DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

DS: Guatemala — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico

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:

back to top

Current status

 

back to top

Key facts

Short title:

Complainant:

Respondent:

Third Parties:

Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)
Request for Consultations received:

Panel Report circulated: 24 October 2000

  

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 Mexico. (See DS60)

On 5 January 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala concerning definitive anti‑dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings leading thereto. Mexico alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with Article VI of the GATT 1994.

On 15 July 1999, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request to establish a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999. Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Communities, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. On 12 October 1999, Mexico requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On 2 November 1999, the Panel was composed. The panel report was circulated on 24 October 2000. The panel concluded that Guatemala’s initiation of an investigation, the conduct of the investigation and imposition of a definitive measure on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico’s Cruz Azul is inconsistent with the requirements in the Anti-Dumping Agreement in that:

  • Guatemala’s determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of injury to initiate an investigation, is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of injury to initiate an investigation and consequent failure to reject the application for anti-dumping duties by Cementos Progreso is inconsistent with Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to timely notify Mexico under Article 5.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is inconsistent with that provision;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to meet the requirements for a public notice of the initiation of an investigation is inconsistent with Article 12.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to timely provide the full text of the application to Mexico and Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; 
     
  • Guatemala’s failure to grant Mexico access to the file of the investigation is inconsistent with Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to timely make Cementos Progreso’s 19 December 1996 submission available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to provide two copies of the file of the investigation as requested by Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s extension of the period of investigation requested by Cementos Progreso without providing Cruz Azul with a full opportunity for the defence of its interest is inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to inform Mexico of the inclusion of non-governmental experts in the verification team is inconsistent with paragraph 2 of Annex I of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     
  • Guatemala’s failure to require Cementos Progreso’s to provide a statement of the reasons why summarization of the information submitted during verification was not possible is inconsistent with Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s decision to grant Cementos Progreso’s 19 December submission confidential treatment on its own initiative is inconsistent with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to “inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures” is inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s recourse to “best information available” for the purpose of making its final dumping determination is inconsistent with Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
       
  • Guatemala’s failure to take into account imports by MATINSA in its determination of injury and causality is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
     
  • Guatemala’s failure to evaluate all relevant factors for the examination of the impact of the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry is inconsistent with Article 3.4.

The DSB adopted the panel report on 17 November 2000.

 

Implementation of adopted reports

At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU, Guatemala informed the DSB that in October 2000 it had removed its anti-dumping measure and had thus complied with the DSB’s recommendations. Mexico welcomed Guatemala’s implementation in this case.

Share


  

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