The WTO dispute panel upheld a complaint made by the US on 20 September 2011, which claimed that China’s anti-dumping investigation and its imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on US chicken were inconsistent with its WTO obligations.
The panel recommended that China addressed the tariffs to bring them into line with WTO rules, although it did not specify exactly how it should achieve compliance. China, which claimed it imposed the duties in response to attempts by the US poultry industry to export chicken at below-market prices, will have 60 days to appeal against the ruling.
The WTO ruling has been welcomed by the US government, which has also been fighting Chinese duties on US exports of steel and automobiles.
US trade representative Michael Froman said: “WTO members must use trade remedies strictly in accordance with their commitments, and we hope that this win will discourage further violations that hurt American exporters.”
Boost to US industry
US agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said the WTO ruling was an “important victory” for the US poultry industry, which has suffered an 80% loss in exports to China since the duties were imposed in 2010.
“China’s prohibitive duties on broiler products were followed by a steep decline in exports to China – and now we look forward to seeing China’s market for broiler products restored,” he said.
National Chicken Council (NCC) chairman and CEO of US poultry processor Pilgrim’s Pride, Bill Lovette, said the ruling meant that the US poultry industry would once again have the chance to compete in a “valuable and viable” export market.
“We thank United States Trade Representative Michael Froman, Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack for their successful efforts to secure a fair international playing field for the US chicken industry,” he said.
“We look forward to sharing the high-quality poultry products that American consumers enjoy every day with our partners and customers in China.”
China’s Ministry of Commerce said would conduct a “serious evaluation” of the ruling and follow up “according to dispute resolution procedures”.