Green_Earth
United States - Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India - Recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by India – Report of the Panel
日期:2019/11/15
作者:The Panel
文件編號:WT/DS436/RW
附件下載:WTDS436RW.pdf
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

United States – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT‑ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM India

rECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DsU BY INDIA

Report of the Panel

 

 

 

 

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1   INTRODUCTION.. 14

1.1   Complaint by India. 14

1.2   Panel establishment and composition. 14

1.3   Panel proceedings. 14

2   factual aspects. 14

3   PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 18

4   Arguments of the parties. 19

5   Arguments of the thiRd parties. 19

6   Interim review.. 19

7   Findings. 20

7.1   General principles regarding treaty interpretation, standard of review, and burden of
proof 20

7.1.1   Treaty interpretation. 20

7.1.2   Standard of review. 20

7.1.3   Burden of proof 21

7.1.4   The scope of compliance proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 21

7.2   Public Body: India's claims under Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement 23

7.2.1   Introduction. 23

7.2.2   The legal and evidentiary standard applicable to the public body enquiry. 24

7.2.3   The USDOC's determination on the NMDC as a public body. 27

7.2.3.1   The USDOC's Preliminary Determination. 28

7.2.3.2   The GOI's case brief in response. 29

7.2.3.3   The USDOC's Final Determination. 31

7.2.3.4   Conclusion. 33

7.2.4   Whether the USDOC erred in its finding that the NMDC performs a governmental
function within the legal order of India. 34

7.2.5   Whether the USDOC erred in its assessment of the Miniratna status of the NMDC in respect of establishing "meaningful control" by the GOI 35

7.2.5.1   Whether the USDOC accorded "due significance" to record evidence on Miniratna
status and its associated autonomy. 37

7.2.5.2   Whether the USDOC erred by failing to seek or accept additional evidence on the
legal implications of Miniratna status. 38

7.2.5.3   Whether the "new factual information" can be taken into account by the Panel 39

7.2.5.4   Conclusion on Miniratna status. 41

7.2.6   Whether the USDOC erred in relation to the export restraints applying to the NMDC. 41

7.2.7   Whether the USDOC erred in finding that the Directors (appointed by the GOI) hold
price negotiations for the sale of iron ore. 45

7.2.8   Conclusion on India's claims under Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement 47

7.3   Benefit: India's claims under Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement 47

7.3.1   The legal standard applicable to "benefit" determinations under Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement 48

7.3.2   Whether the USDOC applied an incorrect legal standard in rejecting the domestic
pricing information. 50

7.3.3   Whether the USDOC erred in its factual finding that the data in the association price
chart was "provisional or estimated" 53

7.3.4   Whether the USDOC erred because its examination of the domestic pricing
information was neither objective nor based on coherent reasoning. 55

7.3.5   Whether the USDOC erred by failing to explain adequately the reasons for rejecting
the Tata price quote on the basis of disclosing confidential data. 57

7.3.6   Whether the USDOC erred by failing to explain adequately its reliance on the prices reported in the Tex Report as the appropriate benchmark. 57

7.3.7   Whether the USDOC erred by rejecting NMDC export prices in favour of Australian/Brazilian world prices. 59

7.3.8   Conclusion. 63

7.4   Benefit: India's claims under Article 14(b) of the SCM Agreement 63

7.5   Specificity: India's claims under Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement 68

7.5.1   Whether the USDOC erred in its specificity assessment for the NMDC's sales of
high‑grade iron ore. 68

7.5.2   Whether the USDOC erred in its finding that mining leases for iron ore were de facto specific. 72

7.5.3   Whether the USDOC erred in its consideration of mandatory factors under
Article 2.1(c) in respect of "mining leases for iron ore" and "mining leases for coal" 74

7.6   Soliciting and accepting new evidence in the reinvestigation: India's claims under Article 12.1 of the SCM Agreement 79

7.7   Disclosure of essential facts: India's claims under Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement 80

7.8   New Subsidies: India's claims under Articles 21.1 and 21.2 of the SCM Agreement 85

7.8.1   Introduction. 85

7.8.2   India's "new subsidies" claims concerning the 2004, 2006, and 2007 administrative reviews. 86

7.8.2.1   Original proceedings. 86

7.8.2.2   The Panel's evaluation of India's claim regarding the inclusion of "new subsidies"
in the 2004, 2006, and 2007 reviews. 87

7.8.3   "New subsidies" in the Section 129 Determination. 89

7.8.3.1   Factual background. 89

7.8.3.2   The Panel's evaluation of India's "new subsidies" claims concerning the
Section 129 proceedings. 90

7.8.4   Conclusion. 93

7.9   India's claim that the United States' failure to amend 19 USC § 1677(7)(G)(i)(III) is inconsistent with the DSB recommendation in this dispute. 93

7.9.1   Introduction. 93

7.9.2   Whether India's claim is within the Panel's terms of reference. 93

7.9.3   Whether the United States complied with the recommendation to bring 19 USC § 1677(7)(G)(i)(III) into conformity with the SCM Agreement 96

7.9.4   Conclusion. 102

7.10   Injury: India's "as applied" claims under Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM 
Agreement 102

7.10.1   Whether the methodology and the data used by the USITC were flawed. 102

7.10.2   Whether the USITC ignored data from the original determination. 103

7.10.3   Whether the USITC failed to determine the significance of price undercutting. 104

7.10.4   Conclusion. 109

7.11   Injury: India's "as applied" claims under Articles 15.1 and 15.4 of the SCM 
Agreement 110

7.11.1   Conclusion. 112

7.12   Causation and non-attribution: India's "as applied" claims under Articles 15.1
and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement 112

7.12.1   Introduction. 112

7.12.2   Whether the USITC's Section 129 Determination failed to demonstrate that
subsidized imports caused injury to the domestic industry. 112

7.12.3   Whether the USITC's Section 129 Determination failed to consider the impact
of certain known factors in the non-attribution analysis. 113

7.12.3.1   Whether the USITC's Section 129 Determination failed to consider the impact
of non-subsidized imports on the state of the domestic industry. 114

7.12.3.1.1   Non-subsidized imports already subject to anti-dumping duties. 114

7.12.3.1.2   Non‑attribution: "decumulated" dumped imports. 115

7.12.3.2   Non‑attribution: plant closures. 118

7.12.3.3   Non‑attribution: contraction in demand. 120

7.12.4   Conclusion. 121

7.13   Whether the USDOC's termination of previously agreed CVD rates is inconsistent
with Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement 121

7.13.1   Factual background. 121

7.13.2   The Panel's analysis. 122

7.13.3   Conclusion. 126

7.14   India's claims under Articles 10 of the SCM Agreement and VI of the GATT 1994. 127

8   Conclusions and Recommendation.. 129