IX. BRAZIL'S PANEL
REQUEST
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE
FITTINGS
FROM BRAZIL
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Brazil
(Continued)
The following communication, dated 7 June 2001, from the Permanent Mission of
Brazil to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 6.2 of the DSU.
_______________
On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the European
Communities (the EC) further to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the DSU), Article XXIII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the GATT 1994) and Article 17 of
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the AD Agreement) concerning the anti-dumping measures
prevailing in the EC in respect of imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe
fittings originating in Brazil, including the initiation of the anti-dumping
investigation carried out by the EC which led to the imposition and collection
of definitive and provisional anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron tube or
pipe fittings from Brazil (the Investigation) and the imposition and collection
of provisional and definitive duties.
The above request for consultations was notified to the Dispute Settlement Body
and was subsequently circulated to WTO Members369 and those consultations were held
in Geneva on 7 February 2001. As consultations failed to achieve a mutually
agreed solution and further to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 17 of the
AD Agreement and Article 6 of the DSU Brazil respectfully requests the
establishment of a panel to examine the matter.
The EC initiated the Investigation by publishing a notice of initiation on 29
May 1999 in the Official Journal of the European Communities370 and provisional
anti-dumping duties were imposed by the EC by way of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 449/2000371, dated 28 February 2000 (the Provisional Regulation). The
imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the collection of provisional
duties was affected by way of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2000372, dated 11
August 2000 (the Definitive Regulation).
In the opinion of Brazil the EC has acted and is acting in a manner which is
inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement in
that benefits accruing to Brazil either directly or indirectly under the AD
Agreement and the GATT 1994 have been nullified or impaired by the EC and/or the
achievement of objectives of the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994 are being
impeded by the EC.
The actions of the EC including but not limited to the initiation of the
Investigation and the imposition and collection of provisional and definitive
anti-dumping duties has significantly impacted upon Brazil's exports of
malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings to the EC.
Brazil believes that the initiation of the Investigation, and the imposition and
collection of provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties referred to above
by the EC are actions which are inconsistent with the following provisions of
the AD Agreement and of the GATT 1994:
Provisions of the GATT 1994:
(i) Article I
(ii) Article VI
Provisions of AD Agreement:
(a) Article 1
(b) Article 2, especially (but not exclusively) Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6
(c) Article 3, especially (but not exclusively) Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
and 3.6
(d) Article 4.1(i)
(e) Article 5, especially (but not exclusively) Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4,
5.5, 5.7 and 5.8
(f) Article 6, especially (but not exclusively) Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6,
6.10 and 6.12
(g) Article 7, especially (but not exclusively) Articles 7.1 and 7.5
(h) Article 9, especially (but not exclusively) Articles 9.1 and 9.2
(i) Article 11, especially (but not exclusively) Article 11.1
(j) Article 12, especially (but not exclusively) Article 12.2
(k) Article 15
Brazil considers the following actions and/or determinations and/or omissions of
the EC to be or to have been inconsistent with GATT 1994 and/or with the AD
Agreement.
All references herein to "Tupy" are references to the Brazilian exporter
Industria de Fundi��o Tupy Ltda and, unless otherwise specified, all references
to "Articles" are references to articles of the AD Agreement unless otherwise
stated.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
- 1. The EC failed to comply with its obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994
and under the AD Agreement, particularly but not exclusively with Articles 1, 2,
3, 5 and 9 thereof in that it adopted the anti-dumping measures concerned
against Brazil through the Provisional Regulation and the Definitive Regulation
whereas, particularly following the devaluation of the Brazilian Real as of
January 1999 there has been no justification whatsoever for the adoption of
these measures. In view of the EC's own findings where properly assessed,
following the devaluation no dumping nor injury could have been properly
established with regard to the imports of the product concerned originating in
Brazil.
- At the time of the initiation of the Investigation there was no dumping of
the product concerned originating in Brazil and therefore the application did
not include evidence of dumping and therefore of a causal link between dumping
and injury (Article 5.2). The application therefore did not include sufficient
evidence of dumping (and therefore of a causal link between dumping and injury)
for the purpose of the initiation of the Investigation (Article 5.3),
particularly as the allegation of injury pertained to actual material injury
being sustained by the domestic industry and not to the threat of material
injury being sustained by the domestic industry.
- The product originating in Brazil was determined to have been dumped by the
EC in a manner which was not compatible with its obligations under Articles 2
and 3 as at the time of the relevant determinations of dumping and injury the
export price of the product was not less than the price of the like product, in
the ordinary course of trade, when destined for consumption in Brazil (Article
2.1) and it follows that there could not therefore have been a causal link
between the product originating in Brazil and the injury said to be being
sustained by the domestic industry (Article 3.5). The EC further failed to
discharge its obligations under Article 9 in that it collected anti-dumping
duties other than in respect of imports of the product concerned from Brazil
which were dumped and causing injury (Article 7.5 and Article 9.2).
- The EC has furthermore therefore failed to discharge its obligations under
Article 1 insofar as it has levied anti-dumping measures other than in the
circumstances provided for in Article VI of the GATT 1994 and pursuant to the
Investigation, which was not conducted (for these among other reasons) in
accordance with the provisions of the AD Agreement.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 5 in that (for
example) the application did not contain a complete description of the volume
and value of domestic production of the like product accounted for by the
applicants (Article 5.2(i)) and did not set out information (for instance) as to
the wages, stocks and investments of the applicants, which information should
have been more than reasonably available to them (Article 5.2(iv)). The EC also
failed to satisfy itself as to the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence set out
in the application with regard the imports of the product concerned from certain
countries not ultimately subject to the Investigation (Article 5.3).
- The EC did not consider evidence of both dumping and of injury simultaneously
in its decision whether or not to initiate the Investigation and during the
course of the Investigation as there was at no stage sufficient positive
evidence of dumping and of injury to domestic EC producers before the EC
(Article 5.7) and in any event the EC should have rejected the application
submitted to it when it became evident that it contained insufficient positive
evidence of injury, in particular, to justify proceeding with the case (Article
5.8).
- The EC was not in a position to determine whether or not the application has
been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry (Article 5.4) particularly
owing to its failure to investigate the extent to which certain of the
applicants were themselves importers of the product concerned (Article 4.1 and
Article 6.6) and furthermore the EC had not received a properly documented
application and did not notify Brazil prior to proceeding to initiate the
Investigation (Article 5.5).
- The EC failed to discharge its obligations under Article 6 in that, inter
alia, it failed to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of certain information
submitted to it by Tupy in connection with the taxation credit adjustment, the
packing allowance adjustment, the advertising and promotional expenses
adjustment, the importation of the product concerned by domestic EC producers
from countries not subject to the Investigation, the impact of substitution and
the market perception of the distinction between so-called black heart and white
heart variants of the product concerned (Article 6.6) and thereby also denied
Tupy the full opportunity for the defence of its interests in these among other
respects (Article 6.2)
- The EC resorted to the sampling of product types for the purpose of deciding
on the extent of the taxation credit adjustment where the sample chosen was
neither statistically valid nor necessary owing to the impracticability of
conducting an examination of all product types concerned and no attempt was made
by the EC to decide upon what sample, if any, might be appropriate in this
respect in consultation with and with the consent of Tupy (Article 6.10).
- Tupy was not provided with timely opportunities to see all information that
was relevant to the presentation of its case particularly in that the EC did not
properly disclose its methodology and calculations with regard to the currency
conversions made in the dumping determination (Article 6.4).
- If the EC considered whether or not there had been a significant increase in
allegedly dumped imports from Brazil onto the EC market such consideration was
not apparent from the Definitive Regulation and if the EC examined all of the
injury factors listed in Article 3.4 it did not make this apparent in the
Provisional Regulation and in the Definitive Regulation or in any separate
reports thereto (Article 12.2).
- The EC failed to set out in the Definitive Regulation or otherwise make
available in a separate report all relevant information on the matters of fact
and law with regard to the injury caused to domestic EC producers by factors
other than the dumped imports that were made known to it such as (for instance)
with regard to imports of the product concerned from third countries not subject
to the Investigation, the substitution of the product concerned with replacement
products, imports of the product concerned into the EC under product code sub
headings other than 7307 1910 and the outsourcing initiatives, poor export
performance and price increases of EC producers during the injury investigation
period (Article 12.2).
- The EC also failed to set out in the Definitive Regulation or otherwise make
available in a separate report all relevant information on the matters of fact
and law connected with the dumping, injury and causation determinations made in
the light of the devaluation of the Brazilian Real in January of 1999 (Article
12.2).
- The EC failed to set out in the Definitive Regulation or otherwise make
available in a separate report all relevant information on the matters of fact
and law connected with its decision to cumulate imports of the product concerned
from Brazil with the imports of other countries subject to the Investigation,
its assessment of the impact of factors of causation known to it, its decision
to undertake sampling for the purpose of determining the extent of the taxation
credit adjustment to be granted, its decision not to grant the taxation credit
adjustment and other adjustments necessary for a fair comparison to be effected
between the export price and the normal value, its decision to deploy the use of
zeroing in the context of its assessment of the price effects of imports of the
product concerned and the considerations relevant to the comparability of models
in its underselling and undercutting calculations (Article 12.2).
- The EC failed to give reasons for its acceptance or rejection of relevant
arguments and claims made to it be Tupy, including but not limited to those made
in relation to the taxation credit claim, its decision to exclude in particular
Poland, Bulgaria and Turkey from the scope of the Investigation, its decision to
limit the ambit of the Investigation to product code CN 7307 1910 only, its
decision that there was no distinction in the market between so called black
heart and white heart variants of the product concerned, its decision that the
interests of certain of the applicants in certain third countries and their
imports of the allegedly dumped product should not affect the definition of the
Community industry, its decision that cumulation was appropriate, and its
decisions that substitution of the product concerned, imports of the product
concerned from third countries and the outsourcing initiatives, poor export
performance and price increases of EC producers during the injury investigation
period had no impact upon causation (Article 12.2)
- The EC did not provide timely opportunities for industrial users of the
product under investigation and for representative consumer organisations to
provide information which was relevant to the Investigation insofar as it did
neither sought such information other than from two national gas companies
(Article 6.2) nor accepted it when it was provided by Tupy with particular
reference to the distinction in the market between so called black heart and
white heart variants of the product concerned (Article 6.6) and ample
opportunity was not afforded to Tupy to submit in writing all the evidence that
it considered relevant to the Investigation in this respect (Article 6.1).
DUMPING ISSUES
- The EC determined that certain product types should have their normal values
constructed as their sales volumes were unrepresentative and therefore did not
permit a proper comparison further to Article 2.2 as sales on the domestic
market of the like product did not constitute 5% or more of the sales of the
product types concerned to the EC. Despite having itself established that data
relating to such sales did not permit a proper comparison with the exported
product type further to Article 2.2 the EC proceeded to use the profit margins
associated with these same product types in the construction of a figure for
selling, general and administrative costs and for profits did not make
adjustments for differences which affected price comparability to ensure a fair
comparison (Article 2.4).
- The definition of the "like product" under Article 2.6 does not include
product types which start with codes "68" and "69" which are sold on the
domestic market in Brazil (owing to their differing physical characteristics and
intended uses) as other products had characteristics more closely resembling
those of the product under consideration. Data pertaining to sales of product
types on the domestic market starting with such codes was unlawfully used by the
EC in the construction of the selling, general and administrative expenses and
the profit margin in respect of product types sold on the European market
(Articles 2.2 and 2.4).
- In omitting to verify whether the claim of Tupy with regard to the packing
allowance was valid the EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 2 in
that a fair comparison could not then be effected between the export price and
the normal value as Tupy was denied an appropriate adjustment on account of the
differing and heightened packing costs incurred by it in connection with its
domestic sales as compared with its packing costs in the context of exports of
the product concerned to the EC (Article 2.4).
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 2 in that it denied
to Tupy an adjustment which was necessary for a fair comparison to be effected
between the export price and the normal value in that it did not grant to Tupy
an adjustment on account of its increased advertising and promotional expenses
on the domestic Brazilian market as compared to its comparatively low
advertising and promotional expenses in connection with its exports to the EC
(Article 2.4).
- The EC did not make the currency conversions required under Article 2 for
the purpose of effecting a fair comparison between the export price and the
normal value in particular as it is clear that with regard to certain
transactions no information was available to the EC as to the applicable
currency conversion rates as at the dates on which the material terms of sale
for the transaction(s) in question were established (Article 2.4).
- The EC failed to make adjustments on account of the physical characteristics
of the product concerned (and the distinction between its so called black heart
and white heart variants as issues impacting upon price comparability) and so
failed to effect fair comparisons in these respects between the export price and
the normal value (Article 2.4).
- The EC resorted to the sampling of product types for the purpose of deciding
on the extent of the adjustment to be made on account of the tax credit
adjustment where the sample chosen was neither statistically valid or necessary
owing to the impracticability of conducting an examination of all product types
concerned and in so doing failed to effect a fair comparison further between the
export price and the normal value (Article 2.4).
- In violation of Article VI:4 of the GATT 1994 the product subject to the
Investigation originating in Brazil has been subjected to anti dumping duties on
export to the EC by reason of the exemption of that product from duties or taxes
borne by the like product when destined for consumption in Brazil and/or by
reason of the refund of duties or taxes borne by the like product on the
Brazilian market to Tupy in accordance with the prevailing domestic Brazilian
legislation. The EC also denied Tupy an appropriate taxation credit adjustment
in respect of duties and taxes borne by the like product when destined for
consumption in Brazil (Article 2.4).
- The EC "zeroed" negative dumping margins which had been calculated for some
product types of Brazilian origin exported to the EC during the investigation
period with the effect of such zeroing being that the EC did not offset the
margins of dumping which were calculated to be negative as against those margins
of dumping which it calculated to be positive. A fair comparison was not
therefore made by the EC between the export price and the normal value and a
distorted margin of dumping was calculated (Article 2.4).
INJURY AND CAUSATION ISSUES
- The EC did not consider whether there had been a significant increase in
dumped imports from Brazil either in absolute terms or relative to production or
consumption in the EC. The EC considered that the volume (in absolute terms) of
Brazilian imports of the product concerned on the EC market had always been
significant it was unnecessary for the EC to consider whether or not there might
be a significance in any increase in Brazilian imports during the injury
investigation period. Although the EC considered in the Provisional Regulation
whether there had been a significant increase in dumped imports either in
absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the EC for the
countries which had been cumulated Article 3.3 does not mandate a cumulative
assessment of the significance of the volume increases of imports from the
countries subject to investigation under Article 3.2 and each country subject to
an anti dumping investigation must have the significance of the volume increase
(if any) in its imports during the course of the injury investigation period
individually considered (Article 3.2).
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 3.1 and Article 3.2
in that it did not, inter alia , consider (with a basis of positive evidence) the
effect of the allegedly dumped imports on prices, whether there had been a
significant price undercutting by the allegedly dumped imports as compared with
the price of a like product in the EC, or whether the effect of such imports was
to depress prices to a significant degree, or prevent price increases which
would otherwise have occurred to a significant degree in that:
(i) it calculated an underselling figure in respect of which the calculations it
provided included only those transactions in which underselling was found (which
amounts to the use of "zeroing") and therefore does not relate to the "dumped
imports" as referred to in Article 3.2, and;
(ii) it did not consider whether or not as a matter of fact there had been price
suppression, and;
(iii) it did not consider whether or not as a matter of fact the market
perception of the distinctions between so-called black heart and white heart
variants of the product might require the making of appropriate adjustments,
and;
(iv) no finding of price depression by the EC was possible as the prices charged
by the domestic EC producers in fact increased over the same period as was
referred to with regard the (cumulated) trend of the decreasing prices of the
imports from Brazil, and;
(v) with reference to the EC's determination of price undercutting this again
was not made in relation to "the dumped imports" as a whole but rather with
regard to a selection of product types displaying positive undercutting margins
(see also Article 3.6).
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 3.1 and Article 3.3
in that (for instance) it cumulated the imports of the product concerned
originating in Brazil with those of the other countries subject to the
Investigation where a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports from
the other countries subject to the Investigation was not appropriate (and could
not have been based on positive evidence) either in the light of the conditions
of competition between imports of Brazilian origin and the other imported
products subject to the Investigation, nor in the light of the conditions of
competition between the imports of the product concerned from Brazil and the
like Community product owing to significant disparities both in pricing
structures and volumes of imports as between the countries subject to the
Investigation, particularly bearing in mind the devaluation of the Brazilian
Real in January of 1999.
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 3.1 and Article 3.4
and its finding of injury was not based on positive evidence in that (for
instance) it did not examine all the non exhaustive 15 individual factors and
indices going to the issue of injury within the meaning of the AD Agreement in
its analysis of the alleged injury caused to the domestic industry as it
analysed only partially merely the following eight (8) factors in the list set
out in Article 3.4:
(i) actual and potential decline in sales (though no explicit mention is made of
potential decline in sales and although no proper consideration has been given
to the up going trend of sales of outsourced products);
(ii) profits (although no proper consideration has been given to the growing
sales of outsourced products);
(iii) market share (although no proper consideration has been given to the
growing market share supplied by outsourced products);
(iv) productivity (although no proper consideration has been given to the
growing productivity in relation to outsourced products);
(v) utilization of capacity (although no consideration has been given to the
growing utilisation of capacity used for outsourced products);
(vi) inventories (although no consideration has been given to the improved trend
of inventories of outsourced products);
(vii) employment (although no consideration has been given to the positive
employment data in the context of outsourced products).
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 3.1 and Article 3.5
in that (for instance) it attributed injury said to have been sustained by
domestic EC producers to imports of the product concerned of Brazilian origin
despite the fact that as of January 1999 the devaluation of the Brazilian Real
had made it impossible for imports originating in Brazil to be causing injury to
the domestic EC industry and despite the fact that injury sustained by the
domestic EC industry was readily attributable to the rationalisation,
outsourcing efforts and poor export performance of EC producers. The EC did not
ensure that injury caused to the domestic EC industry by imports of the product
concerned (in significant quantities and at prices significantly below those
prevailing in respect of imports of the product concerned when of Brazilian
origin) from countries including, inter alia , Turkey, Bulgaria and Poland, was
not attributed to imports of the product concerned from Brazil.
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 3.1 and Article 3.5
in that (for instance) it did not ensure that injury caused to the domestic EC
industry by substitution of the product concerned by replacement products, by
imports made by domestic EC producers from other third countries not subject to
the Investigation (and with which they have close relations) and by such factors
as the poor export performance, and the outsourcing and rationalisation efforts
of domestic EC producers throughout the injury investigation period, was not
attributed to imports of the product concerned from Brazil.
- Owing to its failure to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of information
submitted to it by Tupy in connection with the importation of the product
concerned by domestic EC producers from countries not subject to the
Investigation (in violation of Article 6.6) the EC also failed to discharge its
obligations under Article 4 in not removing the producers concerned from the
definition of the domestic industry.
DEVELOPING COUNTRY ISSUES
- The EC did not afford Brazil the requisite special regard as a developing
country throughout the course of the Investigation in that, inter alia , it
denied Tupy adjustments under Article 2.4 on account only of its inability to
appropriately assess the merits of such adjustments - such as that relating to
the tax credit adjustment claim (for reasons that demonstrated a lack of regard
for the manner of the administration of the Brazilian taxation system) and
continued to hold Brazilian imports responsible for causing injury to domestic
EC producers despite a currency devaluation of the Real as of January 1999 that
meant that even by the EC's (erroneous) calculations Tupy was no longer dumping
on the EC market. The EC further decided to cumulate imports originating in
Brazil with the imports of other countries subject to the Investigation despite
the above mentioned devaluation of the Real (Article 15).
- Despite the concluding sentence of Article 9.1 the EC nonetheless decided to
apply the full extent of the dumping duty determined rather than afford Brazil,
as a developing country, consideration on account of the devaluation in its
currency in January of 1999 (Article 15).
- The EC neither explored nor communicated either to Brazil or to Tupy the
possibility that it might pursue constructive remedies over and above the
possibility of the imposition of anti dumping duties (Article 15).
OTHER ISSUES
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 7 in that, inter
alia, it did not judge the Provisional Regulation to be necessary for the
prevention of injury during the course of the Investigation (Article 7.1) or if
it did so it did not make this apparent from the Provisional Regulation (Article
12.2) and in any event any such determination would not have been unbiased and
objective as at the time of the imposition of provisional measures the
devaluation in the value of the Brazilian Real entailed that there was not
dumping of the product concerned of Brazilian origin, nor was it foreseeable
that there could be during the course of the Investigation.
- The EC did not make any attempt, with a view to discharging its obligations
under Article 9.1, to afford Brazil as a developing country the consideration of
having the level of the duty applied to Tupy's exports dictated by the level of
the injury caused to domestic EC producers by Tupy's exports rather than with
reference to the (erroneously calculated) dumping margin and furthermore the EC
collected duties in respect of imports of the product concerned originating in
Brazil where it was clear that the product concerned was not being dumped (owing
to devaluation) and therefore that it was unlawful to collect those duties
(Articles 9.1 and 9.2.)
- The EC did not discharge its obligations under Article 11 in that the EC had
not established (based on positive evidence) that there was dumping and injury
to domestic EC producers within the meaning of the AD Agreement being caused by
exports of Brazilian origin. The EC was not therefore justified in imposing anti
dumping duties, nor in maintaining them to counteract imports of a product
neither dumped nor causing injury (Article 11) and furthermore despite a
submission requesting a review of the measures in question made by Tupy shortly
after the Definitive Regulation on 13 July 2000 setting out the reasons why the
maintenance of anti dumping duties was inappropriate no such reviews has yet
taken place (Article 11.2).
- Brazil respectfully requests that this item be placed on the agenda for the
next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, scheduled to be held on 20 June
2001, and that a panel be established with standards terms of reference as set
out in Article 7 of the DSU.
_______________
369
European Communities - Anti-dumping duties on malleable cast
iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219/1).
370
OJ C 151, 29.5.1999, p.21.
371 Commission Regulation (EC) No 449/2000 imposing a provisional
anti-dumping duty on imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings
originating in Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of
China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand and accepting an undertaking offered
by an exporting producer in the Czech Republic of 28 February 2000 - OJ L 55,
29.2.2000, p.3.
372 Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain
malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating in Brazil, the Czech
Republic, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and
Thailand of 11 August 2000 - OJ L 208, 18.8.2000, p.8.