GD/150
New Zealand - Imports of Electrical Transformers from Finland
Other titles
New Zealand Finnish Transformers (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Electrical transformers
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Machinery; electrical and electronic equipment
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Hielke van Tuinen (Netherlands) |
| Other members | Janusz Kaczurba (Poland), Andrew Stoler (United States) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | L/5814 (19/06/1985) New Zealand – Imports of Electrical Transformers from Finland – Report by the Panel: The Panel addressed whether the Finnish exporter, in its sale of the two transformers in question to New Zealand, had engaged in dumping in terms of Article VI. The Panel concluded that the Finnish exporter, whether through its own fault or not, had not provided all of the necessary cost elements which would have enabled the New Zealand authorities to carry out a meaningful cost-of-production calculation on the basis of the information supplied by the exporter alone. In the view of the Panel, the New Zealand authorities were therefore justified in making a cost calculation, where necessary, on the basis of price elements obtained from other sources. The Panel further considered that there was no basis on which to disagree with the New Zealand authorities' finding of dumping and proceeded to the question of whether the imports in question had caused or threatened to cause injury to the New Zealand transformer industry. The Panel believed that if a contracting party affected by the determination could make a case that the importation could not in itself have the effect of causing material injury to the industry in question, that contracting party was entitled, under the relevant GATT provisions, in particular Article XXIII, that its representations be given sympathetic consideration and that eventually, if no satisfactory adjustment was effected, it might refer the matter to the contracting parties, as had been done by Finland in the present case. The Panel then turned to the question whether the New Zealand transformer industry had suffered material injury as a result of the imports of the two transformers from Finland, and concluded that it could not agree that the imposition of anti-dumping duties could have been based on threat of material injury in terms of Article VI. The Panel therefore came to the conclusion that New Zealand had not been able to demonstrate that any injury suffered by its transformer industry had been material injury caused by the imports from Finland. The Panel therefore found that the imposition of anti-dumping duties on these imports was not consistent with the provision of Article VI:6(a) of the General Agreement, and that this prima facie constituted a case of nullification or impairment of benefits which other contracting parties were entitled to expect under the General Agreement. The Panel proposed to the Council that it address to New Zealand a recommendation to revoke the anti-dumping determination and to reimburse the anti-dumping duty paid. |