess the volume and effect of the subject merchandise from all countries
with respect to which: (a) petitions seeking imposition of either an AD or a CVD were filed on the
same day, (b) AD or CVD investigations were initiated on the same day; or (c) when both (a) and
(b) are satisfied. As a result, the USITC is required to cross -cumulate the effect of imports even
when such imports are not simultaneously subject to an AD investigation or a CVD investigation.
This panel request relates to all the amendments, replacements, implementing acts or any other
related measure in connection with the legal provision referred herein.
II. Legal Basis
Argentina is concerned that the above -identified measures appear to violate the United States'
obligations under the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994 as described below.
A. The Anti-Dumping Measure on OCTG from Argentina
The United States' AD measure on OCTG from Argentina appears to be inconsistent with a number
of provisions of the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994.

Argentina's panel request concerns the application for the antidumping investigation and the related
decision of the USDOC to initiate the antidumping investigation.
Argentina's request also concerns several aspects of the injury determination of the USITC such as
in particular the cumulation of imports for purposes of the injury analysis, the examination of the
volume and price effects of the dumped imports, the overall impact of the dumped imports on the
state of the domestic industry, and the causal link between the alleged dumped imports and the
injury found to exist.
The measure appears to be inconsistent with the following provisions of the AD Agreement and the
GATT 1994, such as:
Initiation
1. Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 6.6 of the AD Agreement because the USDOC failed to
properly examine the evidence on the record and to determine, based on the evidence on
the record, that there was suffic ient evidence to justify initiation of the investigation and
that the application had the degree of support necessary to be considered to have been
made by or on behalf of the domestic industry.
Cumulation
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the AD Agreement becaus e the USITC cumulated imports from
Argentina with those from sources that were not simultaneously subject to an AD
investigation.
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the AD Agreement because the USITC cumulated imports from
Argentina with imports from Mexico, Russi a, and South Korea without properly examining
whether the conditions of competition with respect to imports from Argentina justified their
cumulation with imports from other sources.
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the AD Agreement because the USITC cumulated i mports from
Argentina with imports from Korea even though imports from Korea were already subject to
AD duties that had been imposed in 2014 such that any impact of these imports was
addressed and remedied already.
Volume of imports and price effects
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC's examination of volume and
price effects of dumped imports is based on an examination that includes imports that are
not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation, such as imports from Korea, which were only
subject to a simultaneous CVD investigation.
6. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC failed to undertake an objective
examination based on positive evidence regarding the conditions of competition that had a
substantial impact on demand and supply considerations in the OCTG market in evaluating
the import volumes.
7. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC failed to undertake an objective
examination based on positive evidence of the volume of imports i n light of constraints on
import volumes, such as the application of Section 232 quota measures on imports of OCTG
from Argentina, during the period of investigation.
8. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC's determination regarding
purported underselling fails to objectively examine and take into account the implications of
price adjustment mechanisms in Tenaris' long term contracts.
9. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC's determination regarding
purported price effects (including purported lost sales and lost revenue) was not based on
an objective examination of positive evidence since it was based on information that was
demonstrated to be inaccurate or otherwise lacking in probative value.

10. Articles 3.1 an d 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC failed to make any
determination regarding whether subject imports prevented prices for the domestic like
product from increasing.
11. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC's determination re garding
purported price effects of subject imports failed to take into account Tenaris' use of a "one
price" approach of selling its product at the same price regardless of the origin of the product.
12. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because the USITC generally failed to make an
objective examination based on positive evidence relating to the purported price effects of
subject imports.
Injury and Causation
13. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because the USITC's final determination of injury
considered both dumped imports and imports not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation
while examining the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry, and thus including
in the analysis the impact of imports from Korea which were only subject to a simultaneous
CVD investigation.
14. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because the USITC generally failed to undertake
an objective examination of the record evidence and make a determination based on positive
evidence relating to its evaluation of all of the relevant economic factors and indices on the
record having a bearing on the state of the industry.
15. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because the USITC failed to undertake an objective
examination of the record evidence which showed that any lost sales or lost revenues were
due to non-price factors and not due to the purported price-effects of subject imports.
16. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because the USITC's final determination of
causation included the i mpact of both dumped imports and imports not subject to a
simultaneous AD investigation as a result of the cumulation with imports from Korea which
were only subject to a simultaneous CVD investigation.
17. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because of the USITC's failure to demonstrate that
subject imports are causing the alleged injury to the domestic industry.
18. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because of the USITC's failure to ensure that injury
caused by known other factors was not attr ibuted to the dumped imports in light of the
evidence on the record. In particular:
a. because the USITC failed to undertake an objective examination of the record
evidence which showed that any lost sales or lost revenues were due to non -price
factors and not due to the purported price-effects of subject imports;
b. because the USITC erroneously attributed the positive performance of the domestic
industry in the first half of 2022 to the effects of the filing of the petitions, rather
than to the conditions of competition and prevailing OCTG market forces; and
c. because the USITC failed to undertake an "objective examination" of the record
evidence of the relevant economic factors that were injuring the domestic industry
other than dumped imports, and faile d to base its determination on "positive
evidence" related to (1) the impact of alleged underselling, and (2) other known
factors such as the global oil and gas supply dynamic, the COVID -19 pandemic,
intra-domestic industry competition stemming from Tenaris' role as the largest U.S.
OCTG producer and its unique business operations and pricing policy that differed
from the business models of U.S. producers, the U.S. distributors' inventory buildup,
and supply constraints, including labor shortages and the pr icing of hot-rolled coil,
the primary input for welded OCTG.

General
19. Articles 1 and 18.1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 because the United
States imposed the AD measure on OCTG from Argentina in apparent violation of the
provisions of the AD Agreement identified above.
B. Section 771(7)(G) of the United States Tariff Act of 1930
Section 771(7)(G) of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 is the U.S. statutory provision covering
cumulation when determining material injury that is codi fied at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G). Section
1677(7)(G) requires the USITC (1) to cumulatively assess the effects of dumped imports with the
effects of imports not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation when such imports are subject only
to CVD investigations and not to simultaneous AD investigations, or (2) to cumulatively assess the
effects of subsidized imports with the effects of imports not subject to a simultaneous CVD
investigation when such imports are subject only to AD investigations and not to simultaneous CVD
investigations.
By requiring such cross-cumulation in certain situations, Section 1677(7)(G) results in the inclusion
of non-dumped imports or non-subsidized imports (as the case may be) in the assessment of (i) the
increase in volume of dumped or subsidized imports (as the case may be) as well as their effect on
domestic prices, (ii) the impact of dumped or subsidized imports (as the case may be) on the
domestic industry, and (iii) the causal link between dumped or subsidized imports (as the case may
be) and injury.
Argentina considers that Section 771 (7) (G) of the United States Tariff Act of 1930 appears to be
inconsistent as such with
1. Article 3.3 of the AD Agreement because it requires in certain situations the cumulation of
imports from sources that are not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation.
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because it requires in certain situations the
inclusion of imports not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation in the context of an
examination of volume and price effects.
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because it requires in certain situations the
inclusion of imports not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation in the examination of the
impact of dumped imports on the state of the industry.
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because it requires in certain situations the
inclusion of imports that are not subject to a simultaneous AD investigation in the
determination of the existence of a causal link between dumped imports and the injury found
to exist.
III. Conclusion
Argentina is concerned that the AD measure on OCTG from Argentina, as well as Section 771(7)(G)
of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, appear to be inconsistent with the relevant obligations of the
United States under the AD Agreement, and the GATT 1994.
The United States' measures appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Argentina directly
or indirectly under the cited agreements.
For the reasons set forth above, Argentina respectfully requests that a panel be established,
pursuant to Article 4.7 and Article 6.2 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT and Article 17.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by the Dispute Settlement Body, with standard terms of reference as set
forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU to examine this matter.
Argentina asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute Settlement
Body to be held on 19 September 2023.