  
  
WT/DS578/2  
20 September  2019 
(19-6115) Page: 1/3 
 Original:  French  
 
  
MOROCCO – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON  
SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY TUNISIA  
The following communication, dated 1 9 September  2019, from the delegation of Tunisia to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
On 21 February  2019, Tunisia requested consultations with Morocco pursuant to Article 4 of the 
Under standing on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 17.3 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade  1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement), and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agree ment on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (G ATT 1994), with regard to a definitive anti -dumping measure imposed by Morocco on 
imports of school exercise books from Tunisia and certain aspects of the investigation on which this 
measure is based . 
 
Consultations were held on 1 1 and 12 June 2019 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory 
solution . However, they failed to resolve the dispute . Therefore, in accordance with Articles 4.7 and 
6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and  Article XXIII of the G ATT 1994, 
Tunisia requests that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) establish a panel to examine this matter . 
Pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU, Tunisia proceeds infra to identify the specific measure at issue 
and to provide a brief s ummary of the legal basis for the complaint.  
 
A. THE MEASURE AT ISSUE  
The measure at issue is  the definitive anti -dumping measure imposed on imports of school exercise 
books from Tunisia, as a result of the investigation initiated by Morocco's Ministry of Ind ustry, 
Investment, Trade and the Digital Economy ( the investigating authority) on 4 May 2017.1 The 
definitive measure was imposed through  Public Notice  No. 13/18 dated  5 November  2018, was 
published in the Arabic version of Official Journal No. 6740 dated 3 January  20192, and entered into 
force on 4 January  2019. The anti -dumping duty rates  imposed by Morocco are as follows : 
 
Tunisian exporter  Anti-dumping duty  
SOTEFI  27.71% 
SITPEC  15.69% 
Other Tunisian exporters  27.71% 
 
 
1 Public Notice No. 06/17 concerning the initiation of an anti -dumping investigation in respect of 
exercise books from Tunisia.  
2 The definitive measure was also published in the French version of Moroccan Official Journal No. 6744 
dated 17 January 2019.  WT/DS578/2  
- 2 - 
  This request covers  the above -mentioned anti -dumping duties , as well as  all the documents forming 
part of the investigation record that led to the imposition of the measure at issue . 
 
This request also covers  any amendments, supplements, extensions, replacement measures, 
renewal measures and implementing measures related to the measure at issue . 
 
B. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT  
Tunisia  considers the above -mentioned measure to be inconsistent with the Kingd om of Morocco's 
obligations under, inter alia , the following provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the 
GATT 1994: 
 
1. Article  5.2, 5.3, 5.4, first sentence, and 5.8, first sentence , of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement, because the application filed by the three  applicant companies  does not 
contain sufficient evidence of dumping, injury or a causal link , and because  in initiating 
the investigation,  the investigating authority did not sufficiently examine  the accuracy 
and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to justify the initiation of an 
anti-dumping investigation ; 
2. Articles  1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 9.2 and 11.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
and Article  VI:1 and VI:6(a) of the  GATT 1994, because the determination of dumping 
and resulting injury was not based on relevant and "positive" evidence justifying the 
imposition of the measure at the time of its adoption ; 
3. Article  2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and  Article  VI:1 of the 
GATT 1994, because the investigating authority treated domestic sales of certain 
exercise books in Tunisia as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price 
and disregarded these sales in determining the normal value, without prior  
determination that these sales were made : (a) within an extended period of time ; (b) in 
substantial quantities ; and (c) at prices which did not provide for the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time ; 
4. Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4  and 6.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, paragraphs  3, 5, 
6 and 7 of Annex II to the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and Article VI:1 of the G ATT 1994, 
because when calculating the normal value, the investigating authority failed to  take 
into account numerous domestic sales that had nevertheless been reported by the 
Tunisian exporters and provided no justification for this ; 
5. Article  2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and 
Article  VI:1 of the  GATT 1994, because the investigating authority committed errors 
leading to the calculation of an artificially high normal value . In particular, but not 
exclusively, when reconstructing the norma l value, the authority failed to take into 
account all the sales made in Tunisia for the  calculation of the profit margin ; 
6. Article  2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and A rticle VI:1 of the  GATT 1994, 
because the investigating authority failed to make a fair comparison between the normal 
value and the export price, by not making  allowance, in particular, for all the physical 
characteristics affecting price comparability that were cited by the exporters ; 
7. Article  3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  and Article  VI:1 and VI:6(a) 
of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia : 
a. The investigating authority failed to properly and objectively consider 
the volume of the dumped imports, in absolute terms and relative to 
domestic production or consumption ; 
b. The undercutting margin was erroneously calculated on the basis of 
a reconstructed sales price for Moroccan exercise books . Moreover, 
the profit margin of the Tunisian producers was used to reconstruct 
the price of domestic products without  examining whether the 
market conditions in Tunisia were similar to those in Morocco.  The WT/DS578/2  
- 3 - 
  prices of imports and those of the domestic product were compared 
erroneously ; 
c. The analysis regarding the depression of sales prices and the 
prevention of price in creases is not based on positive evidence and 
does not involve an objective examination ; 
8. Article  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article  VI:1 and VI:6(a) 
of the  GATT 1994 with regard to the analysis of injury suffered by the domestic indus try 
(DI), because the investigating authority failed to properly evaluate all relevant 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the DI and to conduct an 
objective examination of the impact of the imports on the performance of domestic 
producers . Amongst other things, the authority made a finding of injury even though 
most factors had evolved positively and significantly during the investigation period, 
and the period of investigation chosen for examining injury and the causal link did n ot 
allow for an objective examination of the state of the DI ; 
9. Article  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article  VI:1 et VI:6(a) of 
the GATT 1994 with regard to the analysis of injury to the DI , because the investigating 
authority did not use the same period for all the economic factors and indices, which 
led to an incorrect finding of injury ; 
10. Article  3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and Article  VI:1 and VI:6(a) 
of the  GATT 1994 in relation to the causal link analysis, because the investigating 
authority failed to properly determine a genuine and substantial relationship of cause 
and effect between the allegedly dumped imports and the injury to the DI . The authority 
failed to ensure that injury caused by other factors was not at tributed to imports 
originating in Tunisia . Most notably, but not exclusively, the authority failed to 
objectively examine the causes of injury other than the imports originating in Tunisia, 
such as competition between the DI and Moroccan producers not par t of the DI ; 
11. Articles  4.1 and 5.4, first sentence , of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  (and 
Article 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 in a combined reading of these A rticles), because the 
investigating authority limited the "domestic industry" to the applicants and wrongly 
excluded certain other companies that supported the application ; and 
12. Article  12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , because the 
investigating authority failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions 
reached on all issues of fact and law considered material by the investigating authority, 
and all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to the 
imposition of the measure at issue . 
It appears that Morocco's investigation and definitive measure can not be reconciled with Article VI 
of the G ATT 1994, Articles 1 and 18 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and the specific provisions 
cited above . Tunisia considers that  the measure described above nullifies or impairs the  benefits 
accruing to Tunisia, directly or indirectly , under the Anti -Dumping Agreement and the G ATT 1994. 
 
C. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL  
In light of  the above, in accordance with Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XXIII of the G ATT 1994, Tunisia requests that the DSB 
establish a panel to examine this matter . Tunisia further requests that the panel hav e the standard 
terms of reference, as set forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU . 
 
Tunisi a asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting to be held on 
30 September  2019. 
 
This request for the establishment of a panel is without prejudice to th e right of the parties to request 
the possible undertak ing of good offices, conciliation or mediation under Article 5 of the DSU . 
 
__________  