U.S.- China Automotive Countervailing Duty Dispute DS440 Presented By Anjiline Sirsikar Vinay Sharma Nicole Roberson

Introduction Measure at Issue: Anti- dumping and countervailing duties (CVD) imposed on China on certain American - made cars and SUVs was unjustified. A WTO dispute panel has found a series of Chinese duties on imports of US-made cars and SUVs to be largely in violation of international rules, faulting them on a series of procedural and substantive points. Anti - Dumping Anti-dumping duties are meant to counter instances where goods are sold abroad at prices below their normal value. Countervailing (CVD) Countervailing duties are meant to target instances of allegedly unfair subsidies being provided by governments to domestic producers.

Complaint by The United States Establishment of Panel Panel Report Complaint by The United States Establishment of Panel On October 23 2012, the United States requested consultation with China. The United States alleged that China measures appeared to be inconsistent with: GATT Article IV Anti- Dumping Agreement Articles: 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.3, 5.4, 6.2, 6.5.1, 6.8 (including Annex II, paragraph 1), 6.9, 12.2, and 12.2.2 The SCM (Subsidies and Countervailing Measures) Agreement: Articles 10, 11.3, 11.4, 12.4.1, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 16.1 22.3, and 22.5

Consultations Consultations were held on 23 August 2012. No mutually accepted resolution was reached. The Panel held a first substantive meeting with the parties on 25 June 2013. Third Party Countries Notified Their Interest Towards The Panel Proceedings; Colombia, European Union ("EU"), India, Japan, Korea, Oman, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Dispute Panel Findings: United States The Panel declined the U.S.’s claim that MOFCOM's investigations at issue were inconsistent with Article 4.1 Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 16.1 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel decided that the United States failed to confirm that China performed inconsistently with: ADA Articles 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2 SCM Agreement Articles 12.8, 22.3 and 22.5 The Panel found that China acted inconsistently with the general obligation outlined in Article 1 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement.

Dispute Panel Findings: China The Panel found a violation of these two provisions on the ground that Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) had failed to require the petitioner to appoint adequate non- confidential summaries of confidential information presented in the petition. ADA Article 6.5.1 ASCM Article 12.4.1

Dispute Panel Findings: China The Panel found a violation of this provision on the grounds that MOFOM failed to disclose the essential facts to the U.S. company respondents, particularly the data and calculations underlying the respective dumping margins. ADA Article 6.9

Panel Findings The Panel found a violation of ADA article with respect to the determination of the residual AD duty without notifying unknown U.S. exporters Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement The Panel found a violation of SCM agreement with respect to the determination of the residual CVD rate for unknown U.S. exporters Article 12.7 of the SCM agreement United States failed to Establish the MOFOCOM had violated these provisions when defining the domestic industry. ADA Article 3.1/ ASCM Article 15.1 Article 4.1 /ASCM Article 16.1

Panel Decision The panel found in favor of the United States on nearly all U.S. claims. In pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, China was recommended to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping and SCM Agreements.