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 Anti‑Dumping 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; and
-
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 Anti‑Dumping 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. At its meeting on 23 October 2009, the DSB established a panel. Canada, India, Japan, Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Norway, Thailand and Turkey reserved their third-party rights. On 30 November 2009, the European Communities requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On 9 December 2009, the Director-General composed the panel.
| Brief Date | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| 04/19/2010 | U.S. Answers to the Questions of the Panel following the Meeting with the Third Parties |
| 04/01/2010 | Executive Summary of the Third Party Oral Statement of the United States |
| 03/24/2010 | Third Party Oral Statement of the United States |
| 03/01/2010 | Executive Summary of the Third Party Submission of the United States |
| 02/19/2009 | Third Party Submission of the United States |
| Brief Date | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| 05/04/2011 | Third Participant Oral Statement of the United States |
| 04/19/2010 | Third Participant Submission of the United States |
| Brief Date | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| 12/05/2014 | U.S. Executive Summary of Third Party Submission and Third Party Statement |
| 11/12/2014 | U.S. Third Party Statement |
| 07/10/2014 | U.S. Third Party Submission |
| Brief Date | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| 11/10/2015 | U.S. Third Participant Oral Statement |
| 10/01/2015 | U.S. Third Participant Submission |
| 10/01/2015 | U.S. Executive Summary of Third Participant Submission |
