Dispute Settlement DS405
17/05/2013 12:00
European Union — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China
Short title: | EU — Footwear (China) |
Complainant: | China |
Respondent: | European Union |
Third Parties: | Australia; Brazil; Colombia; Japan; Turkey; United States; Viet Nam |
Agreements cited: (as cited in request for consultations) | Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art.1, 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,3.5, 5.3, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1,6.5.2, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.10.2, 9, 9.1, 17.6,9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 11.3, 12.2.2, 17.6, 18.1, 18.4 GATT 1994: Art. I, I:1, VI:1, XVI:4, X:3(a) Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Art. XVI:4 Protocol of Accession: |
Request for Consultationsreceived: | 4 February 2010 |
Panel Reportcirculated: | 28 October 2011 |
Consultations
Complaint by China.
On 4 February 2010, China requested consultations with the European Union concerning three EU measures in connection with the imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports of certain leather footwear from China. In particular, China is challenging as WTO-inconsistent Article 9(5) of the Basic EC Anti-Dumping Regulation, which provides that, in cases involving imports from NME countries, the anti-dumping duty shall be specified for the supplying country concerned and not for each individual supplier. According to China, applicable WTO rules require that an individual margin and duty be determined and specified for each known exporter and producer and not for the supplying country as a whole. China states that the Basic Regulation provides that an individual duty will only be specified for exporters that demonstrate that they fulfil the criteria set forth in Article 9(5), the Individual Treatment rules, and is therefore inconsistent with various provisions of the WTO Agreement, China's Protocol of Accession, the GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China is also challenging as WTO-inconsistent the Review and Definitive Regulations imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of certain footwear from China, and various aspects of the expiry and original determinations and investigations underlying those regulations.
China and the European Union held consultations on 31 March 2010. These consultations failed to resolve the dispute. On 8 April 2010, China requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 April 2010, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting on 18 May 2010, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, Turkey, the United States and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights. On 23 June 2010, China requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 5 July 2010, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 8 April 2011, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that due to the great number of claims and arguments involved in the dispute, as well as the length of the submissions presented by the parties, the panel would not be able to complete its work within the time frame originally contemplated (i.e. June 2011). Absent any further delays beyond the control of the panel, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by July 2011. The panel issued its report to the parties on 27 July 2011.
On 28 October 2011, the panel report was circulated to Members.
Summary of key findings In sum, the Panel found Article 9(5) of the Basic AD Regulation inconsistent with the European Union's WTO obligations, and that the European Union had acted inconsistently with the AD Agreement in some aspects of the original investigation and expiry review, but rejected the bulk of China's specific claims of violation in connection with the original investigation and expiry review, and resulting Definitive and Review Regulations. More particularly:
| ||
On 6 December 2011, China and the European Union requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60-day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU, to no later than 22 February 2012. At its meeting on 19 December 2011, the DSB agreed that, upon a request by China or the European Union, the DSB, shall no later than 22 February 2012, adopt the panel report, unless the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or China or the European Union notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU.
At its meeting on 22 February 2012, the DSB adopted the panel report.
Reasonable period of time
At the DSB meeting of 23 March 2012, the European Union informed the DSB that it intends to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 23 May 2012, China and the European Union informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for the European Union to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 7 months and 19 days from 22 February 2012.
At the DSB meeting on 17 December 2012, the European Union informed the DSB that it had adopted the measures necessary to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings before the expiry of the reasonable period of time. China did not agree that the European Union had fully implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings.
Implementation of adopted reports
On 25 October 2012, China and the European Union informed the DSB of Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.
Các tin khác
- Dispute Settlement DS616: European Union — Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Products from Indonesia (24/01/2023)
- Dispute Settlement DS606: European Union — Provisional Anti-Dumping Duty on Mono-Ethylene Glycol from Saudi Arabia (17/08/2021)
- Dispute Settlement DS605: Dominican Republic — Anti-dumping Measures on Corrugated Steel Bars (23/07/2021)
- Dispute Settlement DS603: Australia — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (24/06/2021)
- Dispute Settlement DS602: China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Wine from Australia (22/06/2021)