DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS219

European Communities — Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil


This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.

  

See also:
One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
Computer based training on dispute settlement
Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding


Current status  back to top

 

Key facts  back to top

Short title:
Complainant:
Respondent:
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)
Request for Consultations received:
Panel Report circulated: 7 March 2003
Appellate Body Report circulated: 22 July 2003

 

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Consultations

Complaint by Brazil.

On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating, inter alia, in Brazil.

  • Brazil considered that the EC’s establishment of the facts was not proper and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, both at the provisional and definitive stage, particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation (including the evaluation, findings and determination of dumping, injury and causal link between them).
     
  • Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the “community interest”.
     
  • In sum, Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 , 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to Brazil’s request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001. Chile, Japan, Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights. The Panel was composed on 5 September 2001.

On 15 January 2002, both parties requested the Panel to suspend its work until 1 March 2002 with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution. The Panel agreed to the request. On 28 February 2002, both parties requested the Panel to further suspend its work until 5 April 2002 with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution. The Panel agreed to this request. On 22 April 2002, the Panel resumed its work, in accordance with Brazil’s request. On 3 May 2002, the Chairman of the Panel notified the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work in six months in light of, inter alia, scheduling conflicts. The Panel expects to complete its work in December 2002. On 7 March 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to the Members. The Panel concluded that the EC had acted inconsistently with its obligations under:

  • Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in “zeroing” negative dumping margins in its dumping determination; and
     
  • Article 12.2 and 12.2.2 in that it is not directly discernible from the published Provisional or Definitive Determination that the European Communities addressed or explained the lack of significance of certain injury factors listed in Article 3.4.

The Panel ruled against Brazil on all other claims. On 23 April 2003, Brazil notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law as well as certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.

On 22 July 2003, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. Of the seven issues appealed by Brazil, the Appellate Body rejected Brazil’s claims with respect to six issues. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel’s findings that the European Communities did not act inconsistently with Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 or with Articles 1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, or 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In the course of upholding these findings, the Appellate Body also rejected Brazil’s claim that the Panel, contrary to its obligation under Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, failed to assess properly the facts of the matter before it when admitting into evidence the document referred to as Exhibit EC-12. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel’s finding with respect to one issue. The Appellate Body found, in contrast to the Panel, that the European Communities acted inconsistently with Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to disclose to interested parties during the anti-dumping investigation certain information related to the evaluation of the state of the domestic industry, which was contained in document Exhibit EC-12.

On 18 August 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.

 

Implementation of adopted reports

On 15 September 2003, the European Communities confirmed in a communication to the DSB its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

On 1 October 2003, the EC and Brazil informed that DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings would be 7 months; i.e. until 19 March 2004.

On 17 March 2004, the EC informed the DSB that it had reassessed its findings related to the contested measure by taking fully into account the findings and conclusions set out in the Panel and Appellate Body Reports, as explained in the Council Regulation (EC) No 436/2004 of 8 March 2004, and thus had fully complied with the DSB rulings and recommendations in this dispute and within the deadline agreed upon between the disputing parties. At the DSB meeting on 20 April 2004, Brazil contested the claim by the EC that it had fully implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case. Brazil stated that whereas it was true that the EC had recalculated the dumping margin without using the “zeroing” methodology, it had not fully implemented the findings of the Appellate Body relating to the due process requirements contained in the Anti-dumping Agreement. The EC disputed this claim by Brazil and stated that the EC was ready to provide further explanations to Brazil if that would be helpful and make it accept that it had correctly implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

image 160 pixels wide
  

Find all documents from this case
(Searches Documents Online, most recent documents appear on top)

quick help with downloading
> comprehensive help on Documents Online

all documents

  

Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.