Green_Earth
Morocco - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey - Report of the Panel
日期:2018/10/31
作者:Dispute Settlement Body
文件編號:WT/DS513/R
附件下載:WTDS513R.docx
因為版本問題,開啟附件時可能會出現錯誤訊息,如「檔案已損毀」的訊息,請您忽略此訊息,即可正常開啟

MOROCCO – ANTI‑DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT‑ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY

Report of the Panel

BCI deleted, as indicated [[***]]

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1   Introduction.. 14

1.1   Complaint by Turkey. 14

1.2   Panel establishment and composition. 14

1.3   Panel proceedings. 14

2   Factual aspects. 15

2.1   The measures at issue. 15

3   Parties' requests for findings and recommendation.. 15

4   Arguments of the parties. 16

5   Arguments of the thiRd parties. 16

6   Interim review... 16

7   Findings. 16

7.1   General principles. 16

7.1.1   Treaty interpretation. 16

7.1.2   Standard of review.. 16

7.1.3   Burden of proof 17

7.2   Terms of reference. 18

7.2.1   Evaluation. 18

7.2.1.1   Article 6.2 of the DSU: Claim under footnote 9 to Article 3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 18

7.2.1.2   Article 4.4 of the DSU: Claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 21

7.2.1.3   The "evolution" of certain claims in the panel request from the request for consultations  23

7.2.1.3.1   Factual background. 23

7.2.1.3.2   Claims under Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 23

7.2.1.3.3   Claim under Article 6.9 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement concerning the break‑even threshold  27

7.2.1.4   Claim under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994. 29

7.2.2   Conclusion. 30

7.3   Article 5.10 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement: The MDCCE's conclusion of the investigation beyond 18 months after initiation. 30

7.3.1   Provision at issue. 30

7.3.2   Evaluation. 30

7.4   Article 6.8 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II: Facts available in respect of the investigated Turkish producers. 33

7.4.1   Factual background. 33

7.4.2   Provision at issue. 34

7.4.3   Evaluation. 34

7.4.3.1   Claim under Article 6.8 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 34

7.4.3.2   Claims under Annex II to the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 39

7.4.4   Conclusion. 39

7.5   Article 6.9 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement: Disclosure of essential facts in respect of the alleged failure to report export transactions. 39

7.5.1   Factual background. 39

7.5.2   Provision at issue. 40

7.5.3   Evaluation. 40

7.5.3.1   Claims that certain essential facts were not disclosed at all 40

7.5.3.1.1   Essential facts in respect of the alleged failure to report additional, unidentified export sales  40

7.5.3.1.2   Essential facts in respect of the calculation of the facts available rate. 42

7.5.3.1.3   Essential facts used by the MDCCE in cross‑checking the facts available rate. 43

7.5.3.2   Claim that certain essential facts were not disclosed in sufficient time to allow producers to defend their interests. 44

7.5.4   Conclusion. 45

7.6   Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement: The MDCCE's determination that the domestic industry was unestablished. 46

7.6.1   Provisions at issue. 46

7.6.2   Evaluation. 47

7.6.2.1   Whether the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 in finding that the domestic industry was unestablished. 48

7.6.2.1.1   Whether the MDCCE did not properly assess the temporal criterion in its establishment analysis  49

7.6.2.1.2   Whether the MDCCE did not properly assess the market share criterion in its establishment analysis  52

7.6.2.1.2.1   Whether the MDCCE improperly disregarded Maghreb Steel's total market share. 52

7.6.2.1.2.2   Whether the MDCCE improperly rejected Maghreb Steel's share in the merchant market 54

7.6.2.1.3   Whether the MDCCE in its establishment analysis did not properly conclude that Maghreb Steel had not met its break‑even threshold. 58

7.6.2.1.4   Whether the MDCCE did not properly assess the production stability criterion in its establishment analysis. 59

7.6.2.1.5   Whether the MDCCE did not properly assess the "new industry" criterion in its establishment analysis. 61

7.6.2.1.6   Conclusion. 64

7.6.2.2   Whether the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 in failing to conduct the "correct" injury analysis. 65

7.7   Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement: The MDCCE's determination that the establishment of the domestic industry was materially retarded. 65

7.7.1   Provisions at issue. 66

7.7.2   Evaluation. 66

7.7.2.1   Whether the MDCCE evaluated all injury factors listed in Article 3.4. 66

7.7.2.1.1   Return on investments, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, and ability to raise capital or investments. 68

7.7.2.1.2   Growth. 71

7.7.2.1.3   Wages. 72

7.7.2.1.4   Factors affecting domestic prices. 72

7.7.2.1.5   Conclusion. 74

7.7.2.2   Whether the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 in excluding, from its injury analysis, Maghreb Steel's captive production. 74

7.7.2.3   Whether the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 in relying on the McLellan report 78

7.7.3   Overall Conclusion. 80

8   Conclusions and Recommendation.. 80