DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

DS: India — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu

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:

 

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 Chinese Taipei.

On 28 October 2004, Chinese Taipei requested consultations with India concerning the provisional and definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by India on the following seven products: Acrylic fibres; Analgin; Potassium permanganate; Paracetamol; Sodium nitrite; Caustic soda; and Green veneer tape.

According to the request for consultations from Chinese Taipei, India violates its WTO obligations in a number of ways, including:

  • the rejection of the information provided by exporters without providing reasons; and the lack of satisfaction as to the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by the domestic industry;
     
  • the initiation of the investigations and imposition of the anti-dumping duties, despite no imports of the product concerned from Chinese Taipei into India during the Period of Investigation, and despite the insufficiently substantiated petitions for the initiation on the existence of dumping and injury;
     
  • the lack of correct determination of the normal value and export price;
     
  • the determination of injury not based on positive evidence or an objective examination and without examining all injury factors mentioned by the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA); and the determination of the threat of material injury not on facts but on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility;
     
  • the lack of demonstration that the dumped imports were causing the alleged injury; and the failure to ensure that alleged injury caused by other factors was not attributed to dumping;
     
  • the lack of providing interested parties with the full opportunity for the defence of their interests; and the lack of informing the interested parties the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision;
     
  • provisional measures imposed for more than the period of time allowed under the ADA;
     
  • the notice of initiation of investigations lacking in all the grounds that support dumping and injury; and the notice of definitive findings lacking in all relevant information of facts and law and reasons which led to the imposition of the anti-dumping measures. 

Chinese Taipei considers that these Indian measures are inconsistent with, inter alia: Article VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7.4, 12.1 and 12.2 of the ADA.

Share


  

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