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.
back to top
(as cited in request for consultations)
|Request for Consultations received:|
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
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
- 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.
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.