TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May17/16)
22 May 2017
Third World Network
AB rejects most of China's claims in appeal in AD dispute
Published in SUNS #8462 dated 15 May 2017
Geneva, 12 May (Kanaga Raja) - The Appellate Body of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) on Thursday rejected most of China's claims in appeal in a
dispute over certain methodologies applied by the United States in anti-dumping
(AD) proceedings on imports of goods from China.
Earlier, on 19 October 2016, a dispute panel had largely upheld a majority of
Chinese claims that certain methodologies applied by the United States in AD proceedings
on imports of goods from China are inconsistent with its WTO obligations. (See
SUNS #8338 dated 21 October 2016.)
In a somewhat limited appeal by China, the Appellate Body (AB) rejected all of
the claims put forth by China over the application of the "targeted
dumping" methodology (under the "Nails test") by the US
Department of Commerce in the three investigations at issue.
On the issue of AFA (Adverse Facts Available) Norm, the AB reversed the Panel's
findings that China has not demonstrated that the AFA Norm constitutes a norm
of general and prospective application. The AB found that the AFA Norm has
"general application", as well as "prospective
application".
The AB however declined China's request to complete the analysis and find that
the AFA Norm is inconsistent with Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II to
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
The AB recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) request the United
States to bring its measures found in its Report, and in the Panel Report as modified
by the AB Report, to be inconsistent with the Anti- Dumping Agreement and the
GATT 1994, into conformity with those Agreements.
China appealed certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the
Panel Report, United States - Certain Methodologies and Their Application to
Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China (DS471).
The US did not appeal the Panel's findings.
BACKGROUND
According to the AB report, before the Panel, China had raised three sets of
claims in relation to certain methodologies used by the United States
Department of Commerce (USDOC) in anti-dumping proceedings against China.
These claims concerned: (i) the USDOC's use of the weighted
average-to-transaction (W-T) methodology in three anti-dumping investigations
and one administrative review; (ii) the USDOC's treatment of multiple economic
operators from a non-market economy (NME) as a single NME-wide entity; and
(iii) the manner in which the USDOC determines anti-dumping duty rates for
NME-wide entities, as well as the level of such duty rates.
On USDOC's use of the W-T methodology, China challenged: (i) several aspects of
the USDOC's application of the "Nails test" in three anti-dumping
investigations involving exports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG), certain
coated paper suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses
(Coated Paper), and high pressure steel cylinders from China (the three
challenged investigations) on an "as applied" basis; and (ii) the
USDOC's use of "zeroing" in the third administrative review of
exports of polyethylene terephthalate film (PET Film) from China on an "as
applied" basis.
PANEL'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In the Panel Report, circulated on 19 October 2016, the Panel had found that:
a. with respect to the USDOC's use of the W-T methodology in the three
challenged investigations:
i. the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in the OCTG and Coated Paper investigations because of
the fourth quantitative flaw with the Nails test, which led the USDOC to
disregard non-target prices below the "alleged target price" under
the price gap test, and because of the first SAS programming error that
occurred in the application of the price gap test;
ii. the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in the three challenged investigations because of the
USDOC's explanations under the second sentence of this provision, which were
premised on the use of the W-T methodology with zeroing, and because of the
USDOC's failure to provide an explanation as to why the
transaction-to-transaction (T-T) methodology could not take into account
appropriately the significant differences in the relevant export prices;
iii. the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in the three challenged investigations by applying the
W-T methodology to all export transactions;
iv. the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in the three challenged investigations because the USDOC
used zeroing in the dumping margin calculations when applying the W-T
methodology;
v. China had not established that the United States acted inconsistently with
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the Steel Cylinders
investigation because of the fourth quantitative flaw with the Nails test,
which allegedly led the USDOC to disregard non-target prices below the alleged
target price under the price gap test;
vi. China had not established that the United States acted inconsistently with
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the three challenged
investigations by reason of the first, second, and third alleged quantitative
flaws with the Nails test;
vii. China had not established that the United States acted inconsistently with
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because of the second alleged SAS
programming error that occurred in the application of the price gap test in the
OCTG and Coated Paper investigations;
viii. China had not established that the United States acted inconsistently
with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the three challenged
investigations because of the alleged qualitative issues with the Nails test;
and
ix. China had not established that the United States acted inconsistently with
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the three challenged
investigations by finding the relevant "pattern" on the basis of
purchaser or time period weighted-average export prices as opposed to
individual export transaction prices.
With respect to the USDOC's use of zeroing in the third administrative review
in PET Film, the Panel found that the United States acted inconsistently with
Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994
because of the USDOC's use of zeroing in the dumping margin calculations when
applying the W-T methodology.
With respect to the Single Rate Presumption, the Panel found that:
i. the six administrative review determinations introduced by China at the
Panel's first substantive meeting with the parties fell within the Panel's
terms of reference;
ii. the Single Rate Presumption constitutes a measure of general and
prospective application, which is "as such" inconsistent with
Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
iii. the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement as a result of the USDOC's application of the Single
Rate Presumption in the 38 determinations challenged by China under these
provisions;
iv. in light of the above findings with respect to the Single Rate Presumption,
the Panel exercised judicial economy and made no findings with respect to
China's "as such" and "as applied" claims under the second
sentence of Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning the Single
Rate Presumption.
With respect to the AFA (Adverse Facts Available) Norm, the Panel found that:
i. the relevant four administrative review determinations introduced by China
at the Panel's first substantive meeting with the parties fell within the
Panel's terms of reference;
ii. China had not demonstrated that the AFA Norm constitutes a norm of general
and prospective application and, consequently, there was no need to examine
whether the AFA Norm fell within the Panel's terms of reference, or to address
China's "as such" claims under Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and paragraph 7 of Annex II thereto; and
iii. in light of the above findings of inconsistency under Articles 6.10 and
9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in relation to the Single Rate Presumption,
the Panel exercised judicial economy and made no findings with respect to
China's "as applied" claims under Articles 6.1, 6.8, 9.4, and
paragraphs 1 and 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning the 30
determinations challenged by China under these provisions.
ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL
According to the AB report, on the USDOC's application of the Nails test in the
OCTG, Coated Paper, and Steel Cylinders investigations, the following issues
are raised in this appeal:
a. in relation to the first and third alleged quantitative flaws with the Nails
test:
i. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article
2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that China has not established that
the United States acted inconsistently with this provision in the three
challenged investigations by reason of the first alleged quantitative flaw with
the Nails test;
ii. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article
2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that China has not established
that the United States acted inconsistently with this provision in the three
challenged investigations by reason of the third alleged quantitative flaw with
the Nails test; and
iii. whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 17.6(i) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in dismissing China's claim in respect of the first and
third alleged quantitative flaws with the Nails test;
b. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article
2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that China has not established
that the United States acted inconsistently with this provision in the three
challenged investigations by not considering the reasons for the differences in
export prices when determining whether those differences were qualitatively
significant;
c. in relation to the USDOC's use of weighted-average export prices under the
Nails test: (i) whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application
of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that China has not
established that the United States acted inconsistently with this provision in
the three challenged investigations by determining the relevant
"pattern" on the basis of weighted-average export prices, as opposed
to individual export transaction prices; and (ii) whether the Panel acted
inconsistently with Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to
find that the USDOC's use of weighted-average export prices was inherently biased;
and
d. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 2.4.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by suggesting that comparison methodologies may be
combined to establish dumping margins.
With regard to the AFA Norm, the following issues are raised in this appeal:
(a) whether the Panel erred in finding that China has not demonstrated that the
AFA Norm is a rule or norm of general and prospective application; (b) if the
Appellate Body finds that the Panel erred, whether it can complete the analysis
and find that the AFA Norm is a rule or norm of general and prospective
application that can be the subject of an "as such" challenge in WTO
dispute settlement; and (c) if the Appellate Body finds that the AFA Norm can
be the subject of an "as such" challenge in WTO dispute settlement,
whether it can complete the analysis and find that this measure is inconsistent
"as such" with Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II to the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
AB'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
On the USDOC's application of the Nails test and its use of the W-T methodology
in the three challenged investigations, the AB said that in relation to the
first alleged quantitative flaw with the Nails test, it considers that the fact
that a large number of export prices may fall below the one standard deviation
threshold where the distribution of the export price data is not normal, or
single-peaked and symmetrical does not necessarily preclude an investigating
authority from finding that the export prices to the "target" differ
significantly from the other export prices and form a pattern within the
meaning of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
"Accordingly, we consider that China has not established that the standard
deviation test as applied by the USDOC in the three challenged investigations
is only capable of identifying prices that differ from other export prices and
form a pattern within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 where
the distribution of the export price data is normal, or single-peaked and
symmetrical."
On this basis, the AB found that China has not established that the Panel erred
in its interpretation or application of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement in rejecting China's claim in respect of the first
alleged quantitative flaw with the Nails test as applied in the three
challenged investigations.
On the third alleged quantitative flaw with the Nails test, the Panel
considered that "the third alleged quantitative flaw rests on the assumption
that in the three challenged investigations, the alleged target price gap was
based on prices located at the tail of the distribution of the export price
data and the weighted-average non-target price gap was based on prices located
nearer to the peak of that distribution."
According to the AB, the Panel was correct in rejecting China's claim on the
basis of its finding that China had not shown that this assumption is
"factually correct insofar as the three challenged investigations are
concerned".
"Therefore, we find that China has not established that the Panel erred in
its interpretation or application of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement in rejecting China's claim in respect of the third
alleged quantitative flaw with the Nails test as applied in the three
challenged investigations."
The AB also found that China has not established that the Panel failed to
comply with Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in relation to both
the first and third alleged quantitative flaws with the Nails test.
Consequently, the AB upheld the Panel's finding that "China has not
established that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the OCTG, Coated Paper and Steel Cylinders
investigations" insofar as this finding relates to the first and third
alleged quantitative flaws with the Nails test.
In relation to the qualitative issues with the Nails test, the AB considered
that the Panel did not err in its interpretation of the second sentence of
Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that investigating
authorities are not required to examine the reasons for the relevant
differences in export prices, or whether those differences are unconnected to
"targeted dumping", in order to assess whether export prices differ
"significantly".
The AB also considered that, while it did not explicitly refer to
"objective market factors", the Panel correctly concluded that an
investigating authority should undertake a qualitative analysis of the
significance of export price differences.
The AB thus disagreed with China's contention that the Panel erred in
interpreting and applying the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 because it found
that "investigating authorities [are not required] to consider objective
market factors in determining whether relevant pricing differences are
significant".
Consequently, the AB upheld the Panel's findings that "the USDOC was not
required to consider the reasons for the differences in export prices forming
the relevant pattern in order to determine whether those differences were
qualitatively significant within the meaning of the pattern clause of Article
2.4.2" and that, accordingly, "China has not established that the
United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in the OCTG, Coated Paper and Steel Cylinders investigations because
of the alleged qualitative issues with the Nails test".
In relation to the USDOC's use of averages to establish the existence of a
pattern in the three challenged investigations, the AB considered that the
existence of a pattern within the meaning of the second sentence of Article
2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement depends on the price relationship between
the "targeted" transactions, on the one hand, and the
"non-targeted" transactions, on the other hand. The distinguishing
factor that allows for the determination of a pattern is that the prices within
the pattern differ significantly from the prices outside it.
The AB also noted that the relevant difference is one "among"
different purchasers, regions, or time periods. For these reasons, the AB
considered that an investigating authority may rely on individual export
transaction prices or average prices in order to find a pattern, provided that
this pattern meets the requirements stipulated in the pattern clause.
"In this case, like the Panel, we consider that China has not demonstrated
that the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 in the three
challenged investigations by determining the relevant pattern on the basis of
average prices. In addition, by not advancing any argument that is separate and
different from its arguments concerning the alleged error in the Panel's
interpretation of Article 2.4.2, China has not demonstrated that the Panel
failed to comply with Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement."
The AB therefore found that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and
application of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement to the three challenged investigations when examining the USDOC's use
of purchaser or time period averages under the Nails test. Furthermore, it
found that China has not established that the Panel failed to comply with
Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Consequently, the AB upheld the Panel's finding that China has not established
that the United States acted inconsistently with the second sentence of Article
2.4.2 in the three challenged investigations by determining the existence of a
"pattern" on the basis of average prices, instead of individual
export transaction prices.
In relation to the Panel's statements in footnote 385 of the Panel Report, the
AB considered that, as in US - Washing Machines, the second sentence of Article
2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement allows an investigating authority to
establish margins of dumping by applying the W-T methodology only to
"pattern transactions" and that Article 2.4.2 does not permit the
combining of comparison methodologies.
In circumstances where the requirements of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2
are fulfilled, an investigating authority may establish margins of dumping by
comparing a weighted average normal value with export prices of "pattern
transactions", while excluding "non-pattern transactions" from
the numerator, and dividing the resulting amount by all the export sales of a
given exporter or foreign producer.
"Consequently, we declare moot the Panel's statements, in footnote 385 of
its Report, to the extent that these statements are premised on the erroneous
understanding that Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement permits the
combining of comparison methodologies to establish dumping margins."
On the AFA Norm, the AB considered that a rule or norm has "general
application" to the extent that it affects an unidentified number of
economic operators. In addition, a rule or norm has "prospective
application" to the extent that it applies in the future. In this respect,
in order to demonstrate prospective application, a complainant is not required
to show with "certainty" that a given measure will apply in the
future.
Rather, where prospective application is not sufficiently clear from the
constitutive elements of the rule or norm, it may be demonstrated through a
number of other factors: the existence of an underlying policy that is
implemented by the rule or norm; the systematic application of the challenged
rule or norm; the design, architecture, and structure of the rule or norm; the
extent to which the rule or norm provides administrative guidance for future
conduct; and the expectations it creates among economic operators that the rule
or norm will be applied in the future.
The AB found that the Panel erred by requiring "certainty" of future
application when examining whether the AFA Norm has "prospective
application".
Consequently, the AB reversed the Panel's findings that China has not
demonstrated that the AFA Norm constitutes a norm of general and prospective
application.
In relation to China's request for the AB to complete the analysis and find
that the AFA Norm is a rule or norm of general and prospective application, the
AB considered that the un-appealed Panel finding concerning the precise content
of the AFA Norm suggests that this norm is a measure of general application
because it affects an unidentified number of economic operators.
The AFA Norm does not impose any express limitations on economic operators from
NME (non-market economy) countries that may be included within NME-wide
entities subject to the AFA Norm. The connection between the AFA Norm and the
Single Rate Presumption also supports the conclusion that the AFA Norm has
"general application".
This is because the Panel found that the Single Rate Presumption is a measure
of general application, and the AFA Norm applies to the same group of economic
operators subject to the Single Rate Presumption whenever the economic
operators fail to demonstrate an absence of governmental control over their
export activities and fail to cooperate in the anti-dumping investigation to
the best of their ability.
Moreover, the fact that the 73 anti-dumping determinations put on the record by
China covered a wide range of products and companies is a further indicator
that the AFA Norm has "general application".
For these reasons, based on the findings in the Panel Report and undisputed
facts on the Panel record, the AB found that the AFA Norm has "general
application". It also found that the AFA Norm has "prospective
application".
"In light of the un-appealed Panel findings that the AFA Norm is
attributable to the United States, and that its content corresponds to the
description thereof made by China, as well as our conclusions above that the
AFA Norm has general and prospective application, we find that the AFA Norm is a
rule or norm of general and prospective application that may be challenged
"as such" in WTO dispute settlement."
In relation to China's request for the AB to complete the analysis and find
that the AFA Norm is inconsistent with Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II
to the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the AB noted that the Panel made no findings on
whether the AFA Norm is inconsistent with Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex
II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In particular, the Panel did not explore the
process of reasoning and evaluation undertaken by the USDOC prior to selecting
"facts available" to replace missing "necessary
information".
According to the AB, for an evaluation of the conformity of the AFA Norm with
Article 6.8 and Annex II, it would need to examine the process of reasoning and
evaluation undertaken by the USDOC for its selection of which "facts
available" reasonably replace the missing "necessary
information".
"In deciding whether we are able to complete the analysis, we have taken
into consideration the absence of Panel findings and sufficient undisputed
facts on the Panel record, as well as the arguments made by the participants on
appeal," said the AB.
"Under these circumstances, we are unable to evaluate the process
undertaken by the USDOC for its selection of which "facts available"
reasonably replace the missing "necessary information" with a view to
arriving at an accurate determination. Consequently, we do not accede to
China's request for completion of the analysis," it added.