GD/253
EEC - Imposition of Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Audio Cassettes from Japan
Other titles
EC Audio Cassettes (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Audio tapes
|
| 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 | Magnus Lemmel (Sweden) |
| Other members | Hugh McPhail (New Zealand), Rudolf Ramsauer (Switzerland) |
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 99 (and 4 annex) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for conciliation | |
| Conciliation meeting | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report issued
|
| Additional Info | ADP/94 (19/04/1993) Communication from the EEC (02/04/1993) EEC on clarification of the Panel's terms of reference. ADP/M/40 (15/09/1993) Minutes of AD Committee Meeting (26-27/04 and 29/04/1993) AD Committee approved the Panel's terms of reference. ADP/136 (11/04/1995) Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices - EC - Anti-Dumping Duties on Audio Tapes in Cassettes Originating in Japan - Report of the Panel:Panel Report para.6 "the Report of the Panel was submitted to the parties." With respect to the averaging methodology used by the European Communities (EC) in the comparison of export prices and normal values, the Panel found that: (i) assuming arguendo there existed a generalized obligation of "fair comparison" derived from Articles 2:1 and 2:6 of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the Agreement) and that this obligation applied to the use of averaging methodologies in the comparison of export prices and normal values, the information before the Panel did not permit it to find that the application of the EC's averaging methodology in this case had been inconsistent with that obligation; (ii) the application of the EC's averaging methodology in this case was not inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2:1 of the Agreement that a Party calculate the dumping margin on the basis of "export" prices and "comparable" prices for the like product in the market of the exporting country; and (iii) Article 2(13) of the EC's Basic Regulation was not mandatory legislation inconsistent with the Agreement. With respect to Japan's claims regarding a so-called "asymmetrical" comparison of the export price and normal value, the Panel found that: (i) the EC, by failing to make due allowance on its merits for differences in indirect selling expenses, and with respect to profits related to differences in the functions performed by the seller in the domestic and export markets, which differences could affect price comparability, had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2:6 of the Agreement; and (ii) Articles 2(9) and 2(10) of the EC's Basic Regulation were mandatory legislation inconsistent with Article 2:6 of the Agreement because they precluded the making of due allowance, on its merits, for differences in indirect selling expenses and with respect to profits related to differences in the functions performed by the seller in the domestic and export markets, which differences could affect price comparability. With respect to the construction by the EC of a normal value, the Panel found that: (i) the EC had not acted inconsistently with Article 2:4 by reason of the fact that it had derived an amount for profit in constructing the normal value for three types of "normal" type cassettes from data relating to sales of all sales of the like product by that exporter in the Japanese market; and (ii) the EC had not acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2:4 of the Agreement by using in the construction of certain normal values an amount for selling, administrative and selling costs based on a cost-of-manufacture allocation methodology. With respect to the EC's affirmative final determination of material injury, the Panel found that: (i) the cumulation by the EC of the effects of dumped imports from Japan and Korea was not inconsistent with its obligations under Article 3:4 of the Agreement by reason of the fact that imports of the like product from the two countries operated in "distinct markets"; (ii) the EC had not acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3:1 of the Agreement by reason of its alleged failure to take into account certain criteria which it normally took into account when deciding whether to cumulate the effects of dumped imports from more than one Party; (iii) it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Panel to reach Japan's claim that the EC had failed to establish that there had been a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports from Japan; (iv) it was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Panel to reach Japan's claim that the EC had failed to establish that there had been significant price undercutting by dumped imports from Japan; (v) the EC's affirmative injury determination was not inconsistent with Articles 3:1 and 3:2 of the Agreement by reason of the methodology used by the EC to calculate an average margin of price undercutting; (vi) the EC had not acted inconsistently with Articles 3:1 and 3:2 of the Agreement by reason of its failure to establish that dumped imports from Japan had, through other than price undercutting, caused price suppression or depression; (vii) the EC had not failed to establish that dumped imports from Japan were, through the effects of dumping, causing injury to the EC industry within the meaning of Article 3:4 by reason of Japan's argument that an increase in the price of imports of audio cassettes from Japan to their normal value would not have led to a general increase in the prices of audio cassettes in the EC market. |