2. The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping [FN1] is inconsistent, among others, with China's obligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the DSU and the GATT 1994.
----------------------------------------------
FN 1 As specified in WTO document G/ADP/N1/CHN/2, Article 56 provides, in the translation made by China for reference by WTO Members, that "[w]here a country (region) discriminatorily imposes anti-dumping measures on the exports from the People's Republic of China, China may, on the basis of actual situations, take corresponding measures against that country (region)".
According to the EU, China's law says that it may "take corresponding measures" where another country "discriminatorily imposes" anti-dumping measures on it.
Here are the EC claims on the issue:
(1) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because China fails to meet its obligation that no specific action against dumping of exports from another Member can be taken except in accordance with the provisions of GATT 1994, as interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
(2) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article 23 of the DSU, in particular Article 23.1 thereof, because China fails to meet its obligation to have recourse to, and abide by, the rules and procedures of the DSU when seeking the redress of a violation of obligations or other nullification or impairment of benefits under the covered agreements or an impediment to the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements.
(3) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since China fails to meet its obligation to accord immediately and unconditionally any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted to any product originating in or destined for any other country to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other WTO Members, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation, and with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation and exportation, and with respect to all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III of the GATT 1994.
(4) The EU considers that Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping is inconsistent with Article X:3(a) of the GATT since China fails to meet its obligation to administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner all its laws, regulations, decisions und rulings described in paragraph 1 of Article X of the GATT 1994.
Finally, it's not just the law itself, but also the application to the provisional duties at issue here:
The European Union considers that the Provisional Imposition also has to be seen in the light
of Article 56 of the Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Anti-Dumping and that the Provisional Imposition is a further incidence of these inconsistencies described above.
If this claim goes forward, it will be interesting to see how these "systemic" issues are addressed. It's worth noting that there's a "may" in the law, suggesting some "discretion" in the measure.
