Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WORLD TRADE WT/DS60/R 19 June 1998 ORGANIZATION (98-2418) Original: English GUATEMALA - ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATION REGARDING PORTLAND CEMENT FROM MEXICO REPORT OF THE PANEL The report of the Panel on Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 19 June 1998. pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). Members are reminded that in accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body. Note by the Secretariat: This Panel Report shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the date of its circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If the Panel Report is appealed to the Appellate Body, it shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after the completion of the appeal. Information on the current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat. - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 II. FACTUAL ASPECTS ......................................................................................................2 III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES ................2 IV. MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES........................................................................4 A. Preliminary Objections .........................................................................................4 1. Whether the final measure is before the Panel ...........................................4 2. Whether the final stage of the investigation is before the Panel..................9 3. Whether the provisional measure is before the Panel ............................... 10 4. Whether the initiation is before the Panel ................................................ 17 5. Whether certain claims were in the request for establishment and are before the Panel .......................................................................... 23 6. Whether certain claims were raised in the request for consultations and are before the Panel..................................................... 30 7. Whether certain new claims were raised during the course of Panel proceedings and are before the Panel ......................................... 31 B. Standard of Review............................................................................................. 33 C. Violations Alleged Regarding the First Stage of the Investigation ....................... 36 1. Initiation................................................................................................. 36 2. Failure to notify ...................................................................................... 60 3. Full text of written application ................................................................ 68 D. Violations in Connection with the Provisional Measure....................................... 70 1. Article 3.7............................................................................................... 70 2. Article 3.5............................................................................................... 87 E. Violations Subsequent to the Preliminary Determination..................................... 89 1. Extension of period of investigation ........................................................ 89 2. Non-governmental experts ...................................................................... 92 3. Scope of verification............................................................................... 96 - ii - Page 4. Technical accounting evidence................................................................ 99 5. Essential facts....................................................................................... 102 F. Violations in the Course of the Investigation..................................................... 105 1. Access to file ........................................................................................ 105 2. Confidential information....................................................................... 108 3. Time-frame........................................................................................... 109 G. Revocation of Anti-Dumping Duties................................................................. 109 V. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THIRD PARTIES.................................................... 114 A. Canada .................................................................................................. 114 B. El Salvador .................................................................................................. 114 C. Honduras .................................................................................................. 115 D. United States .................................................................................................. 117 VI. INTERIM REVIEW .................................................................................................. 141 VII. FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 143 A. Introduction .................................................................................................. 143 B. Preliminary Issues............................................................................................. 144 1. Whether this dispute is properly before the Panel .................................. 144 2. Terms of reference................................................................................ 150 C. Failure to Notify the Exporting Government in Accordance withArticle 5.5.................................................................................................. 151 D. Alleged Violations in the Initiation of the Investigation..................................... 156 1. Dumping............................................................................................... 161 2. Threat of material injury ....................................................................... 164 3. Causal link............................................................................................ 167 4. Conclusion............................................................................................ 168 VIII. RECOMMENDATION................................................................................................. 168 WT/DS60/R Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On 15 October 1996, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("ADP Agreement") regarding the anti-dumping investigation carried out by Guatemala concerning imports of portland cement from Cooperativa Manufacturera de Cemento Portland la Cruz Azul, SCL, of Mexico ("Cruz Azul") (WT/DS60/1). Mexico's request for consultations preceded Guatemala's final determination of dumping and consequent injury and the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty. 1.2 Mexico and Guatemala held consultations on 9 January 1997, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. 1.3 On 4 February 1997, pursuant to Article 17.4 of the ADP Agreement, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel to examine the consistency of Guatemala's anti-dumping investigation into imports of portland cement from Mexico with Guatemala's obligations under the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), in particular those contained in the ADP Agreement (WT/DS60/2). 1.4 At the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") on 25 February 1997, Guatemala stated that it could not join the consensus to establish a panel until certain domestic procedures concerning the investigation had been completed. The DSB agreed to revert to this matter at a later date. 1.5 At its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference. The terms of reference were: "To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by Mexico in document WT/DS60/2, the matter referred to the DSB by Mexico in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements". (WT/DS60/3) 1.6 Canada, El Salvador, Honduras and the United States reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties. 1.7 On 21 April 1997, Mexico requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. On 1 May 1997, the Director-General composed the following Panel: Chairman: Mr. Klaus Kautzor-Schröder Members: Mr. Christopher Norall Mr. Gerardo Teodoro Thielen Graterol 1.8 Mr. Christopher Norall resigned from the Panel on 27 June 1997. On 11 July 1997 the Director-General, acting on a request from Mexico, appointed a new member to the Panel. Accordingly, the composition of the panel was: Chairman: Mr. Klaus Kautzor-Schröder Members: