INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW
Dispute Settlement Body Has Establilshed Panel in EU vs Russia dispute over light commercial vehicles
On 20 October 2014 the Dispute Settlement Body established a panel to examine a complaint by the European Union regarding Russia’s anti-dumping duties on LCV after the second request of EU for the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute. Russia said that there had been no efforts from the EU to find a solution
The European Union considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Russia's obligations under the following provisions of the WTO Agreements:
1. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, because, by selecting non-consecutive periods of non-equal duration for the examination of the trends for the whole domestic industry, Russia's injury determination was not based on an objective examination of positive evidence.
2. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement, because Russia failed to consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports for the whole investigation period based on an objective examination of positive evidence; and because Russia failed to demonstrate based on an objective examination of positive evidence that the effect of the allegedly dumped imports was to prevent domestic price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
3. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement, because Russia failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, and therefore improperly found that the domestic industry suffered material injury.
4. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, because Russia failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the causal relationship between the imports under investigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry. Russia also failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of factors other than the imports under investigation which have been injuring the domestic industry, and therefore improperly attributed the injuries caused by these other factors to the imports under investigation.
5. Article 3.1 and Article 4.1 of the AD Agreement, because Russia incorrectly defined the domestic industry and as a result failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the facts with respect to the domestic industry producing the subject products.
6. Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement, because Russia treated as confidential, without any good cause shown, statistical information obtained from the Customs of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Belarus, and information supplied by the domestic producers in the written application, including the annexes thereof, submissions, the questionnaire responses, and amendments thereof.
7. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement, because Russia failed to require the domestic producers to furnish non-confidential summaries of their application, submissions, questionnaire responses, and amendments thereof, and in any event those non-confidential summaries, when submitted, failed to provide sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence, including indexes that show meaningful trends.
8. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement, because Russia failed to inform the interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis of the decision to impose anti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying the determinations of the existence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of dumping and the determination of injury.
Russia was convinced that its measures were consistent with the WTO agreements. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agreed to establish a panel. China, India, Japan, Korea and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the panel’s proceedings.