WT/DS513/AB/R  
 
10 December 2019  
(19-8497) Page: 1/6 
    
 
  
MOROCCO – ANTI -DUMPI NG MEASURES ON CERTA IN HOT -ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY  
AB-2018-11 
Report of the Appellate  Body 
BCI redacted , as indicated  [BCI] 
 
  WT/DS513/AB/R  
[BCI redacted , as indicated [BCI]] 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE  BODY 
 
 
Morocco – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey  
 
Morocco , Appellant  
Turkey , Appellee  
 
China , Third Participant  
Egypt, Third Participant  
European  Union , Third Participant  
India, Third Participant  
Japan , Third Participant  
Korea , Third Participant  
Russian Federation, Third Participant  
Singapore, Third Participant  
United  States , Third Participant  
 AB-2018-11 
 
Appellate  Body Division :  
 
Bhatia, Presiding Member  
Graham, Member  
Zhao, Member  
 
 
1.1.  This appeal concerns the Panel  Report , Morocco – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey1 (Panel  Report ). The Panel was established on 20  February  2017 to 
consider complaint s by Turkey2 with respect to  the definitive anti -dumping measure s imposed by 
Morocco on imports of certain hot -rolled steel products (hot -rolled steel) from Turkey .3 
1.2.  Morocco initiated the anti -dumping investigation at issue on 21  January  20134, and  imposed 
provisional anti -dumping duties on the imported products at issu e, following the preliminary 
affirmative determination by the Ministère délégué auprès du Ministre de l'Industrie, du Commerce, 
de l'Investissement et de l'Économie Numérique chargé du Commerce Extérieur  (MDCCE) of 
dumping, injury , and causation, dated 29  October  2013.5 On 12  August  2014, the MDCCE published 
the final affirmative determination of dumping, injury, and causation.6 The definitive measure came 
into force on 26  September  2014.7 The factual aspects of this dispute are set forth in greater detail 
in section 2 of the Panel  Report . 
1.3.  Before the Panel, Turkey raised  the following claims under the Agreement on Implementation  
of Article  VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement) and 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT  1994):  
a. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article  5.10 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
because the duration of the investigation at issue exceeded the maximum time limit 
under  that provision;  
b. the MDCCE acted inconsistently wit h Article  6.8 of, and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of 
Annex II to, the Anti -Dumping Agreement in its use of  facts available to determine the 
margins of dumping  for two Turkish producers  of subject imports ;  
c. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article  6.9 o f the Anti-Dumping Agreement by 
failing to disclose all "essential facts" in a timely manner with respect to its decision to 
use facts available to determine the margins of dumping;  
 
1 WT/D S513/R, 31 October 2018 . 
2 Request for the Establishment of a Panel b y Turkey , WT/D S513/2 . 
3 Minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)  Meeting held on 20 February 2017, WT/DSB/M/392 , 
paras.  5.1-5.5. 
4 Panel  Report , para.  2.2. 
5 Panel  Report , para.  2.3. 
6 Panel  Report , para.  2.4. 
7 Panel  Report , para.  2.4. WT/DS513/AB/R  
[BCI redacted , as indicated [BCI] ] 
 
- 3 - 
 
  d. the MDCCE's determination that the domestic industry , composed of the sole domestic 
producer Maghreb Steel8, was "unestablished" is inconsistent with Article  VI:6(a) of the 
GATT  1994, as well as  footnote 9 to Article  3 and Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement ;  
e. the MDCCE's  determination that the domestic industry suffered injury in the form of 
material retardation is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement; and  
f. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 6.5, 6.5.1, and 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping  
Agreement by failing to disclose information concerning the  domestic industry's  
break -even threshold  in its analysis of whether the domestic industry was 
"established" .9  
1.4.  Turkey requested the Panel to exercise its discretion under Article  19.1 of the Unde rstanding 
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and to suggest that Morocco 
bring its measures into conformity with its World Trade Organization ( WTO) obligations by 
immediately revoking the anti -dumping measure at issue.10 
1.5.  The Panel  Report  was circulated to Members of the WTO on 31 October 2018 . For the reasons 
set out in its Report , the Panel found the following claims of Turkey to be outside  the Panel's terms 
of reference:  
a. the claim under footnote 9 to Article  3 of the Anti-Dumping  Agreement in respect of the 
MDCCE's  finding of "establishment";  
b. the claims under Articles  6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement in respect of 
the confidential treatment of the domestic industry's  (Maghreb Steel) break -even 
threshold; and  
c. the claim under Article  6.9 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement in respect of the alleged 
failure to inform all interested parties of the domestic industry's  (Maghreb Steel) 
break -even threshold .11 
1.6.  For the procedural reasons  set out in its Report , the Panel  declined to rule on : 
a. the claim under Article  VI:6(a) of the GATT  1994 in respect of the MDCCE's  finding of 
"establishment"; and  
b. the claim under Article  6.9 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement in respect of any "essential 
facts" used by the MDCCE in cr oss-checking the facts available rate.12 
1.7.  For the reasons set out in its Report, the Panel concluded  that Turkey had established that 
Morocco acted inconsistently with:   
a. Article  5.10 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by failing to conclude the investigation 
within the 18 -month maximum time limit set out in that provision;  
b. Article  6.8 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by rejecting the reported information and 
establishing the margins of dumping for the two investigated Turkish producers on the 
basis of facts available ; 
c. Article  6.9 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by failing to inform all interested parties of: 
(i) any essential facts in respect of the additional, unidentified export sales that the 
MDCCE considered the pr oducers to have failed to report; and (ii)  the essen tial facts in 
 
8 Panel  Report , para.  7.30. 
9 Panel  Report, para.  3.1. 
10 Panel  Report , para.  3.2. 
11 Panel  Report , para.  8.1. 
12 Panel  Report , para.  8.2. WT/DS513/AB/R  
[BCI redacted , as indicated [BCI]] 
 
- 4 - 
 
  respect of the data for the cost and freight  prices and for the adjustments used in 
arriving at the producers ' margins of dumping using facts available ; 
d. Article  3.1 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement in determining that the domestic industry 
was "unestablished";  
e. Articles  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by improperly conducting the 
injury analysis in the form of "material retardation of the establishment of the domestic 
industry"; and  
f. Articles  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by: (i)  failing to evaluate 5 of the 
15 injury factors listed in Article  3.4; (ii)  disregarding the captive market in the injury 
analysis; and (iii)  relying in the injury analysis on the McLellan report without properly 
investigating the signific ance of inaccuracies in that report.13 
1.8.  For the reasons set out in its Report, th e Panel concluded that Turkey had not established that 
Morocco acted inconsistently with:  
a. Article  6.9 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by failing to inform  all interested parties o f 
the movement certificates and commercial invoices in respect of the [BCI] tonnes of 
allegedly unreported  export sales in sufficient time for the two investigated Turkish 
producers to defend their interests; and  
b. Articles  3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping  Agreement by failing to evaluate "factors 
affecting domestic prices".14 
1.9.  The Panel did not consider it necessary to address Turkey's claims under paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 
6, and 7 of Annex II to the Anti -Dumping Agreement.15  
1.10.   Pursuant to Article  19.1 of the DSU, the Panel  recommend ed that Morocco  bring its measures 
into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping  Agreement .16 The Panel noted  
Turkey's  request that the Panel  exercise its discretion under Article  19.1 of the DSU  and suggest 
that Morocco bring its measures into conformity with its WTO  obligations b y immediately revoking 
the anti -dumping measure at issu e.17 The Panel considered that "Article  19.1 of the DSU allows, but 
does not require, [the Panel ] to suggest ways i n which the Member concerned could implement the 
Panel's  recommendations "18, and that  "implementation of [Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB)] 
recommendations and rulings is left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the implementing 
Member ".19 The Panel th erefore denied Turkey's request.20 
1.11.   On 20 November 2018 , Morocco  notified the DSB, pursuant to Articles  16.4 and 17 of the 
DSU, of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel  Report  and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel, and filed a Notice of Appeal21 and an appellant's submission 
pursuant to Rule  20 and Rule 21, respectively, of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review22 
(Working Procedures). On 10 December  2018, Turkey filed an appellee's submission .23 On 
11 December 2018 , the European  Union , Japan, and the United  States  each filed a third participant's 
 
13 Panel  Report , para.  8.3. The McLellan report refers to "a pre -feasibility report … prepared for Maghreb 
Steel by McLellan and Partners Ltd., an independent consulting firm" . (Panel  Report , para.  7.223)  
14 Panel  Report , para.  8.4. 
15 Panel  Report , para.  8.5. 
16 Panel  Report, para.  8.7. 
17 Panel  Report , para.  8.8. See also para. 1.4 above . 
18 Panel  Report , para.  8.9 (referring to Panel  Report , US – Stainless Steel (Korea) , para. 7.9). 
19 Panel  Report , para.  8.9 (referring to Panel  Report s, US – Shrimp II (Viet  Nam), para.  8.6;  
EC – Fasteners (China) , para.  8.8; US – Hot-Rolled Steel , para.  8.11). 
20 Panel  Report , para.  8.9. 
21 WT/D S513/5 (contained in Annex A-1 of the Addendum to this Report , WT/DS513/AB/R/Add.1 ). 
22 WT/AB/WP/6 , 16 August 2010.  
23 Pursuant to  Rule 22  of the Working Procedures.  WT/DS513/AB/R  
[BCI redacted , as indicated [BCI] ] 
 
- 5 - 
 
  submission .24 China, Egypt, India, Korea, the Russia n Federation , and Singapore each notified its 
intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third participant .25 
1.12.   The claims and arguments of the participants , and the  arguments of the third  participants 
that filed a written submission , are reflected in the executive summaries of their written submissions 
provided to the Appellate  Body.26 The Notice of Appeal  and the executive summaries of the 
participants' and third participants' written submissions are contained in Annexes A , B, and C of the 
Addendum to this Report, WT/DS5 13/AB/R/Add.1.   
1.13.   By letter dated 15 January  2019, the Chair of the Appellate  Body notified the Chair of the DSB 
that the Appellate  Body would not be able to circulate its Report within the 60 -day period pursuant 
to Article  17.5 of the DSU, or within the 90 -day period pursuant to the same provision, for the 
reasons mentioned therein.27 
1.14.   On 4 December  2019, the Appellate  Body received a letter from Morocco, in which Morocco 
stated : 
My authorities have requested that I inform you of Morocco's decision to withdraw its 
appeal in [this]  dispute. Morocco requests  the Appellate  Body to inform the DSB of 
Morocco's decision in accordance with Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review.  
The anti -dumping measure underlying the dispute expired on 26  September 2019. 
Although Morocco continue s to believe th at the Panel's findings suffer from serious 
flaws, those findings have become moot with the expiration of the underlying measure. 
Consequently, and in light of the heavy workload of the Appellate  Body, Morocco has 
decided to withdraw the appeal.  
Morocco re spectfully requests the Appellate  Body to record the reasons for Morocco's 
decision as set out above in the event that the Appellate  Body issues a report.  
1.15.   Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures  provides that:  
At any time during an appeal, the appellant may withdraw its appeal by notifying the 
Appellate  Body, which shall forthwith notify the DSB.  
1.16.   Upon receipt of Morocco's  letter of 4 December  2019, the Appellate  Body on the same day 
notified the  Chair  of the DSB, pursuant to Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures, that Morocco  had 
decided to withdraw the appeal  in this dispute .28 
1.17.   In response to Morocco's letter, on the same day, Turkey sent a letter to the Appellate  Body, 
in which Turkey stated:  
Turkey takes note of  Morocco's decision to withdraw its appeal in [this]  matter. Pursuant 
to Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate  Review, Turkey joins Morocco in 
requesting the Appellate  Body to notify the DSB of this decision.  
On the previous instance in which an appeal was withdraw n, the Appellate  Body 
proceeded to issue a short report noting the withdrawal of the appeal ( India – Autos , 
WT/DS146/AB/R; WT/DS175/AB/R). This report, together  with the underlying 
 
24 Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures.  
25 Pursuant to Rule 24(2) and Rule 24(4) of the W orking Procedures.  
26 Pursuant to the Appellate  Body's communication on "Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in 
Appellate Proceedings" and "Guidelines in Respect of Executive  Summaries of Written Submissions in 
Appellate  Proceedings" (WT/AB/23, 11  March 2015).  
27 WT/DS5 13/6. The Chair of the Appellate  Body referred to the size of the Panel record and the 
complex issues appealed, and further noted the backlog of appeals pending with the Appellate  Body, the fact 
that all Appellate  Body Divisions in the a ppeals filed since 1 October 2018 were composed of the same three 
remaining Appellate  Body Members, and that it would not be possible to staff this appeal for some time. (Ibid.)  
28 WT/DS513/7, dated 5 December  2019.