World Trade
Organization WT/DS405/1G/L/916G/ADP/D82/1
8 February 2010
(10-0706) Original: English

European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China

Request for Consultations by China

The following communication, dated 4 February 2010, from the delegation of China to the delegation of the European Union and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.
1294/2009 of 22 December 2009, imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in inter alia China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.
***

China considers that Article 9(5) of the Basic AD 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, is inconsistent, as such, with the EU's obligations under Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization; Articles VI:1 and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994; Articles 6.
6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the EU failed to objectively examine, based on positive evidence, both the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products, as the EU used different sampling procedures for Chinese exporters on the one hand, and EU producers on the other hand; the EU made the injury assessment partially on the basis of the verified data of the sampled EU producers and partially on the basis of the unverified data provided by the complainants and national federations;

Articles 3.
6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as the EU failed to objectively examine, based on positive evidence, the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products because the EU's underselling calculation was based on a very low quantity of exports of the sampled Chinese exporting producers; the EU wrongly calculated the underselling margin by applying a volume-based reduction ratio to the originally calculated price-based margin and by allocating the non-injurious import value in relation to import values for a period outside the investigation period.
1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the EU failed to ensure the disclosure of the names of the complainants; the provision of non-confidential summaries of confidential information relating to the EU industry, and sampled EU producers in the complaint and questionnaire responses respectively, and data provided by national federations or, where provided, failed to ensure the provision by the EU industry and/or the sampled EU producers, of sufficiently detailed summaries to enable a reasonable understanding of the substance of that information.
2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the anti-dumping duty on Chinese exports was not imposed and collected by the EU on a non-discriminatory basis as the
duty rate
established
for China was higher than that for Vietnam,
although both
the
dumping and injury margins found for Vietnam
ese exporters
were higher than th
ose
for Chin
ese exporters.
6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the analogue country selection process by the EU and the calculation of a dumping margin for the non-sampled cooperating Chinese exporting producers without the examination of their Market Economy Treatment and Individual Treatment applications, did not amount to a proper establishment of facts and an unbiased and objective evaluation of those facts.
3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the EU failed to examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the expiry review request in order to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of the expiry review.
based on positive evidence, both the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products, as the EU used different sampling procedures for Chinese exporters and EU importers, on the one hand, and EU producers on the other hand.
because the EU producers' sample selected was neither statistically valid nor representative of the largest volume that could reasonably be investigated; the EU producers' sample was not representative of the product types covered under the scope of the measure and produced in the EU, and of the geographic spread of EU production; the data of the sampled EU producers, pertaining to product types produced differed significantly at different points of the investigation; the EU producers' sample included a producer that outsourced its entire production of the product concerned to a third country in the review investigation period; an incorrect product classification methodology was used by the EU mid-way through the investigation; in constituting the EU importers' sample, the EU failed to cover the largest volume that could reasonably be investigated.
6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the EU failed to make an objective examination, on the basis of positive evidence, that dumped imports are, through the effects of dumping, causing injury; and because the EU failed to ensure that injury caused to the EU industry by other factors was not attributed to dumped imports.
1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the EU failed to ensure the disclosure of the names of the complainants; and the provision of summaries of confidential information relating to the EU industry, and sampled EU producers in the expiry review request and questionnaire responses respectively, or, where provided, failed to ensure the provision by the EU industry and/or the sampled EU producers, of sufficiently detailed summaries to enable a reasonable understanding of the substance of that information.
2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the EU failed to provide sufficiently detailed explanations in the Review Regulation regarding matters of fact and law and reasons which led to the extension of the measures; and of reasons which led to the acceptance or rejection of the arguments of the interested parties.
The Government of China reserves its right to raise further factual claims and legal issues during the course of the consultations.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually convenient date for consultations.
WT/DS405/1G/L/916G/ADP/D82/1Page 6

WT/DS405/1 G/L/916 G/ADP/D82/1 Page 7