D’áitigh Xiangtan ar dtús, gur theip ar an gCoimisiún aon mhíniú breise a chur ar fáil fós maidir leis an mbunús dlí beacht chun bunús a thabhairt lena réasúnú i ndáil le comhoiriúnacht Airteagal 2(6a) den bhun-Rialachán le comhaontuithe EDT – lena n-áirítear Prótacal Aontachas na Síne le EDT agus Comhaontú Frithdhumpála (‘ADA’) EDT – agus le rialuithe an Chomhlachta um Réiteach Díospóidí, go háirithe DS473.
Xiangtan, first, submitted that the Commission still failed to provide any further elaboration concerning the exact legal basis to underpin its reasoning in relation to the compatibility of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation with the WTO agreements – including China’s WTO Accession Protocol and the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (‘ADA’) – as well as with the DSB rulings, in particular DS473.
#2179756
Maidir le húsáid sonraí ó thríú tír, d’áitigh CCCME, cé nach bhfuil toirmeasc ar úsáid sonraí ó fhoinse lasmuigh den tír is onnmhaireoir de réir an Chomhlachta Achomhairc in DS473, gur cosúil go ndéanann an Coimisiún neamhaird de gur chuir an Comhlacht Achomhairc i dtábhacht freisin “nach gciallaíonn sin, áfach, go bhféadfaidh údarás imscrúdaithe an costas ó lasmuigh den tír thionscnaimh a chur in ionad an chostais táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh go simplí”, agus “i gcás ina mbraithfear ar aon fhaisnéis nach ón tír thionscnaimh í chun an ‘costas táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh’ a chinneadh faoi Airteagal 2.2 den Chomhaontú Frithdhumpála, nach mór d’údarás imscrúdaithe a áirithiú go n-úsáidfear an fhaisnéis sin chun teacht ar an ‘gcostas táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh’ agus go mb’fhéidir go mbeidh ar an údarás imscrúdaithe an fhaisnéis sin a oiriúnú dá bharr.” Is cosúil dá bhrí sin, dar le CCCME, go bhfuil cur chuige an Choimisiúin ar neamhréir le hoibleagáid an Aontais Eorpaigh faoi Airteagal 2.2 EDT ADA.
Concerning the use of data from a third country, CCCME submitted that even though according to the Appellate Body in DS473 the use of data from a source outside the exporting country is not prohibited, the Commission seems to ignore the fact that the Appellate Body also emphasized that “this, however, does not mean that an investigating authority may simply substitute the cost from outside the country of origin for the cost of production in the country of origin”, as well as that “when relying on any out-of-country information to determine the ‘cost of production in the country of origin’ under Article 2.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, an investigating authority has to ensure that such information is used to arrive at the ‘cost of production in the country of origin’ and this may require the investigation authority to adapt that information.” This Commission’s approach therefore appears, in CCCME’s view, to be inconsistent with the EU’s obligation under Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA.
#2346120
Maidir le húsáid sonraí ó thríú tír, d’áitigh CCCME, cé nach bhfuil toirmeasc ar úsáid sonraí ó fhoinse lasmuigh den tír is onnmhaireoir de réir an Chomhlachta Achomhairc in DS473, gur cosúil go ndéanann an Coimisiún neamhaird de gur chuir an Comhlacht Achomhairc i dtábhacht freisin “nach gciallaíonn sin, áfach, go bhféadfaidh údarás imscrúdaithe an costas ó lasmuigh den tír thionscnaimh a chur in ionad an chostais táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh go simplí”, agus “i gcás ina mbraithfear ar aon fhaisnéis nach ón tír thionscnaimh í chun an “costas táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh” a chinneadh faoi Airteagal 2.2 den Chomhaontú Frithdhumpála, nach mór d’údarás imscrúdaithe a áirithiú go n-úsáidfear an fhaisnéis sin chun teacht ar an “gcostas táirgthe sa tír thionscnaimh” agus go mb’fhéidir go mbeidh ar an údarás imscrúdaithe an fhaisnéis sin a oiriúnú dá bharr”. Is cosúil dá bhrí sin, dar le CCCME, go bhfuil cur chuige an Choimisiúin ar neamhréir le hoibleagáidí an Aontais faoi Airteagal 2.2 EDT ADA.
Concerning the use of data from a third country, CCCME submitted that even though according to the Appellate Body in DS473 the use of data from a source outside the exporting country is not prohibited, the Commission seems to ignore the fact that the Appellate Body also emphasized that ‘this, however, does not mean that an investigating authority may simply substitute the cost from outside the country of origin for the cost of production in the country of origin’, as well as that ‘when relying on any out-of-country information to determine the “cost of production in the country of origin” under Article 2.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, an investigating authority has to ensure that such information is used to arrive at the “cost of production in the country of origin” and this may require the investigation authority to adapt that information.’ The Commission’s approach therefore appears, in CCCME’s view, to be inconsistent with the Union’s obligations under Article 2.2 of the WTO ADA.
#3189351
Phléigh an painéal brí na dtéarmaí ‘tráth an díola’ freisin agus tugadh faoi deara i mír 7.243 ‘nach mínítear in Airteagal 2.2.1 [den Chomhaontú Frithdhumpála] cad is brí le ‘praghsanna atá faoi bhun na gcostas aonaid tráth an díola’. Maidir leis sin, feicimid go bhfuil cosúlacht idir an chéad abairt agus an dara habairt d’Airteagal 2.2.1. Cé go samhlaítear leis an dá abairt ríomh na gcostas in aghaidh an aonaid thar thréimhse ama, ní shonraítear le ceachtar acu go díreach cén tréimhse ama ba cheart a bheith ann. Is fíor go dtéann an dara habairt níos faide ná an chéad abairt sa mhéid is go ndéanann sé machnamh ar mheasúnú costas ‘tráth an díola’. Mar sin féin, is é ár dtuairim nach gciallaíonn sé sin ach nach mór ‘tráth an díola’ a bheith san áireamh sa tréimhse ama ábhartha. Dá bhrí sin, bheadh sé go hiomlán comhsheasmhach leis an dara habairt d’Airteagal 2.2.1 d’údarás imscrúdúcháin costais in aghaidh an aonaid a ríomh ‘tráth an díola’ thar lá an díola áirithe, nó thar an meán an lá sin, thar sheachtain, mí nó tréimhse imscrúdúcháin. Rinne an painéal tuilleadh mionsaothraithe ar a réasúnaíocht i bhfonóta 417 inar luaigh sé ‘I ndáil leis sin, measaimid go bhfuil sé suntasach cé gur bhain dréachtóirí Chomhaontú Frithdhumpála úsáid as na focail “dáta an díola” in Airteagal 2.4.1, roghnaigh siad “tráth an díola” a úsáid sa dara habairt d’Airteagal 2.2.1. Dar linne, tacaíonn an difríocht seo leis an tuairim nach gá gurb é “dáta an díola” an “tráth an díola” dá dtagraítear sa dara habairt d’Airteagal 2.2.1, agus d’fhéadfadh “tráthanna” eile a bheith san áireamh.’
The panel also discussed the meaning of the terms ‘at the time of sale’ and noted in paragraph 7.243 that ‘Article 2.2.1 [of the Anti-Dumping Agreement] does not explain what is meant by “prices which are below per unit costs at the time of sale”. In this regard, we see a similarity between the first and second sentences of Article 2.2.1. Although both sentences envisage a calculation of per unit costs over a period of time, neither specifies exactly what this period of time should be. It is true that the second sentence goes further than the first sentence in that it contemplates an assessment of costs at the “time of sale”. However, in our view this means only that the relevant time-period must include “the time of sale”. Thus, it would be entirely consistent with the second sentence of Article 2.2.1 for an investigating authority to calculate per unit costs at the “time of sale” over the particular day of sale, or an average including that day, over a week, month or the period of investigation.’ The panel further elaborated on its reasoning in footnote 417 where it stated that ‘In this regard, we find it significant that whereas the drafters of the AD Agreement used the words “date of sale” in Article 2.4.1, they chose to use “time of sale” in the second sentence of Article 2.2.1. In our view, this difference supports the view that the “time of sale” that is referred to in the second sentence of Article 2.2.1 does not necessarily have to be the “date of sale”, and may include other “time” periods.’