WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS206/1
G/L/395
G/ADP/D26/1
G/SCM/D36/1
9 October 2000
(00-4126)
Original:  English
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES
ON STEEL PLATE FROM INDIA
Request for Consultations from India
The following communication, dated 4 October 2000, from the Permanent Mission of India to
the Permanent Mission of the United States 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 consultations with the United States of America
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement or ADA), Article 30 of theAgreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and Article XXII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) regarding, (1) final affirmative determination of
sales of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Pl ate Products from India at less than fair value
by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000;
(2) interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the Anti-dumping and
Countervailing Duty investigations by DOC;  (3) determination and interpretation by the US
International Trade Commission (ITC) of negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by thesaid Indian steel imports.
The Government of India considers that these determinations are erroneous and based on
deficient procedures contained in US anti-dumping and countervailing duty law.  The relevant
determinations and statutory provisions include, but are not limited to:
1. ITC's determination of material injury due to dumped imports in contravention of WTO rules
governing negligible imports (e.g. ITC's failure to find that imports from India were
negligible, to terminate its investigation, and not to make a cumulative assessment of the
effects of Indian imports and other imports subject to investigation);
2. ITC's determination of material injury due to subsidized imports in contravention of WTO
rules governing negligible imports (e.g. ITC's failure to find that imports from India were
negligible, to terminate its investigation, and not to make a cumulative assessment of the
effects of Indian imports and other imports subject to investigation);
3. ITC's determination of material injury made without objective examination of the facts or in
a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;
./.WT/DS206/1, G/L/395,
G/ADP/D26/1, G/SCM/D36/1
Page 2
4. The provisions of US law relating to the inquiry into whether imports are negligible
(e.g. 19 U.S.C. §1677(24);  19 U.S.C. §1673d(b)(1);  19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(G)(ii)(II);
5. DOC's determination of sales at less than fair value in contravention of WTO rules governing
the use of "facts available" (e.g. the refusal by the US authorities to accept timely, verifiable
and appropriately submitted export price information);
6. DOC's determination of sales at less than fair value made without objective examination of
the facts or in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;
7. The provisions of US law relating to the use of facts available (e.g. 19 U.S.C. §1677m(e));
and
8. DOC's final anti-dumping duty order imposed  without regard for India's status as a
developing country Member and without cons ideration of other constructive remedies.
These determinations and provisions raise questions concerning the obligations of the US
under the GATT 1994, the ADA, the ASCM and the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization (WTO Agreement).  The provisions of these agreements, with which these measures and
determinations appear to be inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. GATT 1994, Articles VI and X;
2. ADA, Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 and
Annex II;
3. ASCM, Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially 15.3), 22 and 27 (especially 27.10);
and
4. WTO Agreement, Article XVI.
The Government of India reserves its right to raise further factual claims and legal issues
during the course of consultations.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations.
__________