WT/DS491/3

21 August 2015 (15-4251)

Page: 1/5 Original: English

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN COATED PAPER FROM INDONESIA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY INDONESIA The following communication, dated 20 August 2015, from the delegation of Indonesia to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. _______________ On 13 March 2015, the Government of Indonesia requested consultations with the United States of America pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement") and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement"), with respect to the United States' measures and determinations imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on certain coated paper products from Indonesia.1 Indonesia and the United States held the consultations on 25 June 2015 with a view of reaching a mutually acceptable resolution. Unfortunately, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute. Measures at Issue Indonesia, hereby, makes a new request for the establishment of a panel to examine the preliminary and final anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty measures in Appendix 1. The measures at issue were instituted by the United States Department of Commerce ("USDOC") and the United States International Trade Commission ("USITC"). The measures include the determinations by the USDOC and USITC to initiate certain anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty investigations, the conduct of those investigations, any preliminary or final anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty determinations issued in those investigations, any definitive anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties imposed as a result of those investigations, including any notices, annexes, orders, decision memoranda, or other instruments issued by the United States in connection with the anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty measures identified in Appendix 1. Indonesia considers the following determinations2 by the USDOC and USITC, and the corresponding anti-dumping duties and countervailing duty measures3 to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the following provisions of the AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, and GATT 1994:

1

WT/DS491/1. Including the conduct of the investigations, any notices, annexes, decision memoranda, orders, amendment, or other instruments issued by the United States in connection with the anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures. 3 The measures at issue have been identified in Appendix 1. 2

WT/DS491/3 -2"As Applied" Claims Subsidy Determinations 1. Indonesia considers that the determinations made, and the countervailing measures imposed, by the United States are inconsistent with Articles 2, 12, and 14 of the SCM Agreement and with the following obligations: a. In connection with the alleged provision of standing timber for less than adequate remuneration: i.

Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement because USDOC did not identify whether the entity allegedly providing the purported subsidy was the national, regional or local government, and therefore, failed to properly examine whether the purported subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority."

ii. Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly failed to demonstrate that Indonesia's alleged provision of standing timber constituted a subsidy program specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries. USDOC did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a plan or scheme sufficient to constitute a "subsidy programme." iii. Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly found that Indonesia conferred a benefit by allegedly providing standing timber for less than adequate remuneration using a per se determination of price distortion based on purported government intervention. USDOC failed to determine the adequacy of remuneration "in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in question in the country of provision. b. In connection with the alleged benefit conferred by the Government of Indonesia's log export ban: i.

Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement because USDOC did not identify whether the entity allegedly providing the purported subsidy was the national, regional or local government, and therefore, failed to properly examine whether the purported subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority."

ii. Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly failed to demonstrate that Indonesia's ban on log exports constituted a subsidy program specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries. USDOC did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a plan or scheme sufficient to constitute a "subsidy programme." iii. Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly found that Indonesia conferred a benefit by banning log exports using a per se determination of price distortion based on purported government intervention. USDOC failed to determine the adequacy of remuneration "in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in question in the country of provision." c.

In connection with the Government of Indonesia's alleged forgiveness of debt: i.

Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement because USDOC did not identify whether the entity allegedly providing the purported subsidy was the national, regional or local government, and therefore, failed to properly examine whether the purported subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority."

ii. Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly failed to demonstrate that Indonesia's alleged debt forgiveness constituted a subsidy program

WT/DS491/3 -3specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries. USDOC did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a plan or scheme sufficient to constitute a "subsidy programme." iii. Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly applied adverse facts available without examining information Indonesia provided, and without examining whether Indonesia "refuse[d] access to, or otherwise [did] not provide" the information.4 USITC Threat of Injury Determination 2. Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because: a. USITC did not demonstrate the existence of a causal relationship between the imports and the purported threat of injury to the domestic industry. USITC failed to sufficiently examine known factors other than the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports which at the same time were in fact injuring the domestic injury. 3. Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement because: a. USITC based its threat of injury findings on "allegation, conjecture [and] remote possibility." The findings on which the determinations were based conflicted with the record and were not based on record evidence. b. USITC findings that formed the basis for its threat of injury determination did not indicate a change in circumstances that was "clearly foreseen and imminent." Furthermore, USITC failed to demonstrate that the totality of the factors considered lead to the conclusion that material injury would have occurred unless protective action was taken. 4. Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement because: a. USITC did not exercise or consider "special care" in its threat of injury determination. "As Such" Claims Threat of Injury Determination 5. The requirement contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11)(B) that a tie vote in a threat of injury determination must be treated as an affirmative USITC determination is inconsistent with Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement because the requirement does not consider or exercise special care. 6. In addition to the foregoing claims set forth, Indonesia asserts that the United States has also consequently acted inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement, Article 10 of the SCM Agreement, and Article VI of the GATT 1994. 7. The determinations and measures also nullify and impair the benefits accruing to Indonesia under the cited agreements directly and indirectly. New Request for the Establishment of a Panel 8. Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully requests, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to examine this manner with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.

4

This claim includes all of the instances in which USDOC used facts available and/or applied adverse facts available in support of its investigations and determinations listed in Appendix 1.

WT/DS491/3 -4The new request for the establishment of a Panel is enclosed with this communication. Indonesia respectfully asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the Dispute Settlement Body meeting scheduled to take place on 31 August 2015. Please circulate the enclosed notification to the Dispute Settlement Body. We also request the Secretariat to notify the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, and the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Committee. _______________

WT/DS491/3 -5-

Appendix 1 

Certain Coated Paper from Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 74 Fed. Reg. 53707 (Oct. 20, 2009) (USDOC initiation of CVD investigation);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 74 Red. Reg. 53710 (Oct. 20, 2009) (USDOC initiation of AD investigation);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and Indonesia, 74 Fed. Reg. 50243 (Sept. 30, 2009) (USITC institution of investigation);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and Indonesia, 74 Fed. Reg. 61174 (Nov. 23, 2009) (USITC preliminary injury determination);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 10761 (Mar. 9, 2010) (USDOC preliminary CVD determination);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 24885 (May 6, 2010) (USDOC preliminary AD determination);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 59209 (Sept. 27, 2010) (USDOC final CVD determination);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 75 Fed. Reg. 59223 (Sept. 27, 2010) (USDOC final AD determination);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from China and Indonesia, 75 Fed. Reg. 70289 (Nov. 17, 2010) (USITC final threat of injury determination);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 70206 (Nov. 17, 2010) (CVD order);



Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Antidumping Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 70205 (Nov. 17, 2010) (AD order); and



Section 771(11)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, codified at Title 19 of the United States Code, Section 1677(11)(B).

__________

ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING ... - WorldTradeLaw.net

Aug 21, 2015 - meeting scheduled to take place on 31 August 2015. Please circulate the enclosed notification to the Dispute Settlement Body. We also request ...

35KB Sizes 0 Downloads 41 Views

Recommend Documents

Preferential Liberalization, Antidumping, and ...
which the two countries share a common external MFN tariff toward outsiders, there may be separate and distinct .... 6 Broda, Limão and Weinstein (2008) provided the first direct evidence that countries exploit their market power in trade when ... a

Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards and ...
Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 1955. The World Economy ... istered' import protection under policies such as antidumping, safeguards and countervailing duties – what I refer to ... 1990–2009, taking stock of newly

On Countervailing Incentives
0q— 5(0) and substituting the transfer _V(()] away in the principal's objec- tive, the problem ..... R9) or F(0)— 1. In this case, the balance of incentives is unam-.

[PDF] Download Extractive Relations: Countervailing ...
... by John R Owen …Online shopping from a great selection at Books Store ... online free Extractive Relations: Countervailing Power and the Global Mining ...

China's WTO Entry: Antidumping, Safeguards, and ...
describes the features of the Global Antidumping Database (Bown 2007), which ...... citric acid and certain citrate salts, kitchen appliance shelving and racks, ...

the wto and antidumping in developing countries - Wiley Online Library
Since the 1995 inception of the World Trade Organization (WTO), de- veloping countries have become some of the most frequent users of the. WTO-sanctioned antidumping (AD) trade policy instrument. This paper exploits newly available data to examine se

On Countervailing |ncentives
Graduate School of Business, Uniuer.\'it_\' of Chicago. ... gratefully acknowledge support from CEPR and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. respectively. 238 .... where 0, is the agent's report, and IC and PC stand for incentive-com- patibility ...

Taking Stock of Antidumping, Safeguards, and ...
these economies currently have historically low applied import tariffs in place. ..... and Tovar approach to a new set of countries, I also adapt it along three important ..... linking antidumping use, in particular, with business cycle fluctuations

Extractive Relations: Countervailing Power and the ...
with the mining sector over many years, drawing on cases from over twenty countries. The ... grow to be full because you can have it inside your lovely laptop.

Countervailing FE for Current Pneumonic Pandemic.pdf ...
dumbfounded by Obama's (October 24th 2009) declaration of a US national health flu. emergency. b. ... that the swine flu could devastate the human race. c. ... Let us stand united to rebuke “top-down” policies that are not in the best interests o

EU - Countervailing Measures on Polyethylene ... - WorldTradeLaw.net
Nov 7, 2014 - EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN ... published as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 857/2010 of 27 ...

IRR RA 8751(Countervailing)(2).pdf
Page 1. Whoops! There was a problem loading more pages. Retrying... IRR RA 8751(Countervailing)(2).pdf. IRR RA 8751(Countervailing)(2).pdf. Open. Extract.

EU - Countervailing Measures on Polyethylene ... - WorldTradeLaw.net
Nov 7, 2014 - EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON .... under EU law, including proceedings before the European Court of Justice.

RA 8751 (Countervailing)(4).pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. RA 8751 (Countervailing)(4).pdf. RA 8751 (Countervailing)(4).pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main me

RA 8751 - Countervailing Act of 1999.pdf
Page 1. Whoops! There was a problem loading more pages. Retrying... RA 8751 - Countervailing Act of 1999.pdf. RA 8751 - Countervailing Act of 1999.pdf.

How Different Are Safeguards from Antidumping?
Mar 23, 2013 - important forms of import protection. Keywords .... also need to match import data to a number of different forms of policy exclusions that arose both ..... 12, 990. 1, 250. 10.1%. Products also investigated under the. USTR's June 2001

How US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU
Apr 11, 2006 - involved in the antidumping action, i.e., the policy-imposing country and the home country of the .... exports, thus calling into question the effectiveness or even existence of a collusive (“East of ...... Gross job creation, gross

The Pattern of US Antidumping: The Path from Initial ...
assistance and capacity-building efforts by the WTO Secretariat and major coun- tries such as ..... to the DOC in English on hard copy and in computer readable format (compatible with their system) within ..... The pattern of US antidumping 365 ...

Gas and electric residential and
Feb 8, 2016 - Vectren's energy efficiency programs achieve record energy ... Gas and electric residential and business rebate programs continue in 2016.

Gas and electric residential and
Feb 8, 2016 - Gas and electric residential and business rebate programs continue in ... in the energy needs of our customers, and Vectren is committed to.

PDF and EPuB Strategies and Games: Theory and ...
Read Unlimited ePuB and ... business, political science, and the law. ... study. Case studies include Global Warming and the Internet, Poison Pills, Treasury Bill ...

Mission and Vision Statements and goals English and Spanish.pdf ...
KEMENTERIAN PELAJARAN MALAYSIA. PENTAKSIRAN DIAGNOSTIK AKADEMIK SBP 2012. PERCUBAAN PENILAIAN MENENGAH RENDAH. SCIENCE.

Judiciary and micro and small enterprises: Impact and ...
that will make possible a good economic performance. Several .... During the past decade, municipal and rural savings and loans were .... The 25 - 45 year-old age bracket stands out, as it accounts for over 40% of the micro and small ... Gradually, t

Enhance Security and Usability Security and Usability Security and ...
Even though graphical passwords are difficult to guess and break, if someone direct observe during the password enter sessions, he/she probably figure out the password by guessing it randomly. Nevertheless, the issue of how to design the authenticati