International Markets

The USTR is seeking comments by 10 February on the issues raised in a World Trade Organisation complaint by the United States against mainland China’s decision to impose antidumping and countervailing duties on U.S. chicken broiler products, which include chicken products that are not cut into pieces as well as various cuts and pieces. Mainland China imposed AD duties ranging from 50.3 percent to 105.4 percent on 26 September 2010 as well as CV duties ranging from 4.0 percent to 30.3 percent on 30 August 2010. The United States contends that these measures appear to be inconsistent with the following WTO provisions.

• Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement (AD Agreement) because mainland China failed to calculate costs on the basis of the records kept by the U.S. producers under investigation
• Article 2.2.1.1. of the AD Agreement because mainland China failed to properly allocate production costs
• Articles 6.4 and 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles 12.3 and 12.4.1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement) because mainland China failed to provide or require the applicant to provide adequate, non-confidential summaries of allegedly confidential information
• Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement (including Annex II) and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement because mainland China improperly based its determinations on the facts available
• Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 19.4 of the SCM Agreement because mainland  China levied CV duties on imported U.S. broiler products in excess of the amount of subsidy found to exist
• Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4 and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because mainland China’s analysis of the effects of imports under investigation and alleged causal link was not based upon an objective examination of positive evidence, an examination of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, or an examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities
• Articles 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles 11.1, 15.1 and 16.1 of the SCM Agreement because mainland China improperly defined the domestic industry and did not conduct a proper investigation or objective examination of the domestic industry producing the subject imports
• Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement because mainland China failed to disclose the “essential facts” underlying its determinations
• Articles 12.2, 12.2.1 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 22.3, 22.4 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement because mainland China failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law it considered material, and the reasons for the acceptance or rejection of relevant arguments or claims
• Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement because mainland China failed to grant interested parties a full opportunity for the defence of their interests
• Article 1 of the AD Agreement, Article 10 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the breaches of the AD Agreement and/or the SCM Agreement described above.