1 / 20

WTO Case DS437

WTO Case DS437. GROUP 7 Martha Van Lieshout Mauricio Valdes Yulia Tsimafeishyna. China brought the case to the WTO concerning 17 countervailing duty (CVD) investigations against the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) between 2007 and 2012.

odette-hardy
Download Presentation

WTO Case DS437

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WTO Case DS437 GROUP 7 Martha Van Lieshout Mauricio Valdes YuliaTsimafeishyna

  2. China brought the case to the WTO concerning 17 countervailing duty (CVD) investigations against the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) between 2007 and 2012. • The cases in question disputed the USDOC’s definition of a public body, application of facts available, calculation of benchmarks, determinations of specificity, and decisions to initiate investigations. Background

  3. Products included solar panels, wind turbines, kitchen shelving, steel sinks, and other manufactured goods. • Chinese products worth more than $7.2 billion dollars. Products Involved

  4. 25 May 2012 – China requested consultations with the United States • 20 August 2012 – China requested the establishment of a panel • 28 Sept 2012 - Panel established by Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) • Third Parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Norway, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Vietnam • 26 November 2012 – Director-General composed the panel • July 2014 – the Panel report was circulated to Members • 22 August 2014 – China appealed WTO decision Timeline

  5. China brought the case to the WTO, arguing that the U.S. violated: • Article VI of GATT (Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties) • Articles 1.1, 2, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 12.7 and 14(d) of Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement) • Article 15 of Protocol Accession of China Principal WTO Agreements Involved

  6. In bringing the case to the WTO, China argued that the countervailing duties were wrongfully imposed on Chinese exports, because the United States falsely classified Chinese State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as “public bodies”. Basic Principle Involved

  7. The panel must then determine whether the SOEs can be classified as public bodies, and therefore legally subject to CVDs. Basic Question to be Determined

  8. The United States requested that the panel reject China's claims in this dispute. • Rules for CVDs detailed in the SCM Agreement • Why would the United States impose countervailing duties? • Countervailing duties are used to counter “unfair” subsidies • The U.S. believed that it did not violate SCM Agreement because the SOEs could be classified as “public bodies” U.S. Imposition of Countervailing Duties

  9. Panel Report distributed on July 14, 2014 • For the most part, the panel upheld China’s claims that U.S. violated WTO rules. • Recommended that the U.S. bring the countervailing duties at issue in full compliance with the SCM Agreement. Panel Results

  10. In 12 of 17 of the CVD investigations, the panel disagreed with the USDOC that SOEs were “public bodies” • WTO says that you cannot prohibit imports by increasing fees specifically to those products • The WTO made a similar ruling in China’s earlier challenge of other U.S. CVDs (DS379). • Used as precedent for this case Panel Reasoning: Countervailing Duties

  11. Panel: a “public body” is one that has the authority to perform government functions. • Owning or controlling an entity is not enough to establish that it’s a public body • Decision: U.S. did not have “sufficient evidence” alleging that the SOEs constitute public bodies • Thus, U.S. imposition of countervailing duties on these 12 cases is inconsistent with WTO rules Panel Reasoning: Public Bodies

  12. The Panel faulted the United States for a “rebuttable presumption” that a state-owned enterprise (SOE) is a public body if there is majority ownership by the government. Panel Reasoning: Rebuttable Presumption

  13. For the most part the United States failed to show sufficient evidence to support its claims • However, the ruling was not all in China’s favor • U.S. needs to broaden their definition of a “public body” and reconsider use of countervailing duties What does this mean for the U.S.?

  14. In July, the Office of the USTR released a statement explaining the “mixed results” of the case • The statement explained that “the WTO panel rejected most of the claims brought by China” Source: “WTO Panel Issues a Mixed Result in China’s Challenge to U.S. Countervailing Duties”, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, July 2014 Reception in the U.S.

  15. “The WTO panel’s decision to reject many of China’s challenges to U.S. countervailing duties on unfairly subsidized Chinese imports is a victory for American businesses and workers” Froman’s Statement

  16. Panel report under appeal on August 22, 2014 • Generally, the Appellate Body has up to 3 months to conclude its report. • In the appeal, China has asked that the Appellate Body reverse the panel’s finding that upheld the U.S. Department of Commerce decision to use “out-of-country” prices as potential benchmarks in the CVD cases under review. Current Status of the Case

  17. Washington has repeatedly argued that Chinese State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are the recipients of unfair government support. • Will need to change our definition of a public body, or continue to see countervailing duty cases brought before the WTO • Makes it easier for those producers to be more competitive on the global market • By having the WTO dispute Panel rule that the U.S. was in violation of global rules against some of Chinese exporters, this helps to level the playing field of other countries Significance of case for U.S. Trade Policy & Trade Relations

  18. When significant amounts of money are involved in trade disputes, cases are brought to the WTO to avoid trade wars. • Important for the WTO Panel to establish what does and does not qualify as legal practice. • Each new WTO case tried sets a new precedent for future negotiations. Significance of the WTO

  19. 6th BRICS Summit, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa announced the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) • President Xi met with leaders of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to establish the China-CELAC Forum, and proposed $5 billion in initial funding for the China-Latin America Cooperation Fund. • China continues developing alliance with other countries and continues to develop free trade agreements with South American countries which can have a significant impact on imports/exports between the U.S. and China. China’s Ties Abroad

  20. Questions?

More Related