7.12 Whether the USDOC's treatment of certain export restraints in ...

UNITED STATES - COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES
ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA
REPORT OF THE PANEL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction 11 1.1 Complaint by China 11
1.2 Panel establishment and composition 11
1.3 Panel proceedings 11 1.3.1 General 11
1.3.2 Request for enhanced third party rights 12
1.3.3 Preliminary ruling 12
2 Factual aspects 13 2.1 The measures at issue 13 3 Parties' requests for findings and recommendations 13
4 Arguments of the parties 14
5 Arguments of the thiRd parties 14
6 Interim review 14 6.1 Enhanced third party rights 15
6.2 Preliminary ruling 15
6.3 Terms of reference 15
6.4 Claims under Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement 15
6.5 Claims under Article 11 of the SCM Agreement - evidence of a
financial contribution 16
6.6 Claims under Articles 1.1(b) and 14(d) of the SCM Agreement 17
6.7 Claims under Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the SCM Agreement 18
6.8 Claims under Article 11 of the SCM Agreement - evidence of
specificity 18
6.9 Claims under Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement 18
6.10 Claims under Articles 2.2 and 2.4 of the SCM Agreement 19
6.11 Claims concerning export restraints 19
6.12 Editing and typographical changes 20 7 Findings 20 7.1 Introduction 20 7.1.1 Measures at issue 20 7.2 General principles regarding treaty interpretation, standard of
review and burden of proof 21 7.2.1 Treaty interpretation 21
7.2.2 Standard of review 21
7.2.3 Burden of proof 22 7.3 Whether the preliminary determinations in Wind Towers and Steel Sinks
are within the Panel's terms of reference 22 7.3.1 Introduction 22
7.3.2 Relevant Provisions 22
7.3.3 Main arguments of parties 23
7.3.3.1 United States 23
7.3.3.2 China 24
7.3.4 Evaluation by the Panel 24 7.4 Whether the USDOC's findings that certain SOEs were public bodies are
inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a)(1) of the SCM Agreement 26 7.4.1 Introduction 26
7.4.2 Relevant provisions 26
7.4.3 Main arguments of China 27
7.4.4 Main arguments of the United States 28
7.4.5 Main arguments of third parties 30
7.4.6 Evaluation by the Panel 32 7.5 Whether the USDOC's "rebuttable presumption" is inconsistent "as
such" with Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement 38 7.5.1 Introduction 38
7.5.2 Main arguments of China 38
7.5.3 Main arguments of the United States 40
7.5.4 Main arguments of third parties 41
7.5.5 Evaluation by the Panel 41
7.5.5.1 Relevant excerpt from the Kitchen Shelving Issues and Decision
Memorandum 41
7.5.5.2 Whether the USDOC's "rebuttable presumption" is a "measure" and
if so, whether it can be challenged "as such" 43
7.5.5.3 Is the Kitchen Shelving's rebuttable presumption inconsistent as
such with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement? 49 7.6 Whether the USDOC's initiations of investigations are inconsistent
with Article 11 of the SCM Agreement due to insufficient evidence of a
financial contribution 50 7.6.1 Introduction 50
7.6.2 Relevant provisions 51
7.6.3 Main arguments of China 51
7.6.4 Main arguments of the United States 52
7.6.5 Main arguments of third parties 52
7.6.6 Evaluation by the Panel 53 7.7 Whether the USDOC's determinations that SOEs provided inputs for less
than adequate remuneration are inconsistent, as applied, with Articles
1.1(b) and 14(d) of the SCM Agreement 56 7.7.1 Introduction 56
7.7.2 Relevant Provisions 56
7.7.3 Main arguments of China 56
7.7.4 Main arguments of the United States 58
7.7.5 Main arguments of third parties 60
7.7.6 Evaluation by the Panel 61
7.7.6.1 Introduction 61
7.7.6.2 The factual premise of China's claims 61
7.7.6.3 The appropriate interpretation of Article 14(d) of the SCM
Agreement with regard to when an investigating authority can resort to an
out-of-country benchmark 64 7.8 Whether the USDOC's determinations regarding the specificity of
alleged input subsidies are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the
SCM Agreement 65 7.8.1 Introduction 65
7.8.2 Relevant provisions 65
7.8.3 Main arguments of China 66
7.8.4 Main arguments of the United States 68
7.8.5 Main arguments of third parties 69
7.8.6 Evaluation by the Panel 69 7.9 Whether the USDOC's initiations of investigations are inconsistent
with Article 11 of the SCM Agreement due to insufficient evidence of
specificity 76 7.9.1 Introduction 76
7.9.2 Relevant provisions 77
7.9.3 Main arguments of China 77
7.9.4 Main arguments of the United States 78
7.9.5 Main arguments of third parties 79
7.9.6 Evaluation by the Panel 79 7.10 Whether the uses of "adverse facts available" by the USDOC are
inconsistent with Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement 80 7.10.1 Introduction 80
7.10.2 Relevant provision 81
7.10.3 Main arguments of China 81
7.10.4 Main arguments of the United States 82
7.10.5 Main arguments of third parties 83
7.10.6 Evaluation by the Panel 84 7.11 Whether the USDOC's findings of regional specificity are
inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 2.4 of the SCM Agreement 87 7.11.1 Introduction 87
7.11.2 Relevant provisions 87
7.11.3 Main arguments of China 88
7.11.4 Main arguments of the United States 88
7.11.5 Main arguments of third parties 89
7.11.6 Evaluation by the Panel 89 7.12 Whether the USDOC's treatment of certain export restraints in
Magnesia Bricks and Seamless Pipe is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement
91 7.12.1 Introduction 91
7.12.2 Relevant provisions 92
7.12.3 Main arguments of China 92
7.12.4 Main arguments of the United States 94
7.12.5 Main arguments of third parties 96
7.12.6 Evaluation by the Panel 96 7.13 China's claims under Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and
Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 103 8 Conclusions and Recommendation 105
List of Annexes ANNEX A Request for A preliminary ruling
Parties and Third Parties Submissions or
Excecutive SummAries thereof |Contents |Page |
|Annex A-1 |Executive Summary of the Request of the United |A-2 |
| |States for a Preliminary Ruling | |
|Annex A-2 |Executive Summary of the Response of China to the |A-9 |
| |United States Request for a Preliminary Ruling | |
|Annex A-3 |Comments of the United States on China's Response |A-12 |
| |to the United States Preliminary Ruling Request | |
|Annex A-4 |Comments of China on the United States Request for |A-19 |
| |a Preliminary Ruling | |
|Annex A-5 |Third Party Comments of Brazil on the United States|A-24 |
| |Request for a Preliminary Ruling | |
|Annex A-6 |Executive Summary of Third Party Comments of the |A-28 |
| |European Union on the United States Request for a | |
| |Preliminary Ruling | |
|Annex A-7 |Response of the United States to Third Party |A-33 |
| |Comments on the United States request for a | |
| |Preliminary Ruling | |
|Annex A-8 |Communication from the Panel - Preliminary Ruling |A-34 |
| |(WT/DS437/4) | |
ANNEX B EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |Contents |Page |
|Annex B-1 |Executive Summary of the First Written Submission |B-2 |
| |of China | |
|Annex B-2 |Executive Summary of the First Written Submission |B-9 |
| |of the United States | |
ANNEX C third parties Written Submissions or
executive summaries thereof |Contents |Page |
|Annex C-1 |Third Party Written Submission of Australia |C-2 |
|Annex C-2 |Executive Summary of the Third Party Written |C-5 |
| |Submission of Brazil | |
|Annex C-3 |Executive Summary of the Third Party Written |C-6 |
| |Submission of Canada | |
|Annex C-4 |Executive Summary of the Third Party Written |C-9 |
| |Submission of the European Union | |
|Annex C-5 |Third Party Written Submission of Norway |C-14 |
|Annex C-6 |Executive Summary of the Third Party Written |C-20 |
| |Submission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia | |
ANNEX D ORAL STATEMENTS OR EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THEREOF OF
THE PARTIES AT THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE MEETING |Contents |Page |
|Annex D-1 |Executive Summary of the Opening Statement of China|D-2 |
| |at the First Meeting of the Panel | |
|Annex D-2 |Opening Statement of the United States at the First|D-7 |
| |Meeting of the Panel | |
|Annex D-3 |Closing Statement of the United States at the First|D-14 |
| |Meeting of the Panel