CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON STEEL WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
Document: OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU Addendum
Date: 12 November 2014
Document codes: WT/DS482/1/Add.1; G/L/1073/Add.1; G/ADP/D105/1/Add.1
Complainant: Taiwan
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: EU, China, South Korea, Norway, UAE, U.S., Brazil
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.8, 1, 6.10, 7.1(ii), 7.5, 9.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 6.8, Annex II, 2.2, 9.3  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CANADA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN CARBON STEEL
WELDED PIPE FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY
OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU
Addendum
The following communication, dated 7 November 2014, from the delegation of the Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to the delegation of Canada and to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the
DSU.

On 25 June 2014, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
requested consultations with Canada concerning the provisional and definitive anti-dumping
measures imposed by Canada on imports of Certain Carbon Steel Welded Pipe (CSWP) originating
in, among others, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and the
investigations underlying these measures (, , ).

On 24 July 2014, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu and
Canada held consultations concerning these measures.

Further to this round of consultations, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen
and Matsu has identified additional claims with respect to the anti-dumping measures imposed by
Canada on imports of CWSP originating in, inter alia, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. It also has become apparent that certain aspects of the contested
anti-dumping measures and the underlying investigation are based on legislative provisions that
appear to be inconsistent, as such, with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("GATT 1994") and various provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement").

Therefore, my authorities have instructed me to request further consultations with Canada
pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII of the GATT 1994 and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement. The present request does not replace but supplements and must be read together with
the original request for consultations presented on 25 June 2014.

The provisional and definitive anti-dumping meas ures imposed by Canada on imports of CSWP
originating in, among others, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and
Matsu, as well as the underlying investigations, appear to be inconsistent, in addition to the
obligations listed in the original request for consultations, with the following provisions of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement:

1. Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement because Canada applied provisional
anti-dumping measures in the absence of a preliminary affirmative determination of
WT/DS482/1/Add.1 • G/L/1073/Add.1 • G/ADP/D105/1/Add.1

dumping when it applied such measures to imports of CSWP of exporters with a de
minimis dumping margin.
2. Article 7.5 and Article 9.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement be cause provisional and
definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed and collected on imports from exporters
with a de minimis margin of dumping.
3. Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada resorted to
facts available for the dumping margin determination of "all other exporters" without
complying with the conditions laid down in those provisions.
4. Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada resorted to
facts available for the calculation of the anti-dumping duties with respect to imports of
new product types exported by cooperating producers.
5. Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because Canada calculated normal value
for new product types of cooperating exporters on the basis of a methodology which is
not foreseen in Article 2.2.
6. Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t because the amount of the anti-dumping
duties imposed on imports of new produc t types of cooperating exporters exceeds
their margin of dumping as established under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
In addition, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that
the following provisions of the Special Import Measures Act ("SIMA") and the Special Import
Measures Regulation ("SIMR") appear to be inconsistent "as such" with several provisions of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement:

Specifically, Sections 2(1), 30.1, 35(1) and 35(2), 38(1) and 41(1) of the Special Import Measures
Act ("SIMA"), and any amendments , implementing measures, or related measures, appear to be
inconsistent, as such, with:

1. Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t, because they provide for the termination
of the investigation only when the margin of the goods of the exporting country as a
whole is insignificant and not for individual exporters having margins of dumping that
are de minimis within the meaning of Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
2. Article 7.1(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agr eement because they mandate that provisional
anti-dumping measures be applied on imports of exporters with a de minimis dumping
margin.
3. Articles 7.5 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement because they require that
provisional and definitive anti-dumping duti es be imposed and collected on imports of
exporters with a de minimis margin of dumping.
Moreover, the above-mentioned provisions together with Sections 42(1), 42(6) and 43(1) of SIMA
and Section 37(1) of SIMR and any implementing measures, or related measures, appear to be
inconsistent, as such, with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
because they automatically include imports of exporters with a de minimis dumping margin in the
injury determination.

The above-mentioned measures also appear to be inconsistent with Articles 1 and 18 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of these violations.

The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu reserves the right to
address additional measures and claims regard ing the above matters, including any amendment,
replacement, extension, implementing measures or other related measures, in the course of the
consultations.

The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu looks forward to Canada’s
response to this request and to fixing a mutually convenient date and venue for the consultations.