DS: Egypt — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey

back to top

Current status

 

back to top

Key facts

 

back to top

Latest document

  

back to top

Summary of the dispute to date

The summary below was up-to-date at

Consultations

Complaint by Turkey.

On 6 November 2000, Turkey requested consultations with Egypt concerning an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with respect to imports of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was completed and the final report released on 21 October 1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem.

Turkey considered that:

• Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in that investigation without a proper establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neither unbiased nor objective;
   
• during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
   
• during the investigation of sales at less than normal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, and Annex II, Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 May 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request to establish a panel by Turkey, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 20 June 2001. Chile, the EC, Japan and the US reserved their third party rights. On 18 July 2001, the Panel was composed.

On 8 August 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to WTO Members. The Panel concluded that Egypt did not act inconsistently with its obligations under:

1. Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority was required to examine and evaluate the particular factors identified by Turkey as “relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry”;
    
2. Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that there was a legal obligation on the Egyptian Investigating Authority to perform the price undercutting analysis in the way asserted by Turkey;
    
3. Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority’s price undercutting finding was not based on positive evidence;
    
4. Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the AD Agreement in respect of the alleged change in scope of the injury investigation from threat of material injury to present material injury and notice thereof to the Turkish exporters;
    
5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority violated the positive evidence requirement of Article 3.1 by virtue of the Investigating Authority not developing certain specific kinds of evidence, nor has Turkey established that, as a consequence, Egypt violated the requirement of Article 3.5 to demonstrate a causal relationship between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry;
    
6. Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority’s evaluation of the possible causation of injury by factors other than the dumped imports was inconsistent with Article 3.5;
    
7. Article 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority was obligated by Articles 3.1 and 3.5 to perform an analysis and make a finding of the type asserted by Turkey in respect of whether the imports caused injury “through the effects of dumping”;
    
8. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragraph 5 of Annex II thereto, with regard to three of the Turkish exporters, as an unbiased and objective investigating authority could have found that these three exporters failed to provide necessary information and that resort to facts available was therefore justified in calculating the cost of production in respect of these three exporters;
    
9. Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement, as the request for information at issue was not a “questionnaire” in the sense of this provision, and the minimum time-period provided for in Article 6.1.1 was therefore not applicable to this request for information;
    
10. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to the 19 August 1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the time-period allowed by the Egyptian Investigating Authority for submission of the requested information was unreasonable or, as a consequence, that the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to provide the Turkish exporters with a full opportunity for the defence of their interests;
     
11. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to the 23 September 1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the time-period allowed by the Egyptian Investigating Authority for the submission of the requested information was unreasonable or, as a consequence, that the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to provide the Turkish exporters with a full opportunity for the defence of their interests;
     
12. Paragraph 3 of Annex II to the AD Agreement, as this provision does not apply to the selection of particular information as “facts available”;
     
13. Paragraph 7 of Annex II to the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to use “special circumspection” in estimating the prevailing inflation rate in Turkey, which was applied to the data reported by one respondent, at 5 per cent per month;
     
14. Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement, paragraph 7 of Annex I thereto, and paragraphs 1 and 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not established that these provisions contain the obligations asserted by Turkey, i.e., Turkey has not established that it is mandatory for investigating authorities to conduct “on-the-spot” verification of information submitted, that investigating authorities are precluded from requesting additional information during the course of the investigation, that the rights of the Turkish exporters were seriously prejudiced, or that the actions of the Egyptian Investigating Authority impaired their “opportunity to provide further explanations”;
     
15. Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the burden of proof requirement of that provision is applicable to the request for certain cost information by the Egyptian Investigating Authority in its letter of 19 August 1999, nor, even if that requirement were applicable, that the request imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the Turkish respondents;
     
16. Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement and paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority denied requests of Turkish exporters for meetings;
     
17. Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima facie case that the Egyptian Investigating Authority violated this provision in failing to make an adjustment to normal value for differences in terms of sale;
     
18. Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima facie case that the Egyptian Investigating Authority violated these provisions in deciding not to make an interest income offset in calculating cost of production and constructed normal value; and
     
19. Article X:3 of GATT 1994 as Turkey has not established that Egypt administered its relevant laws, regulations, decisions or rulings in a non-uniform, non-impartial or unreasonable manner in deciding not to accept an offer of certain respondents to travel to Cairo for a meeting with the Investigating Authority.

The Panel concluded that Egypt acted inconsistently with its obligations under:

20. Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, in that while it gathered data on all of the factors listed in Article 3.4, the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to evaluate all of the factors listed in Article 3.4 as it did not evaluate productivity, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, employment, wages, and ability to raise capital or investments; and
     
21. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement, and paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to two of the Turkish exporters, as the Egyptian Investigating Authority, having received the information that it had identified to these two respondents as being necessary, nevertheless found that they had failed to provide the necessary information, and further, did not inform these two exporters of this finding and did not give them the required opportunity to provide further explanations before resorting to facts available.

With respect to those of Turkey’s claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that:

22. the claim was not within its terms of reference (claim under AD Article 17.6(i), claim under Article X:3 of GATT 1994 in respect of selection of particular facts available), or was abandoned by Turkey (claim under Article X:3 in respect of resort to facts available); or
     
23. in the light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings.

The Panel recommended Egypt to bring its definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of steel rebar from Turkey into conformity with the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement.

On 1 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.

 

Implementation of adopted reports

On 14 November 2002, Egypt and Turkey informed the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of DSB should not be more than nine months, that is from 1 November 2002 until 31 July 2003.

At the DSB meeting on 29 August 2003, Egypt informed the DSB that Egypt's investigating authorities had submitted on 30 July 2003 the final report to the Turkish authorities.  The final report reflected faithfully, and in a proper manner, the implementation of all the recommendations of the panel.  Therefore, Egypt declared that it was in full compliance with the DSB recommendations.