 
  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS306/1 
G/L/669 
G/ADP/D52/1 
2 February 2004 
 
 (04-0371) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
INDIA – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON BATTERIES 
FROM BANGLADESH 
 
Request for Consultations by Bangladesh  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 28 January 2004, from the delegation of Bangladesh to the delegation of India and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  My authorities have instructed me to request c onsultations with India pursuant to Article 4 of 
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), 
Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Ta riffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994"), and 
Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (the "ADP Agreement") with resp ect to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping 
duties on imports of lead acid batteries from Bangladesh
1 and certain aspects of the investigation 
leading to the imposition.  
 
 Article 1 of the ADP Agreement provides th at an anti-dumping measure "shall be applied 
only under the circumstances provided for in Article  VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations 
initiated and conducted in accordance with the provis ions of [the ADP] Agreement".  In light of 
Article 1 of the ADP Agreement, Article VI of  the GATT 1994 and the other provisions hereafter 
cited, Bangladesh is particularly concerned about the following aspects of the investigation leading to 
the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties:   1. India's initiation of the investigation, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated claim of the 
applicants that the application was "by or on behalf of the domestic industry" 
(Article 5.4 of the ADP Agreement); 
 
 2. India's failure to immediately terminate the investigation, notwithstanding its earlier 
determination that the volume of imports from Bangladesh was negligible
2 
(Article 5.8 of the ADP Agreement); 
 
                                                      
1 Imposed under Notification No. 1/2002 – Customs, issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of 
Finance of India dated 2 January 2002. 
2 Preliminary Findings issued by the Directorat e General of Anti-dumping & Allied Duties of the 
Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India dated 21 March 2001.  This determination was reiterated by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of India in Notification 
No. 41/2001-Customs, dated 9 April 2001 and Notification No. 1/2002 –Customs, dated 2 January 2002. WT/DS306/1 
G/L/669 G/ADP/D52/1 
Page 2 
  
  3. India's failure to determine normal valu e (Articles VI:1 and VI:2  of the GATT 1994, 
and Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the ADP Agreement);   
 
 4. India's apparent resort to constructed value as the basis for determining normal value
3 
(Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the ADP Agreement);  
  5. India's failure to determine export pr ice and to make a fair comparison between 
normal value and export price (Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and 
Articles 2.1 and 2.4 of the ADP Agreement); 
  6. India's failure to make an objective examination based on positive evidence of the 
volume of imports and the effect of imports on prices in the domestic market for like 
products (Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the ADP Agreement); 
  7. India's failure to make an objective examination based on positive evidence of the 
impact of imports on domestic producers of like products (Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 
3.7 of the ADP Agreement); 
 
 8. India's inclusion of imports from Bangl adesh in the cumulative assessment of the 
effects of imports (including those from Chin a, Japan, and Korea) notwithstanding its 
earlier determination that the volume of imports from Bangladesh was negligible 
(Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7 of the ADP Agreement);   
 
 9. India's failure to evaluate all releva nt economic factors and indices having a bearing 
on the state of the industry (Article 3.1, 3.4 and 3.7 of the ADP Agreement);
  
  10. India's failure to make an objective examination of any known factors other than the 
imports which may have been injuring the domestic industry (Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of 
the ADP Agreement); 
 
 11. India's failure to make an objective examination of the causal link between the 
imports and the alleged injury to the domest ic industry (Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 
1994, and Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the ADP Agreement); 
 
 12. India's failure to take into account in formation submitted by interested parties from 
Bangladesh (para. 3, Annex II and Article 6.8 of the ADP Agreement); 
  13. India's treatment of certain information submitted by the applicants as confidential, 
notwithstanding its failure to require the app licants to show good cause (Article 6.5 of 
the ADP Agreement); 
 
 14. India's failure to require the appli cants to furnish appropriate non-confidential 
summaries of information submitted as confidential (Article 6.5 of the ADP 
Agreement); 
 
                                                     
 
3 As subsequently manifested in India's semi-annual report to the WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping 
Practices in document G/ADP/N/85/IND dated 5 April 2002.  WT/DS306/1 
 G/L/669 
 G/ADP/D52/1 
 Page 3 
  
  15. India's failure to disclose to the interested parties during the anti-dumping 
investigation the information on dumping,  injury and causal link. (Articles 6.2 
and 6.4 of the ADP Agreement); 
 
 16. India's failure to disclose the "essential facts under consideration which form the basis 
for the decision to apply definitive measures" (Article 6.9 of the ADP Agreement);
  
  17. India's failure to provide the parti es and give public notice of "all relevant 
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the 
imposition of final measures", in particular, "a full explanation of the reasons for the 
methodology used in the establishment and comparison of the export price and the normal value under Article 2 [of the ADP Agre ement]"; "considera tions relevant to 
the injury determination as set out in Ar ticle 3 [of the ADP Agreement]"; and "the 
main reasons leading to the determination" (Article 12.2, in particular, Articles 12.2.1 
and 12.2.2 of the ADP Agreement). 
  It appears to Bangladesh that the foregoing ca nnot be reconciled with Article VI of the GATT 
1994, Article 1 of the ADP Agreement, and th e respective specific provisions cited above.  
Furthermore, as a result of the imposition of anti-dumping duties in a manner not justified under 
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the ADP Agreement,  India may likewise be acting inconsistently 
with its obligations under Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994.  Bangladesh considers that the 
benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly u nder the WTO Agreement are being nullified or impaired 
pursuant to Article XXIII:1(a) and Article XXIII:1(b), respectively, of the GATT 1994. 
 
 Bangladesh looks forward to receiving your reply to this request at your earliest convenience.  
I propose that the date and venue of these cons ultations be agreed between our two Missions. 
 
__________ 
 
 