GD/254
Korea - Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Polyacetal Resins from the United States
Other titles
Korea Resins (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Polyacetal resins
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Pharmaceutical and chemical products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Maamoun Abdel-Fattah (Egypt) |
| Other members | Paul O'Connor (Australia), Barbara Schneeberger (Switzerland) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations |
|
| Request for conciliation | |
| Conciliation meeting | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report | |
| Adoption of report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
| Additional Info | ADP/92 (02/04/1993) Korean – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Polyacetal Resins from the United States – Report of the Panel: The Panel's conclusions, based on a review of the injury determination as written by the Korean Trade Commission (KTC): (i) The KTC's determination of injury in respect of imports of polyacetal resins from the United States was inconsistent with Articles 3 and 8:5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade because of the absence of specific conclusions in respect of each of the standards of injury discussed in its determination (i.e. present material injury to a domestic industry, threat of material injury, and material retardation of the establishment of a domestic industry) and the lack of explanation of the relationship between the KTC's analyses under these standards; (ii) The KTC's finding that there was present material injury to a domestic industry in Korea was inconsistent with the requirement of positive evidence under Article 3:1 of the Agreement in that the determination did not provide sufficient reasoning as to the connection between the reference to the decline of domestic prices and the KTC's finding of a substantial loss of sales revenue and did not enable the Panel to determine how the KTC had evaluated the information before it in finding that the net profit of the industry in 1989 was insufficient. This finding was also inconsistent with Article 3:4 of the Agreement because of the KTC's failure to explain the role of the imports under investigation as a cause of the increase in inventories; (iii) Insofar as the KTC's affirmative determination included a finding of a threat of material injury caused by the imports under investigation, that finding was inconsistent with Article 3:3 of the Agreement because of the KTC's treatment of factors beyond the control of the domestic industry, such as declining costs of materials and interest rates, and inconsistent with Articles 3:1 and 3:6 because of the apparent lack of a prospective analysis of the volume and price effects of the imports under investigation; (iv) Insofar as the KTC's affirmative determination included a finding of material retardation of the establishment of an industry, that finding was inconsistent with Article 3:4 of the Agreement because of the discrepancy between the time frame for the consideration of profits and inventories and the time frame for the consideration of the volume and price effects of the imports under investigation. The Panel noted that the United States had requested the Panel to recommend that the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices request Korea "to bring its law as applied into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement". However, it was not clear to the Panel how a recommendation related to Korea's "law as applied" was relevant to the matter which the United States had requested the Panel to consider. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Panel had reviewed a determination of injury made by the Korean authorities on 24 April 1991 which (together with an affirmative finding of dumping) had formed the basis for a specific measure taken by Korea on 14 September 1991 (i.e. the imposition of anti-dumping duties). The Panel considered that its recommendation had to address this specific measure. The Panel therefore recommended to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices that it request Korea to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement. |