DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS394
China — Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials
Current status back to top
Report(s) adopted, with recommendation to bring measure(s) into conformity on 22 February 2012 
Key facts back to top
Short title: | China — Raw Materials |
Complainant: | United States |
Respondent: | 大连发现王国在哪个区China |
Third Parties: | Argentina; Brazil; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Ecuador; European Union; India; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Mexico; Norway; Chinese Taipei; Turkey; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of |
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations) | Protocol of Accession: Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1, Part I, para. 5.2, Part I, para. 8.2, Part I, para. 11.3,
江西抚州属于哪个市GATT 1994: Art. VIII, VIII:1, VIII:4, X, X:1, X:3, XI, 仙居一日游哪里好玩XI:1 |
Request for Consultations received: | |
Panel Report circulated: | 5 July 2011 |
Appellate Body Report circulated: | 30 January 2012 |
| |
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at 30 January 2012 Consultations
Complaint by the United States. (See also DS395 and DS398)
On 23 June 2009, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to China's restraints on the export from China of various forms of raw materials. The United States cites 32 measures through which China allegedly imposes restraints on the exports in question and note that there appear to be additional unpublished restrictive measures.
The United States considers that China, through these measures as well as any amendments, replacements, related measures, and implementing measures, is in violation of:
∙ 上海博物物馆Articles VIII, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; and
∙ Paragraphs 5.1, 5.2, 8.2, and 11.3 of Part I of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (“Accession Protocol”), as well as China's obligations under the provisions of paragraph 1.2 of Part I of the Accession Protocol (which incorporates commitments in paragraphs 83, 84, 162, and 165 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China).
The United States considers that the measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
On 2 July 2009, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 6 July 2009, Canada, Mexico and Turkey requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Canada, the European Communities, Mexico and Turkey to join the consultations.
On 4 November 2009, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 November 2009, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting on 21 December 2009, the DSB established a single panel, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, to examine this dispute and DS395 and DS398. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, the European Union, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Chinese Taipei and Turkey reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia reserved its third-party rights. On 19 March 2010, the United States, the European Union and Mexico requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On 29 March 2010, the Director-General composed the panel. On 19 October 2010, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that the panel would not be able to issue its report within six months. The timetable agreed after consultations with the parties envisages the proceedings will be finalized by April 2011. The panel expe
cts to conclude its work within that time-frame.
On 5 July 2011, the panel report was circulated to Members.
Summary of key findings
This dispute concerns four types of export restraint that China imposes on the export of a number of raw materials. The raw materials subject to the export restraints are various forms of bauxite, coke, fluorspar, magnesium, manganese, silicon carbide, silicon metal, yellow phosphorus and zinc. China is a leading producer of each of the raw materials which are used to produce everyday items as well as technology products.
The complainants argued that the use of export restraints creates scarcity and causes higher prices of the raw materials in global markets. They also provide Chinese domestic industry with a significant advantage by way of a sufficient supply, and lower and more stable prices for the raw materials.
Upon its accession to the WTO, China undertook to eliminate all export duties (taxes) exc
ept for a number of products listed in an Annex to its Protocol of Accession. In this Protocol, China also committed not to apply export quotas (restrictions on the amount that can be exported).
In one of its key findings, the Panel found that China's export duties were inconsistent with the commitments that China had agreed to in its Protocol of Accession. The Panel also found that export quotas imposed by China on some of the raw materials were inconsistent with WTO rules.
The Panel found that the wording of China's Protocol of Accession did not allow China to use the general exceptions in Article XX of the GATT 1994 to justify its WTO-inconsistent export duties. The Panel also considered that even if China were able to rely on certain exceptions available in the WTO rules to justify its export duties, it had not complied with the requirements of those exceptions.大理游玩必去的地方
