WTO Appellate Body Rules Against China AD/CV Duties on U.S. Electrical Steel
The World Trade Organization appellate body upheld a panel’s finding that China violated the WTO antidumping and subsidy agreements by not proving a link between a fall in price and U.S. imports in its injury analysis for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on U.S. electrical steel. While the panel also ruled against other aspects of the AD/CV investigations, China only appealed the price effects aspect of the panel’s ruling in China -- Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the U.S. (DS414).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
China argued that it only needed to consider the fact that prices fell when applying AD/CV duties, and not whether the price effects were the result of imports. But the Appellate Body upheld the panel’s finding that China was required to objectively examine evidence of a link, and that China did not do so. The Appellate Body also upheld panel findings that China violated WTO agreements by failing to disclose information relating to its price effects analysis.
The Appellate Body didn’t rule on the panel’s faulting of: (1) the initiation of the AD & CV duty investigations; (2) the application of adverse facts available; and (3) other aspects of China’s injury analysis. The panel also rejected U.S. challenges of China’s calculation disclosure and finding that the “Buy American” procurement program creates non-market prices in its ruling circulated June 15.
The Appellate Body’s findings and conclusions are available here. The full Appellate Body report is available here.
(See ITT’s Online Archives 12061529 for summary of the panel report, and 12072301 for summary of China’s decision to appeal.)