Dispute Settlement DS603: Australia — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China

24/06/2021 11:56 - 35 Views

Australia — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China

 

Short title:

Australia — AD/CVD on Certain Products (China)

Complainant:

China

Respondent:

Australia

Third Parties (original proceedings):

Argentina; Brazil; Canada; European Union; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Malaysia; Mexico; Norway; Russian Federation; Singapore; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; United Kingdom; United States; Viet Nam

Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)

Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 9.3  Anti-dumping

Art. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994

Art. 1.1(a)(1), 1.1(b), 2.1(c), 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 14(d)  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

Agreements cited:
(as cited in panel request)

Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 9.3  Anti-dumping

Art. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994

Art. 1.1(a)(1), 1.1(b), 1.2, 2.1(c), 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 14(d)  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

Consultations requested:

24 June 2021

Panel requested:

13 January 2022

Panel established:

28 February 2022

Panel composed:

5 September 2022

 

Summary of the dispute to date

 

The summary below was up-to-date at 13 September 2022 

 

Consultations

 

Complaint by China

 

On 24 June 2021, China requested consultations with Australia with respect to anti-dumping and countervailing measures imposed by Australia on imports of certain products originating in China, inter alia, wind towers, deep drawn stainless steel sinks and railway wheels.

 

China claimed that the anti-dumping measures on wind towers, deep drawn stainless steel sinks and railway wheels appear to be inconsistent with:

 

- Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

 

- Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

 

China claimed that the countervailing measures on deep drawn stainless stell sinks appear to be inconsistent with:

 

Articles 1.1(a)(1),1.1(b), 2.1(c), 11.1, 11.2, 11.3 and 14(d) of the SCM Agreement.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

 

On 13 January 2022, China requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 January 2022, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.

 

At its meeting on 28 February 2022, the DSB established a panel. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, United Kingdom, United States, and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights.

 

On 28 April 2022, Australia and China informed the DSB that they had agreed to Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU in this dispute. Such procedures were entered into by Australia and China to give effect to the communication JOB/DSB/1/Add.12 (“Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement Pursuant To Article 25 Of The DSU (MPIA)”) and with the objective of setting a framework for an Arbitrator to decide on any appeal of any final panel report issued in this dispute, if the Appellate Body is not able to hear such an appeal under Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU.

 

Following the agreement of the parties, the panel was composed on 5 September 2022.

Quảng cáo sản phẩm