WT/DS211/R

Annex 1-1
Page 3

AnnexES

Content / Page
Annex 1-1 First Written Submission of Turkey – Executive Summary / 2
Annex 1-2 First Written Submission of Egypt – Executive Summary / 5
Annex 2-1 First Oral Statement of Turkey – Executive Summary / 14
Annex 2-2 First Oral Statement of Egypt – Executive Summary / 19
Annex 3 Restatement by Turkey of its Claims in Response to a Request from the Panel / 24
Annex 4-1 Responses of Turkey to Questions Posed in the Context of the First Substantive Meeting of the Panel / 37
Annex 4-2 Responses of Egypt to Questions Posed in the Context of the First Substantive Meeting of the Panel / 57
Annex 5-1 Rebuttal Submission of Turkey – Executive Summary / 69
Annex 5-2 Rebuttal Submission of Egypt – Executive Summary / 76
Annex 6-1 Second Oral Statement of Egypt – Executive Summary / 82
Annex 6-2 Second Oral Statement of Turkey – Executive Summary / 87
Annex 7-1 Concluding Statement of Turkey at the Second Substantive Meeting of the Panel / 92
Annex 7-2 Closing Statement of Egypt at the Second Substantive Meeting of the Panel / 94
Annex 8-1 Responses of Turkey to Questions Posed in the Context of the Second Substantive Meeting of the Panel / 97
Annex 8-2 Responses of Egypt to Questions Posed in the Context of the Second Substantive Meeting of the Panel / 120
Annex 8-3 Response of Egypt to Follow-Up Questions Posed by the Panel, and comments by Turkey on Egypt's Response / 139
Annex 9 Third Party Oral Statement of Chile / 142
Annex 10-1 Third Party Written Submission of the European Communities / 143
Annex 10-2 Third Party Oral Statement of the European Communities / 149
Annex 10-3 Third Party Responses to Questions from the Panel of the European Communities / 154
Annex 11-1 Third Party Written Submission of Japan / 157
Annex 11-2 Third Party Oral Responses of Japan to Questions from the Panel / 165
Annex 12-1 Third Party Written Submission of the United States / 169
Annex 12-1 Third Party Oral Statement of the United States / 176
Annex 12-3 Third Party Responses of the United States to Questions from the Panel / 182
Annex 13 Supplemental Working Procedures of the Panel Concerning Certain Business Confidential Information / 186


ANNEX 1-1

FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF TURKEY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Based on a petition filed by Al Ezz Rebars Co. and Alexandria National Iron and Steel Co., the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply, International Trade Policy Department (“Investigating Authority” or “IA”) commenced an anti-dumping duty investigation with respect to imports of concrete steel reinforcing bar (“rebar”) from Turkey in February 1999.[1] The investigation was completed by the same office, then within the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade, in October1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were imposed, ranging from 22.63per cent - 61.00 per cent ad valorem.[2]

2. It is the view of the Government of Turkey that Egypt’s anti-dumping duty investigation and final anti-dumping determination was inconsistent with Articles VI and X:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and with several provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement” or the Agreement”), including Articles 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8 and Annex II, Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, paragraph 7.

3. In summary, Turkey’s claims are as follows:

(a) Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in the rebar investigation without a proper establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neither unbiased nor objective.

(b) During the investigation of material injury, Egypt failed to develop “positive evidence” linking imports from Turkey to the adverse trends that it found within the Egyptian rebar industry. Egypt did not investigate whether there were any specific sales lost by the domestic industry to imports from Turkey, or whether in specific transactions involving head-to-head competition the domestic producers were forced to lower their prices to meet Turkish import competition. Nor did Egypt investigate whether domestic purchasers considered imports from Turkey, imports from some other source, or domestic companies themselves as the price leaders in the market. Egypt did not investigate whether or not there was a temporary supply disturbance in the fast-growing Egyptian market, such that imports from Turkey were needed to meet demand. Indeed, there is no evidence on the public record of head-to-head competition between imports and the domestic producers other than the bare, conclusory allegations submitted by the domestic industry in their application for anti-dumping measures. Egypt’s imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures despite its failure to develop “positive evidence” specifically linking the adverse trends in the domestic industry to imports from Turkey is inconsistent with Articles3.1 and 3.5 of the Agreement.

(c) Moreover, Egypt failed to investigate or to take account of the effect of several factors -- other than imports from Turkey -- that had a substantial adverse effect on the Egyptian industry. Egypt also failed to take account of other, neutral factors that caused prices for rebar to fall. These factors included the effects of a large capacity expansion within the domestic industry during the period of investigation on the industry’s cost structure and on price competition between the Egyptian producers; the effect of falling steel scrap input prices on the worldwide and domestic price of rebar; the effect of a sudden contraction in domestic demand in January 1999 just when domestic prices fell; and the effect of a larger volume of comparably priced, non-dumped imports from third countries. The effect of these factors was either ignored, or improperly discounted, or improperly attributed to imports from Turkey in Egypt’s final anti-dumping determination in violation of Articles 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Agreement.

(d) The public record of the injury investigation indicates that Egypt failed to compare the prices of domestic products and the prices of imports on a comparable, delivered basis to the customers who had to choose between imports and domestic rebar to meet their requirements. Egypt therefore failed to establish properly whether there was price undercutting by imports as required by Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement.

(e) Egypt changed the scope of its injury investigation without giving adequate notice to the Turkish respondents, and without giving them an opportunity to submit evidence on the present material injury issue, in contravention of Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the Agreement.

(f) Egypt relied on evidence of injury for its affirmative injury determination which was taken from a period that was subsequent to, and therefore did not coincide with, its finding that there were sales at less than normal value. In so doing, Egypt failed to establish, consistent with the requirements of Article 3.5 of the Agreement, that the dumped imports were, “through the effects of the dumping”, causing injury to a domestic industry within the meaning of the Agreement.

(g) During the sales-at-less-than-normal-value investigation, Egypt’s request for substantial new cost information, and substantiation of the accuracy of respondent’s prior responses, late in the anti-dumping duty proceeding, after the time for issuing questionnaires and well after the verification, severely prejudiced respondents. Furthermore, this action was inconsistent with Annex II, paragraph 1, Annex I, paragraph 7 and Articles 2.4, 6.1, 6.6 and 6.7 of the Agreement.

(h) The deadlines imposed for responses to Egypt’s supplemental requests for information were unreasonably short, resulting in an improper determination to resort to “facts available”, in violation of Articles 6.1.1 and 6.2 and Annex II, paragraph 6 of the Agreement.

(i) The factual basis cited by Egypt for seeking large amounts of supplemental cost information late in the anti-dumping duty proceeding was speculative and unfounded, as shown in subsequent submissions by the respondents. Given the explanations provided by respondents on this score, Egypt’s decision to rely on “facts available” was based on an improper determination of the facts and on an evaluation of the facts that was biased or lacked objectivity. In addition, that determination was inconsistent with Article X:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.4, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, and 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Agreement.

(j) Egypt’s refusal to schedule a meeting during which respondents could explain their responses to the supplemental questionnaires was inconsistent with Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, as well as Article 6.2 and Annex II, paragraph 6 of the Agreement.

(k) Egypt’s selection of particular data as “facts available” in the case of each respondent was also improper and lacked objectivity. The costs employed were, in most cases, much higher than the actual contemporaneous costs experienced by the respondents, as shown by other, reliable data developed during the investigation. As a result, the costs selected as “facts available” produced an unfair and unreasonable comparison between normal value and the export price in violation of Articles 2.4, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2 and 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Agreement.

(l) Egypt’s refusal to offset interest expenses with short-term interest income in determining cost of production was inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Agreement.

(m) And finally, Egypt’s failure to make an adjustment to the normal value for imputed credit expenses between the date of shipment and the date of payment was inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Agreement.

4. Consultations were held between the Governments of Turkey and Egypt in Cairo, Egypt on 3-5December 2000 and again in Ankara, Turkey on 3-4 January 2001, but no resolution to this dispute could be reached. Subsequently, on 11 June 2001, following Turkey’s request for the establishment of a panel, the Governments of Turkey and Egypt again held consultations with a view to settlement of the dispute, again to no avail.

5. The panel is respectfully requested to find that Egypt’s anti-dumping duty investigation and final determination were inconsistent with the GATT 1994 and with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Egypt should either revoke the definitive anti-dumping measure imposed on imports of rebar from Turkey or suspend the application of that measure pending a reopening of its investigation for the purpose of addressing the deficiencies identified above.

WT/DS211/R

Annex 1-2
Page 13

ANNEX 1-2

FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF EGYPT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. BACKGROUND

1. On 6 November 2000, the Government of Turkey requested consultations at the WTO with the Government of Egypt regarding definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Egypt on steel rebar from Turkey.[3] Consultations were held in Cairo and Ankara on 3-5 December 2000 and 3-4January 2001 respectively. The consultations did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter and Turkey requested that the establishment of a Panel be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting of 16 May 2001.[4] Egypt opposed the request for the establishment of a Panel at the DSB meeting of 16 May 2001 in order to permit further consultations between the parties, which took place on 11 June 2001. However, consultations again failed to resolve the dispute. Accordingly, a Panel was established at the DSB meeting of 20 June 2001 in which the United States, Japan, the European Communities and Chile reserved their third party rights.

2. In its request for the Establishment of a Panel, Turkey considers that the measures imposed by Egypt on steel rebar from Turkey are inconsistent with Article X:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994); Articles 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2[5], 3.4, 3.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, paragraph 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the “AD Agreement” or “Agreement”). As a result, Turkey considers that the measures nullify and impair the benefits accruing to it under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

3. The claims submitted by Turkey are individually addressed below, together with an analysis of Egypt’s rights and obligations under the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994. An examination of the relevant provisions will demonstrate that Egypt applied the measures in question only pursuant to an investigation that was initiated and conducted in accordance with Egypt’s rights and obligations as provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

II. INJURY AND CAUSAL LINK

A. OPENING STATEMENT

4. Steel is, by its very nature, a commodity product. When imports of this kind arrive in the marketplace in very substantial volumes and at very low prices, the domestic industry is bound to suffer injury. As demonstrated below, Egypt was careful to distinguish and to separate other factors than the dumped imports that may have contributed to the injury.

1. Turkey has not demonstrated that the Investigating Authority failed to establish by “positive evidence” a causal link between imports from Turkey and injury to the domestic industry

5. Turkey alleges that Egypt failed to establish by “positive evidence” that there was a causal link between imports from Turkey and declining prices in the domestic market. The “positive evidence” to which Turkey refers is “that consumers purchased imported rebar supplied by the domestic manufacturers for price reasons”. Turkey therefore alleges that Egypt’s imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Agreement.