DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL BARS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY COSTA RICA
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 27 July 2021
Document codes: WT/DS605/1; G/ADP/D139/1; G/L/1393
Complainant: Costa Rica
Respondent: Dominican
Third parties: Canada, China, EU, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.1, 5.3, 5.8, 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.9, 9.1, 9.3, 12.1.1, Annex 1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI, VI:2(a)  GATT 1994

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED
STEEL BARS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY COSTA RICA
The following communication, received on 23 July 2021, from the delegation of Costa Rica to the
delegation of the Dominican Republic , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance
with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Dominican Republic under
Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(DSU), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), with respect to measures imposing anti-dumping duties on
imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in the
Republic of Costa Rica.
The anti-dumping investigation was initiated on 30 July 2018 in response to an application that had
been submitted by a Dominican producer and that, in Costa Rica's opinion, did not meet the
minimum requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Following an investigation containing
innumerable flaws, on 27 December 2019, the Regulatory Commission on Unfair Trade Practices and
Safeguard Measures of the Dominican Republic (CDC) issued a final determination providing for the
application of definitive anti-dumping measures notwithstanding the absence of dumping and injury.
Costa Rica considers this determination and the appli cation of definitive duties to be inconsistent
with the Dominican Republic's obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.
I. Measures at issue
The measures that Costa Rica would like to address in the consultations ("measures at issue") are
the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for
concrete reinforcement originating in the Republic of Costa Rica. The measures at issue include and
are reflected in, inter alia, the following documents:
- Resolution No . CDC -RD-AD-001-2020 of 17 March 2020 ruling on the appeal for
reconsideration filed by Arcelor Mittal Costa Rica, S.A. against Resolution No. CDC-RD-AD-
007-2019 of 27 December 2019;
- Resolution No. CDC-RD-AD-007-2019 of 27 December 2019 providing for the application of
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for
concrete reinforcement originating in the Republic of Costa Rica;
- Final Technical Report of 20 December 2019;
- Essential Facts Report of 31 October 2019;
- Resolution No. CDC -AD-001-2018 of 30 July 2018 providing for the initiation of the
investigation into the alleged existence of dumping practices in respect of exports of
WT/DS605/1 • G/ADP/D139/1 • G/L/1393

corrugated or deformed steel rods and bars for concrete reinforcement originating in the
Republic of Costa Rica;
- Initial Technical Report of 20 July 2018; and
- any other resolution, instru ment, report or determination issued in the anti -dumping
investigation or in relation thereto.
This request for consultations covers, in addition to the above -mentioned measures, any other
measure that prolongs, replaces, amends, implements, extends or applies, or otherwise maintains,
the measures described above.

II. Legal basis for the complaints
The measures described in Section I of this request for consultations appear to be inconsistent with
the following obligations assumed by the Dominican Republic under the WTO covered agreements:
1. Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because the
investigating authority, in its dumping determination, failed to rely on the correct export
prices and included transactions made outside the period of investigation in the dumping
margin calculation.
2. Article 2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , amongst other reasons because the
investigating authority, in its dumping determination , excluded transactions made in the
ordinary course of trade for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting
country.
3. Article 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the
investigating authority excluded sales of the like product in the domestic market of the
exporting country allegedly made below cost, without first having properly determined that
those sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and at
prices which did not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.
4. Article 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , amongst other reasons because the
investigating authority excluded sales of the like product in the domestic market of the
exporting country without having properly considered whether prices were below per unit
costs at the time of sale.
5. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because
the investigating authority improperly considered financing expenses in the analysis of
below-cost sales.
6. Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because the
investigating authority failed to make a fair comparison between the export price and the
normal value, including failing to make a comparison in respect of sales made at as nearly
as possible the same time.
7. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the
investigating authority's analysis of the volume of the dumped imports and the effects of the
imports under investigation on prices in the domestic market for like products was not based
on an objective examination on the basis of positive evidence or an examination of all
relevant evidence before the authorities.
8. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the
investigating authority failed to properly evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices
that had a bearing on the state of the domestic industry and to conduct an objective
examination, on the basis of positive evidence, of the impact of the dumped imports on the
domestic industry.
9. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the
investigating authority failed to properly determine a genuine and substantial relationship of
WT/DS605/1 • G/ADP/D139/1 • G/L/1393

cause and effect between the allegedly dumped imports and the threat of injury to the
domestic industry and, in addition, failed to ensure that injury caused by other factors was
not attributed t o the allegedly dumped imports. Most notably, but not exclusively, the
investigating authority failed to adequately examine the volume and prices of imports not
sold at dumping prices , developments in technology , and the export performance of the
domestic industry.
10. Article 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, amongst other things, the investigating
authority based the determination of a threat of material injury not on facts but merely on
allegation, conjecture or remote possibility, and failed to properly determine that the change
in circumstances which would create a situation in which the alleged dumping would cause
injury was clearly foreseen and imminent . In addition, the investigating authority failed to
properly consider:
- whether there was a significant rate of increase of dumped imports into the domestic
market indicating the likelihood of substantially increased importation;
- whether there was sufficient freely disposable capacity indicating the likelihood of
an imminent, substantial increas e in dumped exports to the Dominican Republic,
taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional
exports;
- whether imports were entering at prices that w ould have a significant depressing
or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely increase demand for
further imports; and
- whether the totality of the factors considered led to the conclusion that further
dumped exports were imminent and that, un less protective action was taken,
material injury would occur.
11. Article 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to
properly examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to
determine whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.
12. Article 5.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to
reject the domestic industry's application and did not terminate the investigation promptly
as soon as it was satisfied that there was not sufficient evidence of either dumping or of
injury to justify proceeding with the case.
13. Article 6.1.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the investigating authority failed to
provide the full text of the written application for the initiation of the investigation to the
known exporters as soon as the investigation was initiated.
14. Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.9 and 12.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
amongst other reasons because the investigating authority examined the existence of a
threat of injury despite the fact that the domestic industry's application alleged the existence
of material injury.
15. Article 6.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the inv estigating authority failed to
provide timely opportunities for all interested parties to see all information relevant to the
presentation of their cases and to prepare presentations on the basis of th at information.
The relevant information that the investigating authority failed to provide timely
opportunities to see includes, inter alia, the domestic industry's application for the initiation
of an investigation and the results of the verification visit to the domestic industry.
16. Articles 6.4, 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because
the investigating authority afforded, without good cause shown, confidential treatment to
information provided by the domestic industry. Furthermore, the non-confidential
summaries furnished to the interested parties are not in sufficient detail to permit a
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.
WT/DS605/1 • G/ADP/D139/1 • G/L/1393

17. Article 6.7 and Annex I of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, amongst other reasons because
the investigating authority failed , prior to the visit , to advise the firms concerned of the
general nature of the information to be verified and of any further information which needed
to be provided.
18. Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because,
amongst other things, the Dominican Republic has imposed anti-dumping duties where all
requirements for their imposition have not been fulfilled; has not imposed anti -dumping
duties in appropriate amounts; and has imposed anti-dumping duties in excess of the margin
of dumping that should have been established under Article 2.
19. Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as a consequence
of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.
Furthermore, the measures described in Section I of this request appear to nullify or impair the
benefits accruing to Costa Rica, directly or indirectly, under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the
GATT 1994.
Costa Rica reserves its right to raise other matters, whether factual or legal, during the course of
the consultations. This request also covers any other amendments, replacements, extensions,
related measures or implementing measures that relate to the inconsistent measures at issue here.
Costa Rica looks forward to receiving the Dominican Republic's reply to this request and to setting
a mutually convenient date for consultations, with a view to resolving this dispute.