Dispute settlement reports 2019. Volume XI, Pages 5635-6296 / World Trade Organization.

Format:

Book

Contributor:

World Trade Organization, copyright holder.

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Foreign trade regulation--Cases.

Foreign trade regulation.

Tariff--Law and legislation--Cases.

Tariff.

Competition, Unfair--Cases.

Competition, Unfair.

Dispute resolution (Law)--Cases.

Dispute resolution (Law).

Physical Description:

1 online resource (pages 5635-6296) : digital, PDF file(s).

Edition:

1st ed.

Place of Publication:

Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Summary:

These are the WTO's authorized and paginated reports in English. They are an essential addition to the library of all practising trade lawyers and a useful tool for students and academics worldwide working in the field of international economic or trade law. The form of citation for this volume recommended by the WTO is DSR 2019: XI.

Contents:

Cover

Title page

Half-title

Copyright information

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KOREA - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON PNEUMATIC VALVES FROM JAPAN

Report of the Appellate Body

LIST OF ANNEXES

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

2. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS

3. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS

4. ISSUES RAISED

5. ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE BODY

5.1 Overall Considerations Regarding the Legal Standard UnderArticle 6.2 of the DSU

5.1.1 The legal standard under Article 6.2 of the DSU

5.1.2 Whether the Panel erred in its articulation of the applicable legal standard under Article 6.2 of the DSU

5.2 Domestic Industry

5.2.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 7 concerning the definition of the domestic industry was not within its terms of reference

5.2.2 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis

5.2.2.1 Introduction

5.2.2.2 Relevant legal standards

5.2.2.3 Overview of relevant facts relating to the definition of the domestic industry

5.2.2.4 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis regarding Japan's claim that the Korean investigating authorities' definition of the domestic industry is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.3 Determination of Injury

5.3.1 Introduction

5.3.2 Whether the Panel erred in its findings under Article 6.2 of the DSU

5.3.2.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 1 concerning the volume of the dumped imports was not within its terms of reference

5.3.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 2 concerning the price effects of the dumped imports was not within its terms of reference.

5.3.2.3 Whether the Panel erred in finding that part of Japan's claim 3 concerning the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry was not within its terms of reference

5.3.2.4 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 4 was within its terms of reference

5.3.2.5 Whether the Panel erred in finding that part of Japan's claim 5 was within its terms of reference

5.3.2.6 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 6 was within its terms of reference

5.3.2.7 Whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in assessing the consistency of Japan's panel request with Article 6.2 of the DSU

5.3.3 Magnitude of margin of dumping

5.3.3.1 The Panel's findings

5.3.3.2 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.3.3.3 Whether the Panel erred in its application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the KTC's findings on the magnitude of the margin of dumping

5.3.4 Causation

5.3.4.1 Japan's "independent" causation claim (claim 6)

5.3.4.1.1 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation or application of Article 3.5 by subsuming all of the obligations of Articles 3.2 and 3.4 under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.3.4.1.2 Whether the Panel erred in its approach to resolving Japan's claim 6

5.3.4.1.3 Whether the Panel erred under Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to consider Japan's rebuttal arguments on the issue of "reasonable sales price

5.3.4.1.4 Whether the Panel erred in its findings concerning price comparability and overselling when addressing Japan's claim 6 under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

5.3.4.1.5 Whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.3.4.1.6 Conclusion with respect to claim 6

5.3.4.2 Japan's claim 4

5.3.4.2.1 Whether the Panel erred in its approach to resolving Japan's claim 4 about the failure to demonstrate a causal relationship focusing on the lack of correlation among various factors

5.3.4.2.2 Conclusion with respect to claim 4

5.3.5 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis under Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.3.5.1 Whether the Korean investigating authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in their consideration of the volume of dumped imports

5.3.5.2 Whether the Korean investigating authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in their consideration of price effects

5.3.5.3 Whether the Korean investigating authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in their consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the state of the domestic industry

5.4 Confidential Treatment of Information

5.4.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claims 8 and 9 concerning the confidential treatment of information were within its terms of reference

5.4.2 Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.4.2.1 Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.4.2.1.1 The Panel's findings

5.4.2.1.2 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation or application of Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.4.2.2 Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.4.2.2.1 The Panel's findings

5.4.2.2.2 Whether the Panel erred in its application of Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

5.5 Essential Facts.

5.5.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 10 concerning the disclosure of essential facts was not within its terms of reference

5.5.2 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Overall Considerations Regarding the Legal Standard Under Article 6.2 of the DSU

6.2 Domestic Industry

6.2.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 7concerning the definition of the domestic industry was not within its terms of reference

6.2.2 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis

6.3 Determination of Injury

6.3.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 1 concerning the volume of dumped imports was not within its terms of reference

6.3.2 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 2 concerning the price effects was not within its terms of reference

6.3.3 Whether the Panel erred in finding that part of Japan's claim 3 concerning the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry was not within its terms of reference

6.3.4 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 4 was within its terms of reference

6.3.5 Whether the Panel erred in finding that part of Japan's claim 5 was within its terms of reference

6.3.6 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 6 was within its terms of reference

6.3.7 Magnitude of the margin of dumping

6.3.8 Causation

6.3.8.1 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation or application of Article 3.5 in addressing Japan's claim 6

6.3.8.2 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation or application of Article 3.5 in addressing Japan's claim 4

6.3.9 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis under Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

6.3.9.1 Whether the Korean investigating authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in their consideration of the volume of dumped imports

6.3.9.2 Whether the Korean investigating authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in their consideration of price effects

6.3.9.3 Whether the Korean investigating authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in their consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the state of the domestic industry

6.4 Confidential Treatment of Information

6.4.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claims 8 and 9 concerning the confidential treatment of information were within its terms of reference

6.4.2 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation or application of Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.4.3 Whether the Panel erred in its application of Article 6.5.1of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.5 Essential Facts

6.5.1 Whether the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim 10 concerning the disclosure of essential facts was not within its terms of reference

6.5.2 Whether the Appellate Body can complete the legal analysis under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

6.6 Recommendation

ANNEX A

ANNEX A-1 JAPAN'S NOTICE OF APPEAL

ANNEX A-2 KOREA'S NOTICE OF OTHER APPEAL

ANNEX B

ANNEX B-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF JAPAN'S APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX B-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KOREA'S OTHER APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX B-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KOREA'S APPELLEE'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX B-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF JAPAN'S APPELLEE'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C

ANNEX C-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION'S THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX C-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE UNITED STATES' THIRD PARTICIPANT'S SUBMISSION

ANNEX D.

ANNEX D-1 PROCEDURAL RULING.

Notes:

Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 09 Apr 2021).

ISBN:

1-108-99889-5

1-108-99283-8

OCLC:

1293258145