UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CHINA
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 12 July 2019
Document codes: WT/DS562/8
Complainant: China
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Russia, Taiwan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. XIX:1  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2(b)  Safeguards

UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF
CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CHINA
The following communication, dated 11 July 2019, from the delegation of China to the Chairperson
of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 14 August 2018 the Government of China ( "China") requested consultations with the
Government of the United States ( "United States") 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 14 of the Agreement
on Safeguards concerning the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports
of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other
products (including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building -integrated
materials) ("CSPV products").
Consultations were held on 22 October 2018 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory
solution. However, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute.
Therefore, China respectfully requests, pursuant to Article s 4.7 and 6 of the DSU and
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards that the Dispute
Settlement Body ( "DSB") establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of
reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.
Pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU, China identifies the specific measures at issue (Section A)
and provides a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint (Section B). This discussion
below explains th e connection between the measures and the legal basis and thus presents
clearly the problems at issue in this dispute.
A. Measures at Issue
The United States imposed the definitive safeguard measure on imports of crystalline silicon
photovoltaic products pursuant to Proclamation 9693 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive
Adjustment to Competition from Imports of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whethe r
or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) and for Other Purposes, 83 Fed. Reg. 3541
(25 January 2018). This safeguard measure was notified to the WTO on 26 January 2018. 1
The safeguard measure on CSPV products was based on the United State s International Trade
Commission ( "USITC") determination of injury on September 22, 2017 and the report to the
President on November 13, 2017 regarding the Investigation No. TA-201-75.2

1 Notified by the United States to the WTO Committee on Safeguards in document with reference:
G/SG/N/8/USA/9/Suppl.4; G/SG/N/10/USA/7; G/SG/N/11/USA/6.
2 See, Public Report, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or not Partially or Fully Assembled into
Other Products), Inv. No. TA-201-75, USITC Pub. 4739 (Nov. 2017), a summary of which was published in the
U.S. Federal Register. See 82 Fed. Reg. 55393 (21 November 2017).

On 27 November 2017, the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") subsequently requested
that the USITC identify any unforeseen developments that led to the CSPV products at issue being
imported into the United States in such increased quantities to cause serious injury. The USITC's
supplemental report was forwarded to the President on 27 December 2017.3
The measure took the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of solar cells imposed for a period of 4
years, with unchanging in-quota quantities and annual reductions in the rates of duty applicable to
goods entered in excess of those quantities in the second, third, and fourth years. In addition, the
measure took the form of an increase in duties on imports of modules, imposed for a period of 4
years with annual reductions in the rates of duty in th e second, third, and fourth years. The duty
rate for the first year was set at 30%.
Subsequently, on 18 February 2018, USTR established additional procedures for interested parties
to request that certain products be excluded from the safeguard measure on CSPV products.4 Fifty
three individual exclusion requests were submitted to USTR. 5 As of 8 July 2019, eleven of those
exclusion requests had been granted.6 Based on the content of the USTR Notice, it appears that all
other individual exclusion requests were denied.7
This request also concerns any modification, review, replacement or amendment to the definitive
safeguard measure, including any closely connected, subsequent measures affecting the form,
amount, or implementation of the safeguard remedy, as well as the underlying reports, memoranda
and other documents supporting the safeguard measure.
B. Legal Basis of the Complaint
China considers that the safeguard measure imposed by the United States on CSPV products is
inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on
Safeguards. In particular, China considers that the safeguard measure fails to comply with, among
others, the following provisions:
a. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because
the United States failed to establish, prior to the application of the measures, that the
increases in imports and the conditions of importation of the products covered by the
measures at issue were the result of "unforeseen development " and were the "effect of
obligations incurred" under the GATT 1994 by the United States.
In particular, among other actions and omissions:
• The United States failed to explain the "unforeseen" nature of the developments it
considered relevant in this respect;
• The United States failed to explain the required connection between the alleged
unforeseen developments and the increase in imports of each of the covered CSPV
products;
• The individual country-specific circumstances that the United Sates considers to have
been "unforeseen developments" are neither relevant to nor can justify the imposition
of a global safeguard measure; The United States also failed to provide a reasoned and

3 See, Supplemental Report of the U.S. International Trade Commission Regarding Unforeseen
Developments; see also "Proclamation 9693 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to
Competition from Imports of Certain Cr ystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully
Assembled Into Other Products) and for Other Purposes", 83 Federal Register 3541 (25 January 2018), para. 4.
4 See, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Procedures to Consider Additional Requests for Exclusion
of Particular Products from the Solar Products Safeguard Measure, 83 Fed. Reg. 6670 (14 February 2018).
5 See Solar Product Exclusion Requests (USTR -2018-0001), available at https://ustr.gov/issue-
areas/enforcement/section-201-investigations/investigation-no-ta-201-75-cspv-cells/product (providing a list of
all exclusion requests filed).
6 See Exclusion of Particular Products From the Solar Products Safeguard Measure, 83 Fed. Reg. 47,393,
47,394 (19 September 2018) (excluding eight products); Exclusion of Particular Products From the Solar Products
Safeguard Measure, 84 Fed. Reg. 27,684, 27,685 (13 June 2019) ("June 13 Exclusion Notice") (excluding three
products).
7 June 13 Exclusion Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 27,684, 27,685.

adequate explanation of the particular "obligations incurred" that had as their effect
that imports of CSPV products increased in such quantities and under such conditions
as to cause serious injury.
b. Articles 2.1, 3. 1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the
United States failed to establish the required "causal link" between the increased imports
and the serious injury found to exist.
In particular, among other actions and omissions: The United States fa iled to demonstrate
on the basis of objective evidence that the increased imports of the subject imports "caused
or threatened to cause" serious injury to the domestic industry given the lack of coincidence
in the relevant trends and in light of the specific conditions of competition in the market.
c. Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the
United States failed to ensure that injury caused by other factors was not attributed to
increased imports.
In particular, among other actions and omissions: The United States failed to separate and
adequately distinguish the injury caused by other factors and failed to ensure that injurious
effects from other causal factors were not included in the assessment of injury that are
ascribed to increased imports.
d. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States did
not provide the interested parties with sufficient opportunities to participate in the
investigation, including as a result of the failure to r espect the requirements on granting
confidential treatment and the availability of sufficiently informative non -confidential
summaries, and because the United States failed to set forth in the published report the
findings and reasoned conclusions on all p ertinent issues of fact and law, including the
conditions on which the measure was imposed, the nature and level of the actual measure,
and the ground for excluding certain sources.
In particular, among other actions and omissions: The United States required the destruction
of all confidential (APO) material before briefing during the USTR phase concerning the
Administration's action following a determination of import injury with regard to CSPV and
the non-confidential summaries available to the parties were insufficient.
The United States ' safeguard measure on CSPV products nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to
China, directly or indirectly, under the above cited agreements.
China further asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be placed on the agenda of the
next meeting of the DSB to be held on 22 July 2019.