Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at 11 May 2011
Complaint by China.
On 31 July 2009, China requested consultations with the European Communities concerning Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (the EC's Basic AntiDumping Regulation) which provides that in case of imports from non-market economy countries, the duty shall be specified for the supplying country concerned and not for each supplier and that an individual duty will only be specified for exporters that demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria listed in that provision. According to China, Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation is inconsistent, as such, with the European Communities' obligations under: * Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;
* Articles I:1, VI:1, and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;
* Articles 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 12.2.2 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China also requests consultations regarding Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China. China considers that the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China is inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under: * Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;
* Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2. 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.10, 9.2, 9.4 and 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; as well as * Part I, paragraph 15 of China's Protocol of Accession.
* In addition, China also refers to Articles 9.3 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China claims that the European Communities acted inconsistently with various procedural obligations in the AntiDumping Agreement. China also claims that the European Communities has acted inconsistently with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Protocol of Accession through the application of Article 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation in this investigation as well as decisions and determinations made in the investigation relating to, inter alia, the scope of the like product, the extent of the domestic industry, the conduct of the injury analysis and the lack of price comparability adjustments made in the calculation of the anti-dumping margin.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
On 12 October 2009, China requested the establishment of a panel which the DSB established on 23 October 2009. Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Japan, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey and the United States reserved their third-party rights. On 30 November 2009, the European Communities requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel which he did on 9 December 2009. On 1 April 2010, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that the panel expected to complete its work in September 2010. On 3 December 2010, the panel report was circulated to Members. * The Panel found that Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation was inconsistent with Articles 6.10, 9.2 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement, Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement because, with respect to producers from non-market economy countries, the individual treatment test embodied in this provision conditioned the calculation of individual dumping margins and the imposition of individual duties on the fulfilment of certain criteria.
* The Panel also found that the application of Article 9(5) of the Basic Regulation in the fasteners investigation was inconsistent with AD Agreement Articles 6.10 and 9.2. The Panel also found that the EU investigating authorities acted inconsistently with AD Agreement Articles 3.1 and 3.2 with respect to the consideration of the volume of dumped imports; AD Agreement Articles 3.1 and 3.5 with...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document