Dispute Settlement DS427

17/05/2013 12:00 - 841 total view

China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States

Short title: China — Broiler Products
Complainant: United States
Respondent: China
Third Parties: European Union; Japan; Norway; Thailand; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Chile; Mexico
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)
Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art.12.22.2.1.12.43.13.23.43.54.1,5.16.26.46.5.16.86.912.212.2.1,12.2.212.7Annex II
GATT 1994: Art. VIVI:3
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Art.1011.112.312.4.112.712.815.1,15.215.415.516.119.422.322.4,22.5
Request for Consultationsreceived: 20 September 2011

Consultations

Complaint by the United States.

On 20 September 2011, the United States requested consultations with China concerning China's measures imposing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on broiler products from the United States.

The United States claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement related to the process of the anti-dumping investigation as well as the anti-dumping duty determination at issue (including improper dumping and injury determination, improper reliance on the facts available, failure to provide access to relevant information, insufficient explanation of the basis for the determinations, absence of proper analysis of the effects of imports under investigation, and absence of objective determination of causality).  The United States alleges violations of Articles 1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, and 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 

The United States further claimed that the measures appear to be inconsistent with various provisions of the SCM Agreement related to the process of the subsidy investigation as well as the countervailing duty determination at issue (including improper reliance on the facts available, insufficient explanation of the basis for the determinations, and imposition of countervailing duties in excess of the subsidy found to exist).  The United States alleges violations of Articles 10, 11.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 16.1, 19.4, 22.3, 22.4, and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement.

The United States considered that the measures are also inconsistent with Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the alleged violations of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement.

On 8 December 2011, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 19 December 2011, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

At its meeting on 20 January 2012, the DSB established a panel.  The European Union, Japan, Norway, Saudi Arabia and Thailand reserved their third party rights. Subsequently, Chile and Mexico reserved their third party rights. On 14 May 2012, the United States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel.  On 24 May 2012, the Director-General composed the panel. On 23 November 2012, the Chairman of the panel notified the DSB that it would not be able to issue its report within six months.  The panel expects to conclude its work by the end of June 2013, consistent with the timetable adopted by the panel after consultations with the parties to the dispute.