WT/DS486/6  
 
31 August 2017  
(17-4668) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
 
 EUROPEAN UNION – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES  ON CERTAIN  
POLYETHYLENE TEREPHT HALATE FROM PAKISTAN   
NOTIFICATION OF AN A PPEAL BY THE EUROPEA N UNION UNDER ARTICL E 16.4 AND  
ARTICLE 17 OF THE UN DERSTANDING ON RULES  AND PROCEDURES GOVER NING  
THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF  
THE WORKING PROCEDUR ES FOR APPELLATE REV IEW 
The following communication, dated 30 August 2017, from the delegation of the European Union , 
is being circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and Article 17 of the DSU the European Union hereby notifies to the 
Dispute Settlement Body its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispu te 
European Union – Countervailing Measures  on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate from Pakistan  
(WT/DS486). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the 
European Union simultaneously files this Notice of Appeal with the Appell ate Body Secretariat.  
The European Union is restricting its appeal to those errors that it believes constitute serious 
errors of law and legal interpretation that need to be corrected.  Non-appeal of an issue does not 
signify agreement therewith.  
For the re asons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the European 
Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings and conclusions of the 
Panel, with respect to the following errors contained in the Panel Report: 1 
 The Panel failed to comply with its tasks under Article 11 of the DSU, as informed by 
Article  3 of the DSU, when wrongly deciding to make findings on Pakistan's claims in this 
case.2 Since even Pakistan agreed that the countervailing duties at issue had c eased to have 
legal effects when the Panel was in a position to commence its work, and absent any 
lingering effects and an imminent risk of re -imposing the same or a similar measure in the 
near future, the panel proce edings lost their purpose, i.e.  there w as no longer a need to 
adjudicate on the matter in order to "secure a positive solution to the dispute". Thus, the 
Panel issued a mere "advisory opinion".  Therefore, the European Union requests the 
Appellate Body to reverse  the entirety of the Panel's find ings and conclusions in its report 
(as summarised in Section 8 of the Panel Report) and declare moot and with no legal effect 
any of the findings and legal interpretations contained therein.  
 If the Appellate Body does not grant the relief requested in the  preceding bullet point, the 
European Union respectfully submits that the Panel erred i n the interpretation of 
Article  1(1)(a)(1)(ii), footnote 1, and Annexes I to III of the SCM Agreement with respect to 
the EU's determination regarding the MBS.3 By findi ng that investigating authorities have 
                                                
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 the ability of the European Union to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its 
appeal.  
2 Panel Report, para. 7.13 . 
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.33 – 7.56. WT/DS486/6  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the burden to determine, on the basis of the available evidence, the excess remission in 
case of duty drawback systems – even where the exporting Member has no proper 
monitoring system or procedure in place and did no t carry out a further examination based 
on the actual transactions involved  – the Panel rendered the  relevant provisions of the 
SCM Agreement, and in particular the elements included in Annexes II and III for duty 
drawback systems, moot and without legal e ffect. As a result, the European Union requests 
the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.33 – 7.56 of its Report. 
Since the measures at issue were withdrawn a long time ago, and with a view to limiting the 
Appellate Body's review,  the European Union does not request the Appellate Body to 
complete the analysis in the present case; rather, the European Union requests the 
Appellate Body to declare moot and with no legal effect the entirety of the Panel's findings 
with respect to the M BS, since the Panel applied the wrong legal standard.4 
 
__________  
                                                
4 Panel Report, paras. 7.57 – 7.60 and 8.1(b)(i) and 8.1(b)(ii).