WTO争端解决机构发布中美轮胎案报告

TBR砖家

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS399

United States — Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China
; u' Q4 C7 N! S* `" p. v! d  y
This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.

, z" r* s$ l5 l( i; `7 b5 r* vSee also:

3 G& F+ s8 p( I5 |+ g# ~Other disputes involving:
  h* ~. f* ^' j7 N* G
Current status back to top
3 ?* Y: A, Q, W
Panel report circulated on 13 December 2010
* Y' T1 m2 ~* J: d4 `
Key facts back to top
+ @  T; m. `: k9 D
Short title: US — Tyres (China)

& c# V& V5 x2 `3 t+ }7 u) oComplainant: China
9 ~6 }+ s1 S4 {: x
Respondent:
5 _  N6 q- p4 K( ^" g( V
( o* t+ E: t. ?' H) [1 |8 Z: PUnited States of America
' x, B+ h+ B# Y8 _7 G% x% j7 i
Third Parties:

European Union; Japan; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Viet Nam
  B: ^2 ?7 Z7 u' e% ^
Agreements cited:

(as cited in request for consultations)

: v: J6 u5 Q- fGATT 1994: Art. I:1, II,
6 E% Z$ ]" c9 q# D
received: 14 September 2009

" ?7 F( c! W$ X6 y6 U. X1 P8 V0 N* uPanel Report circulated: 13 December 2010
, j& l0 Q3 J+ ~: M- i. m1 X& M
- N7 i, m0 d2 i: ^Summary of the dispute to date back to top
8 z( J( S% z4 p/ E. |9 ]
The summary below was up-to-date at 15 December 2010
5 R! r) d  J( `' M: f+ A
Consultations

Complaint by China.

5 o* p) W& M' U6 F/ Y6 J0 @On 14 September 2009, China requested consultations with the United States concerning increased tariffs on certain passenger vehicle and light truck tyres (subject tyres) from China. The decision was announced on 11 September 2009 following an investigation pursuant to section 421 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.). The USITC determined that there was market disruption as a result of rapidly increasing imports of subject tyres from China that were a significant cause of material injury to the domestic industry. Following a Presidential decision additional duties were imposed on subject tyres imports for a three year period in the amount of 35 per cent ad valorem in the first year, 30 per cent ad valorem in the second year and 25 per cent ad valorem in the third year (the tyres measure). This measure took effect on 26 September 2009.

6 X; D0 f! T& hAccording to China the higher tariffs are inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994and have not been properly justified pursuant to Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.
; y1 a) I, A+ E* ]' i
China also maintains that these measures are not properly justified as China-specific restrictions under paragraph 16 of its Protocolof Accession. Specifically, China alleges that the US statute defines "significant cause" more narrowly than required by the ordinary meaning of that phrase as used in paragraph 16.4 of the Protocol of Accession.
& M( |+ T/ ]9 h% X! e; M
5 ~1 K9 C1 g( j; C; Y% @China also alleges that these measures are also inconsistent, as applied, with the United States' obligations under China's Protocol of Accession, specifically:
2 v- A; x- M  n" |9 X
: y* w. i: g: U* N# hparagraphs 16.1 and 16.4 because (a) imports from China were not “in such increased quantities” and were not “increasing rapidly”; (b) imports from China were not a “significant cause” of material injury or threat thereof; and (c) the domestic tyre producers were not experiencing “market disruption” or “material injury”;

paragraph 16.3 because the restrictions are being imposed beyond the “extent necessary to prevent or remedy” any alleged market disruption; and
( i9 d! c& Z5 s
paragraph 16.6 because the restrictions are being imposed for a period of time longer than “necessary to prevent or remedy” any alleged market disruption.
  T0 J7 S( f% I% Y/ `0 J1 {
$ }6 G1 n8 W- }0 v, ^On 9 December 2009, China requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 December 2009, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

At its meeting on 19 January 2010, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request from China. The European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights. On 2 March 2010, China requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On 12 March 2010, the Director-General composed the panel. On 31 May 2010, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that the panel would not be able to complete its work in six months in light of scheduling conflicts. The panel expected to complete its work in November 2010.

& X9 ^* Y- f+ D! \0 I4 f2 UOn 8 November 2010, the final report was issued to the parties. On 13 December 2010, the panel report was circulated to Members. China made seven specific claims in this dispute based on paragraph 16 of the Protocol, and GATT 1994. In respect of the Protocol, China asked the panel to find that:
$ a2 h) v8 Q/ J0 J  b8 N' k
the United States failed to evaluate properly whether imports from China were in “such increased quantities” and “increasing rapidly” as required by paragraphs 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol;
' p# t, \4 v6 ?9 \
3 U0 Q% j7 @0 Q2 @" ^$ [the US statute implementing the causation standard of paragraph 16 into US law was inconsistent “as such” with paragraphs 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol;
+ Y$ b, u6 W. j' f9 E
+ c, ]% G4 K& H8 B; Ithe United States failed to evaluate properly whether imports from China were a “significant cause” as required by paragraphs 16.1 and 16.4 of the Protocol;

the United States imposed a transitional safeguard measure that went beyond the “extent necessary”, and thus it was inconsistent with paragraph 16.3 of the Protocol;
, ^# f4 u. F8 x9 d
the United States imposed a transitional safeguard measure for a three-year period that went beyond “such period of time” that was “necessary”, and thus it was inconsistent with paragraph 16.6 of the Protocol.

Regarding China's claims under GATT 1994, China asked the panel to find that:
2 a7 x5 G4 u7 t8 C) ?1 Z# ~
& R& B. K+ l! w! G  jthe transitional safeguard measure was inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 as the United States did not accord the same treatment that it grants to passenger vehicle and light truck tyres originating in other countries to like products originating in China;

5 C2 a9 q: P1 Ithe transitional safeguard measure is inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 as the tariffs consist of unjustified modifications of US concessions on passenger vehicle and light truck tyres under the GATT 1994.

China asked that the panel recommend that the United States promptly comply with its obligations and withdraw the tyres measure.

! U+ N% K! C) D$ n# H0 b7 @The United States asked the panel to reject China's claims in their entirety.
5 X9 g# d) g! l5 ~( @
6 U0 A( g! N3 w0 G8 [. {- F9 V* w* oThe relationship between paragraphs 16.1 and paragraph 16.4 of the Protocol
" p( [" I2 o* ?* G. p' C
# n2 s- l5 V" jChina argued that the phrase “in such increased quantities” in paragraph 16.1 of the Protocol, which also appears in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, was a base level requirement in addressing increasing imports under the Protocol. In accordance with case law under the Agreement on Safeguards, China argued that imports, as a first step, needed to be sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough to cause injury. Only after that first step had been achieved would the focus then shift to paragraph 16.4 of the Protocol where imports would also need to meet the requirement of “increasing rapidly”.
0 Y' |; ]( u$ C/ E4 }& T  r7 u1 t
The panel rejected this approach. The panel found that paragraph 16.4 clarified the substance of the conditions for taking action under paragraph 16 of the Protocol — i.e. that imports had to be “increasing rapidly” and that there had to be “a significant cause” of material injury to the domestic industry. Therefore, in this regard the panel's findings focused on paragraph 16.4 of the Protocol rather than paragraph 16.1.

Panel's findings and conclusions

2 t' R+ ?/ S1 E. A+ P) F! j. aEssentially, China's claims focused on five issues:
+ M" {: q: c2 ?( X1 W) G% m
3 U% T8 }4 t5 D, e5 {China argued that despite the absolute increases in subject imports, a decline in the rate of increase in the final year of the period of investigation (2008) meant that subject imports were not “increasing rapidly” in accordance with paragraph 16.4 of the Protocol. The panel disagreed and found that subject imports were increasing rapidly, both absolutely and relatively, in accordance with the Protocol.
3 P) p/ p  C, Q" o
, R4 A, i7 ]  @3 J0 |China asserted that the United States' “contributes significantly” definition in its statute was at odds with the ordinary meaning of the “significant cause” standard in paragraph 16.4 of the Protocol. The panel rejected this “as such” argument.
( P5 q' f( \1 r( b. {
China claimed that the USITC failed to properly demonstrate that subject imports were a “significant cause” of market disruption. China's claim was based on three principal arguments: (1) a failure by the USITC to show conditions of competition between subject imports and the domestic product to support a finding of causation; (2) a failure by the USITC to establish any temporal correlation between rapidly increasing subject imports and material injury to the domestic industry; and (3) a failure by the USITC to address alternative causes of material injury to the domestic industry. The panel rejected all of China's arguments.

8 k( z5 l' W" d4 j- `" yChina claimed that the remedy applied in this case was inconsistent with paragraph 16.3 of the Protocol as it was not limited to the market disruption caused by rapidly increasing imports; and that, contrary to paragraph 16.6, the three year duration exceeded the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy the market disruption. The panel found that China had failed to establish a prima facie case in relation to both of these remedy claims.
3 V; d/ e1 W' r' [0 M5 T% d. s
& ]! z" S7 Y9 \* i6 Q& eThe panel found that China's claims under GATT 1994 were dependent on its claims under paragraph 16 of the Protocol. They were, therefore, similarly unsuccessful.
8 N, E% ]) a7 P
: c- {- |: X8 |: j7 ]8 {( u. k, JThe panel concluded that in imposing the transitional safeguards measure on 26 September 2009 in respect of imports of subject tyres from China, the United States did not fail to comply with its obligations under paragraph 16 of the Protocol and Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994. The panel also found that there was no “as such” violation in respect of the US statute implementing the causation standard of paragraph 16 of the Protocol.
; [( y* b0 i0 k
Find all documents from this case
. ~! s5 a9 z5 E4 Y$ n. y; r  c8 Y
; O' A' C5 q% s% i* C0 g2 s(Searches Documents Online, most recent documents appear on top)

; L/ ^9 D1 c8 q5 s6 M1 e" b/ fquick help with downloading

comprehensive help on Documents Online
. _) V& \  }0 l" T$ ?
5 J  I+ r* N+ K, hall documents
: Y& p, K: ^: N- H5 V
& q# h2 [6 e& N- pProblems viewing this page?

Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system a