World Trade
Organization |
WT/DS99/R
29 January 1999
(99-0256)
Original: English |
United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of one Megabit or Above from Korea
Report of the Panel
The report of the Panel on United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Ramdom Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of one Megabit or above from Korea is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 29 January 1999. 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.
Table Of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Establishment and Composition of the Panel
C. Panel Proceedings
II. Factual Aspects
A. The Original Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation
B. The First Administrative Review
C. The Second Administrative Review
D. The Third Administrative Review
E. The US Anti-Dumping Legislation and Regulation Regarding Revocation
III. Findings and Recommendations Requested by the Parties
A. Korea
B. United States
IV. Main Arguments of the Parties
A. Preliminary Objections
1. Admissibility on Korea's Claims Concerning Articles 1, 2, 3, and 17 of the AD Agreement
2. Admissibility of Claims Regarding the Scope of the US Anti-Dumping Order
3. Admissibility of Claims under Article XVI.4 of the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization and Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement
B. Standard of Review
C. Burden of Proof
D. Claims under Article 11 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994
1. Limitations Imposed by Article VI of GATT 1994 and Article 11 of the AD Agreement
2. Secretary of Commerce's Discretion
3. Speculative Analysis of Future Dumping
4. Burden of Proof
5. Impossibility to Meet the Doc's Revocation Standard
6. Certification Regarding Future Dumping
7. Need for Injury Finding
8. Respondents Met the Criteria for Revocation
E. Claims under Articles 2, 6 and 17 of the AD Agreement
1. Failure to Verify Information from the US, and Failure to Consider
Fairly and Objectively Respondents' Information and Data
F. Claims under Article X:1 and X:2 of GATT 1994
1. Transparency and Due Process in the Administration of Government Measures
2. Failure to Publish Objective and Specific Factors Regarding
the "No Likelihood/Not Likely" Criterion
3. Failure to Publish Objective and Specific Factors Regarding the
Time-Period Used in Analysing the "No Likelihood/Not Likely" Criterion
4. Imposition of a New Unpublished Requirement in Contravention to
Article X Paragraphs 1 and 2 of GATT 1994
G. Claims Under Articles I and X:3 of GATT 1994
1. The United States Revoked Anti-Dumping Duties in Like Cases
2. Korea Submitted an Effective Data Collection Proposal
3. Variance of the "No Likelihood/Not Likely" Criterion and the Time-Period Selected
4. Rejection and Acceptance of Data
H. Claims under Articles 2 and 3 of the AD Agreement
1. The Doc's Decision Regarding the Scope of the Proceeding
I. Claims under Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement
1. De Minimis Margin Threshold for Administrative Reviews
J. Inconsistency of the Remedy Sought by Korea
V. Interim Review
A. Comments by Korea
B. Comments by the United States
VI. Findings
A. Introduction
B. Preliminary Issues
C. Consistency of Section 353.25(A)(2)(II) and (III) With Article 11.2
of the AD Agreement
1. Whether Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement Precludes an Anti-Dumping Duty
Being Deemed "Necessary to Offset Dumping" Where there is no Present Dumping to Offset
2. Are Sub-Paragraphs (II) and (III) Of Section 353.25(A)(2) Consistent with
Article 11.2?
3. Conclusion
D. Consistency of the Final Results Third Review with Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement
E. Consistency of the Failure to Self-Initiate an Injury Review with Article 11.2 of the
AD Agreement
1. Is An Ex Officio Article 11.2 Injury Review Warranted After Three Years and
Six Months' No Dumping?
2. Does the ITC Have The Authority to Conduct an Ex Officio
Article 11.2 Injury Review?
F. Article 2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement
1. Rejection of the Flamm Study
2. Rejection of Respondents' 1996 Cost Data
G. Article 6.6 of the AD Agreement
1. Whether Respondents Had Dumped During 1996
2. Whether Respondents Could Remain Competitive with Out Dumping
H. Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement
I. Korea's Claims under GATT 1994
VII. Conclusions and Recommendation
To continue with Introduction
|
