DS: China — Anti-Dumping measures on stainless steel products from Japan

The following summarizes the main findings of the panel:

• The panel found that Japan established that MOFCOM's determination of the domestic industry was inconsistent with Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of its finding that the production of the firms included in the domestic industry represented a “major proportion” of the total production of all Chinese producers.
• The panel found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM's definition of the domestic industry was inconsistent with Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement due to certain alleged discrepancies in data MOFCOM relied on, and due to the alleged lack of representativeness of the domestic industry. The panel did not consider it necessary to make findings in relation to Japan's consequential claim under Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
• The panel found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that a cumulative assessment of the effects of the subject imports was appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic product. The panel, therefore, also found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM's price effects analysis, impact analysis and causation findings were, respectively, inconsistent with Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as a consequence of MOFCOM's alleged violation under Articles 3.1 and 3.3.
• The panel found that Japan established that MOFCOM's consideration of price effects was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the following aspects of MOFCOM's consideration were not based on an objective examination of positive evidence.
  • MOFCOM's findings with respect to the comparability of prices of stainless steel billets (slabs), stainless steel plates, and stainless steel coils;
  • MOFCOM's price comparisons between imported and domestic like products of various grades of steel; and
  • MOFCOM's overall conclusion of price depression.
• The panel found that Japan established that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in its examination of the following factors: domestic market share, trends in sales prices, capacity utilization and ending inventory. The panel also found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when examining, in the context of its impact analysis, the domestic industry's sales volume, apparent domestic consumption, pre-tax profits, and return on investment.
• The panel found that Japan established that MOFCOM's causation analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because:
  • it relied upon MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses, which were inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
  • MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis in respect of the increase in nickel prices since mid-2016 was not based on an objective examination of positive evidence, and was not reasonably and adequately explained.
• The panel found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis in respect of the decrease in price of nickel from May 2014 to the end of 2015 and introduction of stricter environmental standards was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
• The panel found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when it accepted, by implication, that the good cause which the applicant presented justified the redaction of the company names at the time it made its application. The Panel also found that Japan had not established that the non-confidential summary of the confidential information in the application was inconsistent with Article 6.5.1.
• The panel found that Japan established that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 because it failed to disclose certain essential facts under consideration that formed the basis for its price effects analysis and its causation determination. The panel found that Japan did not establish that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 in relation to its disclosure of the essential facts pertaining to the following: (a) cumulation analysis, (b) examination of the state of domestic industry, (c) causation determination in relation to cost of environment regulations, and (d) definition of the domestic industry.
• The panel rejected several claims under Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement challenging different aspects of MOFCOM's public notice, and found it unnecessary to address certain other claims under these provisions.
• The panel did not find it necessary to make findings on several claims raised by Japan in these proceedings.