WT/DS538/5  
 
25 February 2021  
(21-1641) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
PAKISTAN  – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED POLYPROPYLENE 
FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL  BY PAKISTAN  UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND  
ARTICLE  17.1 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE  
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 2 0(1) OF THE  
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 22 February 2021 , from the delegation of Pakistan , is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Pakistan 
hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal  to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report entitled Pakistan — Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film from the United Arab Emirates (WT/DS538/R), 
which was circulated on 18 Janu ary 2021 (the "Panel Report"). Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) 
of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Pakistan is simultaneously filing this Notice of 
Appeal and its Appellant 's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
2. For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submission to the Appellate Body, Pakistan 
appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse, certain findings and conclusions of the Panel, 
with respect to the following errors contained in the Panel Report:1 
I. The Panel erred in finding that Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
requires an investigating authority to examine the impact of the dumped 
imports on the domestic industry, effectively requiring the authority to conduct 
a causation and non -attribution a nalysis with respect to the individual injury 
factors  
3. Pakistan appeals the Panel's finding that Article 3.4 requires an evaluation of the impact of 
the dumped imports on the domestic industry. This finding is based on an incorrect interpretation of 
Article 3.4. The Panel interprets Article 3.4 as requiring an investigating authority to evaluate not 
only the state of the domestic industry, but also to analyse the effects of the dumped imports. 
Effectively, the Panel reads Article  3.4 as requiring also a c ausation and non -attribution analysis for 
the various individual factors. This is incorrect, because the examination of the cause of the injury 
is a subsequent analytical step, undertaken under Article 3.5. The Panel thus duplicates the analytical 
step req uired under Article 3.5, and effectively commingles and collapses the requirements of 
Articles 3.4 and 3.5. Pakistan also appeals the Panel 's findings and conclusions concerning the NTC 's 
analysis of various injury factors, given that those findings and co nclusions are based on the Panel 's 
incorrect legal standard under Article 3.4.   
 
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, this Notice of Appeal 
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice 
to Pakistan's right to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.  WT/DS538/5  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4. Pakistan thus requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel 's findings and conclusions and 
the Panel 's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.352, 7.369, 7.383, 7.391, 7.393, 7.400, 
7.404, 7.406, 7.410, and 7.413 - 7.415, as well as paragraph 8.1.a.v  of the Panel Report.  
II. The Panel erred in finding that the "other factors" raised by Taghleef during 
the investigation were "known" to the NTC within the meaning of Article 3.5 of 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement and required the NTC to analyse those factors  
5. Pakistan appeals the Panel's finding that certain factors pointed out by the UAE exporter 
Taghleef during the investigation were "known" to the NTC within the meaning of Article 3.5 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, such that the NTC was required to conduct a non -attribution analysis for 
those factors. Taghleef merely reproduced a list of six factors mentioned in the domestic producer's 
2009 Annual Report and failed to provide any additional evidence that would have substantiated its 
assertion that these factors were causing injury at the same time as the dumped imports. Indeed, 
Taghleef did not even a rticulate a proper request to the NTC during the investigation to examine 
these factors as possible factors causing injury to the domestic industry. The Panel thus erred in 
finding that Taghleef's bare reference to the annual report of the domestic produce r was sufficient 
to "clearly raise" the factors at issue and to make those factors "known" to the authority, thereby 
triggering the NTC 's duty to analyse those factors.  
6. Therefore, Pakistan requests  the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel 's conclusions and the 
Panel 's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.456 -7.460, as well as paragraph 8.1.a.vi  of 
the Panel Report.  
III. The Panel erred in finding that the sunset review determination was 
inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreem ent because it was 
allegedly based on determinations of dumping margins that were inconsistent 
with Article 2  
7. Pakistan submits that the Panel erred in finding that the NTC's Sunset Review Determination 
was inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dump ing Agreement, on the grounds that, in 
determining the likelihood of dumping, the NTC relied on dumping margins allegedly calculated 
inconsistently with Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Contrary to the Panel's finding, the 
NTC never intended to cal culate a company -specific dumping margin and instead calculated country -
wide dumping estimates, which is entirely permissible under Article 11.3 and is not subject to 
Article  2. The Panel's finding mischaracterizes the nature of the NTC's analysis and effe ctively 
requires investigating authorities to calculate full -fledged company -specific dumping margins as 
soon as they seek to quantify their assessment of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping. This is contrary to Article 11.3. Alternativ ely, should the Appellate Body consider the 
Panel 's finding concerning the NTC 's analysis to be of a factual nature, Pakistan submits that the 
Panel exceeded the bounds of its discretion as the trier of facts, engaged in an analysis that lacked 
objectivity  and even -handedness, and thereby acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and 
Article 17.6(i) of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
8. Therefore, Pakistan requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and 
conclusions contained in paragraphs 7.554 -7.560, 7.562, and 7.566 -7.569, as well as 
paragraph  8.1.d.i of the Panel Report.  
IV. Conclusion  
9. Pakistan respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings and conclusions of 
the Panel identified in this Notice of Appeal.  Pakistan notes that the above grounds of appeal are 
without prejudice to the more detailed arguments developed in Pakistan's Appellant's Submission.  
 
__________