Green_Earth
Pakistan - Anti-Dumping Measures on Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film from the United Arab Emirates - Report of the Panel
日期:2021/01/18
作者:Dispute Settlement Body
文件編號:WT/DS538/R
附件下載:WTDS538R.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

pakistan – anti‑dumping measures on biaxially oriented polypropylene film from the united arab emirates

Report of the Panel

 

 

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1   Introduction.. 17

1.1   Consultations. 17

1.2   Panel establishment and composition. 17

1.3   Panel proceedings. 17

2   Factual aspects: the measures at issue. 18

3   Parties' requests for findings and recommendations. 20

4   Arguments of the parties. 20

5   Arguments of the thiRd parties. 20

6   interim review.. 20

7   Findings. 21

7.1   Temporal scope of the evidence underlying initiation: Articles 5.2, 5.3, and 5.8 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 22

7.1.1   The applicable requirements of Article 5.3. 23

7.1.2   Whether Pakistan acted inconsistently with Article 5.3. 26

7.1.2.1   The relevant body of evidence: whether the NTC was entitled to consider evidence
not contained in the application. 26

7.1.2.2   Whether the NTC properly determined that the evidence was sufficient 26

7.1.3   Judicial economy under Articles 5.2 and 5.8. 28

7.2   Temporal scope of the evidence underlying the determination of dumping: Articles 2.1,
9.1, 9.3, and 11.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 28

7.2.1   The applicable requirements of Article 2.1. 29

7.2.2   Whether Pakistan acted inconsistently with Article 2.1. 30

7.2.2.1   The relevant date of final determination. 30

7.2.2.2   Whether the NTC failed to determine current dumping. 31

7.2.2.3   Conclusion under Article 2.1. 33

7.2.3   Judicial economy under Articles 9.1, 9.3, and 11.1. 33

7.3   Temporal scope of the evidence underlying the determination of injury: Articles 3.1, 3.2,
3.4, 3.5, 9.1, and 11.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 33

7.3.1   The applicable requirements of Article 3.1. 34

7.3.2   Whether Pakistan acted inconsistently with Article 3.1. 35

7.3.3   Arguments on temporal scope under Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5. 36

7.3.4   Judicial economy under Articles 9.1 and 11.1. 36

7.4   The NTC's choice of cost data: Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2. 36

7.4.1   Factual overview. 37

7.4.1.1   Exporter questionnaire. 37

7.4.1.2   Deficiency letter 39

7.4.1.3   Preliminary determination. 39

7.4.1.4   Email of December 2012. 40

7.4.1.5   Taghleef's comments on the statement of essential facts. 40

7.4.1.6   The NTC's response in the Report on final determination. 40

7.4.2   The applicable requirements of Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2. 40

7.4.2.1   Article 2.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 40

7.4.2.2   Article 2.2.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 41

7.4.2.3   Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 41

7.4.2.4   Article 2.2.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 44

7.4.3   Whether Pakistan acted inconsistently with the requirements of Articles 2.2, 2.2.1,
2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2. 45

7.4.3.1   The NTC's decision to use the data that Taghleef provided in appendix 2 rather than appendix D‑3. 45

7.4.3.1.1   Article 2.2.1.1. 45

7.4.3.1.2   Article 2.2.2. 48

7.4.3.1.3   The NTC's explanation in the Report on final determination. 49

7.4.3.2   Consequential claims under Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1. 51

7.4.3.3   Conclusion under Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, and 2.2.2. 51

7.5   Level of trade adjustment: Article 2.4 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 51

7.5.1   The applicable requirements of Article 2.4. 52

7.5.2   Whether Pakistan acted inconsistently with Article 2.4. 53

7.5.2.1   The NTC's assessment of the evidence. 53

7.5.2.1.1   The NTC's explanation in the Report on final determination. 54

7.5.2.1.2   Taghleef's response to the exporter questionnaire. 55

7.5.2.1.3   Taghleef's submissions regarding the additional costs of distributors. 56

7.5.2.1.4   Taghleef's agreement with a Pakistani distributor 58

7.5.2.1.5   Conclusion on the NTC's assessment that the evidence was insufficient 59

7.5.2.2   The NTC's requests for evidence. 60

7.5.3   Conclusion under Article 2.4. 62

7.6   Consideration of the volume of dumped imports: Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 62

7.6.1   The applicable requirements of Articles 3.1 and 3.2, first sentence. 63

7.6.2   Whether the NTC's consideration of the volume of dumped imports is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2. 64

7.6.2.1   The evolution of the volume of dumped imports in absolute terms. 64

7.6.2.2   The evolution of the volume of dumped imports relative to domestic production. 66

7.6.2.3   The evolution of the volume of dumped imports relative to domestic consumption. 67

7.6.3   Conclusion on the NTC's consideration of the volume of dumped imports under
Articles 3.1 and 3.2. 68

7.7   Consideration of the effect of dumped imports on prices: Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 68

7.7.1   The applicable requirements of Article 3.2, second sentence. 68

7.7.2   Whether the NTC's consideration of price undercutting was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2. 69

7.7.2.1   The NTC's use of PRAL data. 70

7.7.2.2   Price comparability (product mix) 71

7.7.2.3   The NTC's focus on 2009. 71

7.7.2.4   "Significance" of price undercutting. 73

7.7.2.5   The global financial crisis. 73

7.7.2.6   Conclusion on the NTC's consideration of price undercutting under Articles 3.1
and 3.2. 73

7.7.3   Whether the NTC's consideration of price depression was inconsistent with Articles 3.1
and 3.2. 74

7.7.3.1   The NTC's focus on 2009. 74

7.7.3.2   "Significance" of price depression. 75

7.7.3.3   Whether the absence of price suppression contradicted the finding of price
depression. 75

7.7.3.4   Decrease in costs. 76

7.7.3.5   Conclusion on the NTC's consideration of price depression under Articles 3.1
and 3.2. 77

7.8   Examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry: Articles 3.1
and 3.4 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 77

7.8.1   The applicable requirements of Article 3.4. 77

7.8.2   Whether the NTC's examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.4. 78

7.8.2.1   Whether the NTC failed to evaluate the "magnitude of the margin of dumping" 79

7.8.2.2   Whether the NTC failed to objectively evaluate seven of the economic factors
and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. 80

7.8.2.2.1   Market share. 80

7.8.2.2.2   Profits. 81

7.8.2.2.3   Sales. 83

7.8.2.2.4   Productivity. 85

7.8.2.2.5   Salaries and wages. 86

7.8.2.2.6   Return on investment 87

7.8.2.2.7   Cash flow. 87

7.8.2.3   Whether the NTC failed to make a holistic assessment of the state of the industry. 89

7.8.3   Conclusion under Articles 3.1 and 3.4. 90

7.9   Causation: Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 90

7.9.1   The applicable requirements of Article 3.5. 90

7.9.2   Whether the NTC's examination of causation was inconsistent with Articles 3.1
and 3.5. 92

7.9.2.1   Whether the NTC's reliance on findings that were inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2,
and 3.4 renders its causation analysis inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5. 92

7.9.2.2   Whether the NTC failed to ensure that injury caused by other factors was not
attributed to the dumped imports. 92

7.9.2.2.1   The global financial crisis. 93

7.9.2.2.2   Other factors set out in the domestic producer's annual report and identified by Taghleef 94

7.9.2.3   Whether the NTC otherwise failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry. 96

7.9.3   Conclusion under Articles 3.1 and 3.5. 96

7.10   Duration of the original investigation: Article 5.10 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 96

7.10.1   The applicable requirements of Article 5.10. 97

7.10.1.1   When do the time‑limits in Article 5.10 start running?. 97

7.10.1.2   When are investigations "concluded" under Article 5.10?. 99

7.10.2   Whether Pakistan exceeded the 18‑month time‑limit in Article 5.10. 100

7.10.2.1   The date of "initiation" 100

7.10.2.2   The date the investigation was "concluded" 102

7.10.2.3   Conclusion under Article 5.10. 104

7.11   Due process rights and the 2015 determination: Article 6.2 of the
Anti‑Dumping Agreement 104

7.11.1   The applicable requirements of Article 6.2. 104

7.11.2   Whether Pakistan acted inconsistently with Article 6.2. 105

7.12   Sunset review: Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 106

7.12.1   The applicable requirements of Articles 11.1 and 11.3. 107

7.12.2   Whether the NTC's likelihood of dumping determination is inconsistent with
Article 11.3. 109

7.12.2.1   Whether the NTC acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 by relying on a dumping
margin that did not conform to Article 2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 109

7.12.2.1.1   Whether the NTC's "likely dumping margins" are subject to Article 2. 109

7.12.2.1.2   Whether the dumping margin that the NTC relied upon for the
United Arab Emirates is inconsistent with Article 2. 112

7.12.2.1.2.1   Normal value. 112

7.12.2.1.2.2   Conclusion on the dumping margin that the NTC relied upon. 113

7.12.2.2   Whether the NTC acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 in finding that the stability
of export destinations and the existence of exportable surplus supported its determination
that dumping was likely to continue or recur 113

7.12.2.2.1   The NTC's reliance on its finding that "major export destinations of the exporting countries remained same/similar after imposition of duties" 114

7.12.2.2.2   The NTC's reliance on its finding of exportable surplus. 114

7.12.2.3   Conclusion under Article 11.3 on the NTC's likelihood of dumping determination. 117

7.12.3   Whether the NTC's likelihood of injury determination is inconsistent with Article 11.3. 118

7.12.3.1   Likely volume of imports and effects on domestic production. 118

7.12.3.2   Likely effects on market share. 119

7.12.3.3   Likely price effects. 120

7.12.3.4   Other aspects of the determination of likelihood of injury. 121

7.12.3.5   Conclusion under Article 11.3 on the NTC's likelihood of injury determination. 122

7.12.4   Whether the sunset review determination is inconsistent with Article 11.3 as a consequence of the inconsistencies in the original determination. 122

7.12.5   Judicial economy under Article 11.1. 123

7.13   Sunset review: Article 11.4 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 123

7.13.1   The applicable requirements of Article 11.4. 124

7.13.2   Whether the NTC acted inconsistently with Article 11.4. 125

7.13.3   Conclusion under Article 11.4. 127

7.14   Public notice and explanation of determinations: Articles 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 127

7.15   Consequential claims: Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement and
Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994. 128

7.16   The Panel's duty under Article 12.11 of the DSU. 129

8   Conclusions. 129

9   Recommendation and suggestion.. 130