WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles From the United States, 46788-46789 [2012-19154]

Agencies

• Trade Representative

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46788-46789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19154]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Dispute No. WT/DS440/1]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China--Anti-Dumping 
and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles From the United States

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative 
(``USTR'') is providing notice that on July 9, 2012, the United States 
requested consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of 
China (``China'') under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World 
Trade Organization (``WTO Agreement'') concerning China's antidumping 
and countervailing duty measures on certain automobiles from the United 
States. That request may be found at www.wto.org, contained in a 
document designated as WT/DS440/1. USTR invites written comments from 
the public concerning the issues raised in this dispute.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted on or before August 31, 2012 to assure timely consideration 
by USTR.

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be submitted electronically at 
www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-2012-0016. If you are unable to 
provide submissions at www.regulations.gov , please contact Sandy 
McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to arrange for an alternative method of 
transmission.
    If (as explained below) the comment contains confidential 
information, then the comment should be submitted by fax only to Sandy 
McKinzy at (202) 395-3640.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Stirk, Associate General Counsel, 
Office of the United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-3150; and 
Joseph Rieras, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the United States 
Trade Representative, (202) 395-3150.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is providing notice that consultations 
have been requested pursuant to the WTO Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (``DSU''). If such 
consultations should fail to resolve the matter and a dispute 
settlement panel is established pursuant to the DSU, such a panel, 
which would hold its meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, would be expected 
to issue a report on its findings and recommendations within nine 
months after it is established.

Major Issues Raised by the United States

    On July 9, 2012, the United States requested consultations 
concerning China's antidumping and countervailing duty measures on 
certain automobiles from the United States. In November 2009, China 
initiated antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on exports 
of certain automobiles from the United States. In December 2011, China 
imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on those products.
    In the course of its antidumping and countervailing investigations 
concerning certain automobiles from the United States, and in imposing 
duties on those products, China appears to have acted inconsistently 
with its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
(``GATT 1994''), the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``AD Agreement''), and the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (``SCM Agreement''). 
China's actions which appear to be inconsistent with its obligations 
include initiation of an investigation without sufficient evidence, 
failure to disclose essential facts underlying its conclusions, failure 
to adequately explain its findings and conclusions in sufficient 
detail, failure to provide non-confidential summaries of submissions, 
failure to objectively examine the evidence, failure to make 
determinations based on positive evidence, and failure to disclose 
calculations and data used to reach its conclusions.
    Specifically, the United States asserts in the request for 
consultations that China's antidumping and countervailing duty measures 
on certain automobiles from the United States appear to be inconsistent 
with the following provisions of the GATT 1994, the AD Agreement, and 
the SCM Agreement:

    1. Articles 5.3 and 5.4 of the AD Agreement, and Articles 11.3 
and 11.4 of the SCM Agreement, because: (a) China failed to examine 
the degree of support for, or opposition to, the application 
expressed by domestic producers of the like product prior to 
initiating the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations; 
(b) China initiated the investigations when domestic producers 
supporting the application accounted for less than 25 per cent of 
total production of the like product produced by the domestic 
industry; and (c) China failed to examine or review the accuracy and 
adequacy of the evidence provided in the application.
    2. Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement because the application for a 
countervailing duty investigation failed to contain information 
reasonably available to the applicant and therefore there was 
insufficient evidence in the application to justify the initiation of a 
countervailing duty investigation with respect to several programs.
    3. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.4.1 of the SCM 
Agreement because China failed to require the applicant to provide 
adequate non-confidential summaries of allegedly confidential 
information.
    4. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because China failed to 
adequately disclose the calculations and data used to establish the 
antidumping duty rates it determined.
    5. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement because China 
failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions 
reached on all issues of fact and law it considered material, and the 
reasons for the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or 
claims.
    6. Article 6.8, including Annex II, paragraph 1, and Articles 6.9, 
12.2, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 12.7, 12.8, 22.3, and 
22.5 of the SCM Agreement because: (a) China improperly based its 
determination of the ``all others'' antidumping and countervailing duty 
rates on the facts available; (b) China failed to disclose the 
essential facts underlying its ``all others'' rate determinations; (c) 
China failed to set forth in sufficient detail the findings and 
conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered 
material in its ``all others'' rate determinations; and (d) with 
respect to the ``all others'' rates, China failed to make available all 
relevant information on the matters of fact and law and

[[Page 46789]]

reasons which have led to the imposition of the final measures.
    7. Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles 15.1 and 
16.1 of the SCM Agreement because China made a determination of injury 
using an improper definition of the domestic industry and as a result 
failed to base its determination on positive evidence and conduct an 
objective examination of the facts with respect to the domestic 
industry producing the subject imports.
    8. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 15.1 and 
15.2 of the SCM Agreement because China's analysis of the effects of 
imports under investigation on the price of the like product was not 
based upon an objective examination of the record and positive 
evidence.
    9. Articles 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Articles 
15.1, 15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because: (a) China's analysis 
of the alleged causal link was not based upon an objective examination 
of the record and positive evidence, including an examination of all 
relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of 
the industry, an examination of all relevant evidence before the 
authorities, or an examination of any known factors other than 
allegedly dumped and subsidized imports which at the same time were 
injuring the domestic industry, and (b) China failed to meet the 
requirement that injuries caused by other factors must not be 
attributed to the allegedly dumped and subsidized imports.
    10. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because China failed to grant 
interested parties a full opportunity for the defense of their 
interests.
    11. Article 1 of the AD Agreement as a consequence of the breaches 
of the AD Agreement described above.
    12. Article 10 of the SCM Agreement as a consequence of the 
breaches of the SCM Agreement described above.
    13. Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of 
the AD and SCM Agreements described above.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Persons may submit public 
comments electronically to www.regulations.gov, docket number USTR-
2012-0016. If you are unable to provide submissions by 
www.regulations.gov, please contact Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-9483 to 
arrange for an alternative method of transmission.
    To submit comments via www.regulations.gov, enter docket number 
USTR-2012-0016 on the home page and click ``search.'' The site will 
provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with 
this docket. Find a reference to this notice by selecting ``Notice'' 
under ``Document Type'' on the left side of the search-results page, 
and click on the link entitled ``Submit a Comment'' (For further 
information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult 
the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on ``How to Use This 
Site'' on the left side of the home page).
    The www.regulations.gov Web site allows users to provide comments 
by filling in a ``Type Comments'' field, or by attaching a document 
using an ``Upload File'' field. It is expected that most comments will 
be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, it is 
sufficient to type ``See attached'' in the ``Type Comments'' field.
    A person requesting that information, contained in a comment that 
he submitted, be treated as confidential business information must 
certify that such information is business confidential and would not 
customarily be released to the public by the submitter. Confidential 
business information must be clearly designated as such and the 
submission must be marked ``Business Confidential'' at the top and 
bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page. Any comment 
containing business confidential information must be submitted by fax 
to Sandy McKinzy at (202) 395-3640. A non-confidential summary of the 
confidential information must be submitted at www.regulations.gov. The 
non-confidential summary will be placed in the docket and will be open 
to public inspection.
    USTR may determine that information or advice contained in a 
comment submitted, other than business confidential information, is 
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitter believes that information 
or advice may qualify as such, the submitter--
    (1) Must clearly so designate the information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE'' 
at the top and bottom of the cover page and each succeeding page; and
    (3) Must provide a non-confidential summary of the information or 
advice.
    Any comment containing confidential information must be submitted 
by fax. A non-confidential summary of the confidential information must 
be submitted at www.regulations.gov. The non-confidential summary will 
be placed in the docket and will be open to public inspection.
    Pursuant to section 127(e) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 
U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a docket on this dispute settlement 
proceeding, docket number USTR-2012-0016, accessible to the public at 
www.regulations.gov.
    The public file will include non-confidential comments received by 
USTR from the public regarding the dispute. If a dispute settlement 
panel is convened, or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the 
following documents will be made available to the public at 
www.ustr.gov: the United States' submissions, any non-confidential 
submissions received from other participants in the dispute, and any 
non-confidential summaries of submissions received from other 
participants in the dispute. In the event that a dispute settlement 
panel is convened, or in the event of an appeal from such a panel, the 
report of the panel, and, if applicable, the report of the Appellate 
Body, will also be available on the Web site of the World Trade 
Organization at www.wto.org. Comments open to public inspection may be 
viewed at www.regulations.gov.

Bradford L. Ward,
Assistant United States Trade Representative for Monitoring and 
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-19154 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290-F2-P