Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T18:37:05.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Report of the Appellate Body

from United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (WT/DS379)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2017

Corporate Author
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

1. China appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (the "Panel Report"). The Panel was established on 20 January 2009 to consider a complaint by China with respect to definitive anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties imposed by the United States on each of the following four products from China: (i) circular welded carbon quality steel pipe ("CWP"); (ii) light-walled rectangular pipe and tube ("LWR"); (iii) laminated woven sacks ("LWS"); and (iv) certain new pneumatic off-the-road tyres ("OTR").

2. In respect of each of the products, an anti-dumping and a countervailing duty investigation were initiated in tandem in July or August 2007. the four anti-dumping investigations, the United States Department of Commerce (the "USDOC") treated China as a non-market economy ("NME") country for purposes of determining normal value and calculating the margins of dumping. For each product, the USDOC issued its final anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations on the same day, in either June or July 2008. Pursuant to these determinations, the USDOC imposed definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the four investigated products from China.

3. Among the determinations made by the USDOC in the four countervailing duty determinations were the following. In the CWP and the LWR investigations, the USDOC determined that the government provision of hot-rolled steel ("HRS") to certain producers through State-owned enterprises ("SOE"s) constituted countervailable subsidies, that private prices in China could not be used as benchmarks to determine the existence and amount of benefit conferred by such subsidies and that, as a result, it was necessary to resort to alternative benchmarks in conducting its benefit determination.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×