Japanese
Print
  1. Home
  2. News Releases
  3. Back Issues
  4. June FY2023
  5. WTO Panel Decides China’s Measure Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Products Originating from Japan Are Inconsistent with the WTO Agreement

WTO Panel Decides China’s Measure Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Products Originating from Japan Are Inconsistent with the WTO Agreement

- WTO Dispute Settlement Panel's Final Report Circulated -

Japanese

June 19, 2023

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

External Economic Policy

The World Trade Organization (WTO) circulated a panel’s final report regarding China’s measure of imposing anti-dumping duties on stainless steel products originating from Japan, a matter that has been examined by the WTO at the request of Japan.
The report upheld Japan’s claims and recommended that China bring its measure into conformity with the WTO Agreement.
Japan will continue to request that China withdraw its measure. 

1. Outline

Regarding China’s measure of imposing anti-dumping duties on stainless steel products originating from Japan, based on Japan’s request in August 2021, a dispute settlement panel (a “panel”, the first instance) was established in September. After its examination of the matter, the final report of the panel has been circulated. 

In July 2019, China started imposing anti-dumping (AD) duties (hereinafter referred to as the "AD measure") on stainless steel products imported from Japan, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, and the EU, claiming that its domestic industry was being injured by the dumped imports of such products. (The AD measure is scheduled to be in place for five years.) 

Japan considers the AD measure to be inconsistent with the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement) due to flaws in the Chinese authorities' determination and its investigation procedures, and has continuously requested that China withdraw the AD measure.

Based on the oral hearings held in June and October 2022, etc., the final report of the panel, which was circulated on June 19, found that the AD measure is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement due to the flaws in the authority’s determination of injury and causation, and its investigation procedures, and thus recommended that China bring its measure into conformity with the WTO Agreement.

2. Details of the decision

The panel report found that the AD measure is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, and recommended that China bring its measure into conformity with the WTO Agreement, based upon the following findings (1)-(6):

(1) China’s determination of the AD measure was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 & 3.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, due to its flawed analysis on the subject imports’ effects on the prices of the domestic products (“price effects”).​
 ⅰ China failed to confirm the competing/substituting relationship between the imported and domestic products (the basis of comparing their prices) as the basis of finding price effects. 
 ⅱ Although subject imports (stainless steel slabs, hot-rolled stainless steel coils and hot-rolled stainless steel plates) have differences in their prices, physical characteristics, uses, customers, etc., China failed to properly analyze these differences. 
 ⅲ China failed to properly analyze the series of grades (based on their chemical composition) of the subject imports. 
 ⅳ Therefore, China’s overall finding that “the dumped imports depressed the prices of the domestic products” was not based on objective analyses. 
(2) In its assessment of the impact of the dumping on the domestic industry, China failed to properly analyze the sales prices and market shares of the imported and domestic products, flows of capacity utilization and inventories of the domestic industry, etc., which was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 & 3.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
(3) China failed to properly confirm the causation between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry - e.g., it failed to consider the impacts of the price fluctuations of nickel, the raw material of some of the subject imports during the period of investigation – which was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 & 3.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
(4) In its assessment of the production proportion of the domestic industry, China adopted an irregular calculation method without sufficient examinations, leading to the improper definition of the domestic industry, which was inconsistent with Article 4.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
(5) The AD measure was inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the Anti-dumping Agreement due to its flaws regarding information disclosure. 
(6) The following claims of Japan were not adopted, or were not determined since they were "unnecessary for the resolution of the dispute".
 ⅰ China’s cumulative (lump sum) assessment of the effects of the subject imports from the several jurisdictions was inconsistent with Article 3.1 & 3.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
 ⅱ China’s treatment of some confidential information was improper and inconsistent with Articles 6.5 & 6.5.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 
 ⅲ China’s public notice of the final determination was insufficient and inconsistent with Articles 12.2 & 12.2.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. 

3. Future schedule

The panel report is going to be adopted in a meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to be held within 60 days from this date. After the adoption, China will be obliged to bring its measures into conformity with the WTO Agreement, in accordance with the panel’s recommendation.  

Japan will pursue an appropriate solution on this issue in accordance with the rules under the WTO Agreement.

4. Reference

(1) Dispute settlement procedure under the WTO Agreement

​If consultations between governments fail to settle a dispute, based on a request from the complaining WTO member, a WTO panel (first instance), which is a quasi-judicial third-party organization, examines the matter in question and makes rulings regarding its consistency with the WTO Agreement. If any inconsistencies are confirmed, the panel recommends correction of the measures. Any party which is not satisfied with the panel rulings may appeal to the WTO Appellate Body (second instance).  However, the WTO Appellate Body has been dysfunctional, the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) became effective in April 2020, as an interim response to the impasse of the Appellate Body. Japan has participated in this agreement since March 2023 (53 countries and regions, including Japan and China, are participating in this arrangement). The participating members agree to resolve disputes by using the MPIA arbitrations (arbitration by mutual agreement pursuant to Article 25 of DSU), instead of appealing to the non-functional Appellate Body (the so-called “appealing into the void”), when they are unable to accept the adoption of the panel decisions.

(2) Stainless steel products (the products in question)

The AD measure covers stainless steel slabs, hot-rolled stainless steel sheets (cut sheets and plates), and hot-rolled stainless steel coils. Stainless steel slabs are semi-processed products that are obtained by casting refined melted steel. Hot-rolled stainless steel sheets are used in industrial machinery and as construction materials for structures such as ships and bridges. Uses of hot-rolled stainless steel coils include use as semi-finished products of cold rolled stainless steel products for automotive parts and household electric appliances.

(3) Anti-dumping duty

An anti-dumping duty is a customs duty imposed on a certain product by an importing country where it is demonstrated that the export price of the product is less than its selling price destined for consumption in the exporting country and the dumped imports are causing injury to the competing industry in the importing country. The value of the anti-dumping duty cannot exceed the difference between the export price of the product in question and its domestic selling price in the exporting country.

(4) Total value of exports of the products in question from Japan to China

The total value of exports of stainless steel from Japan to China is approximately 70 billion yen per year, of which exports of the products subject to the AD measure account for approximately 9.2 billion yen (both figures as of 2019).

(5) Related Resources

(6) Previous press releases

Regarding this matter

Regarding MPIA

Division in Charge

Related website