WT/DS397/22  
 
17 September 2015  
(15-4756)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN IRON 
OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY  THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SE TTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW 
The following communication, dated 14 September 2015, from the delegation of the People's 
Republic of China, is being circulated to Members.   
_______________ 
  
1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") and Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review, the People's Republic of China ("China") hereby notifies its decision to appeal to 
the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Report of the Panel in European 
Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or  Steel Fasteners from China 
(Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China) (WT/DS397/RW) ("Panel Report"), and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel in that Report.  
2. Pursuant to Rules 23(1) and 23(3) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, China 
simultaneously files this Notice of Other Appeal and its Other Appellant Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat. 
3. Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii) of the Working Pr ocedures for Appellate Review, this Notice of 
Other Appeal includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice of China's ability to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report 
in the context of this appeal. 
4. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse various findings and conclusions of the Panel 
as a result of the errors of law and of legal interpretation contained in the Panel Report as identified below. 
1   REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CH INA'S CLAIMS UNDER 
ARTICLE 2.4 OF THE AD AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN UNION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN TAXATION 
5. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning 
China's claim that the European Union violated Arti cle 2.4 of the AD Agreement by failing to make 
a fair comparison between normal value and export price, and in particular by failing to makes due 
allowances for differences in taxation.
1 The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of 
Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement when it found th at the European Union did not violate Article 2.4 
of the AD Agreement by rejecting the Chinese producers' request for an adjustment for differences 
                                               
1 Panel Report, paras. 7.209 – 7.223 and 8.2(iii).  WT/DS397/22 
 
- 2 - 
 
  in taxation. In that respect, China has identified, inter alia , the following errors in the issues of law 
and legal interpretations developed by the Panel: 
- The Panel erred in finding that the Commission was not required to make an adjustment 
for differences in taxation because the analogue country methodology was used; 
- The Panel erred in its application of Article 2.4 in finding that the Chinese producers did 
not show that the difference in taxa tion affected price comparability. 
6. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse these Panel's findings and conclusions and to 
find that the European Union acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement. 
2   REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CH INA'S CLAIMS UNDER 
ARTICLE 2.4 OF THE AD AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN UNION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR CERTAIN OTHER DIFFERENCES AFFECTING 
PRICE COMPARABILITY 
7. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning 
China's claim that the European Union violated Arti cle 2.4 of the AD Agreement by failing to make 
a fair comparison between normal value and export price, and in particular by failing to makes due 
allowances for certain other differences affecting price comparability. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement and failed to comply with its 
functions as required by Article 11 of the DSU when finding that the European Union did not 
violate Article 2.4 by rejecting the Chinese producer s' requests for adjustments for differences with 
regard to "easier access to raw materials", "use of  self-generated electricity", and "efficiency and 
productivity" which affected price comparability.
2 In that respect, China has identified, inter alia , 
the following errors in the issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel: 
- The Panel erred in finding that the Commission was not obliged to make adjustments to 
reflect differences in costs because the analogue country methodology was used; 
- The Panel erred in its application of Article 2.4 in finding that the Chinese producers did 
not show that the alleged differences in costs affected price comparability; 
- The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the facts, as required under 
Article 11 of the DSU, by failing to address all aspects of China's claim and by failing to 
consider the evidence presented by China in its totality. 
8. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse these Panel's findings and conclusions and to 
find that the European Union acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement. 
3   REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CH INA'S CLAIMS UNDER 
ARTICLE 2.4 OF THE AD AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN UNION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL 
CHARACTERISTICS 
9. In case the Appellate Body were to reverse the Panel's findings that the European Union 
violated Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement by failing to provide the Chinese producers with 
information regarding the characteristics of Pooja Forge's products that were used in determining 
normal values, China requests the Appellate Body to review the Panel's findings under Article 2.4 
with respect to the European Union's failure to make adjustments for differences in physical characteristics.
3  
10. In that regard, China requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and to find 
that the European Union violated Article 2.4 as it failed to make adjustments for differences in physical characteristics both included and not included in the original PCNs. 
                                               
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.240 – 7.250 and 8.2(iii). 
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.225 – 7.230 and paras. 7.234 – 7.236 and 8.2(iii). WT/DS397/22 
 
- 3 - 
 
  4   REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CHINA'S CLAIM UNDER 
ARTICLE 6.1.2 OF THE AD AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN UNION'S FAILURE TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY POOJA FORGE WAS MADE AVAILABLE PROMPTLY TO THE CHINESE PRODUCERS 
11. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning 
China's claim that the European Union violated Ar ticle 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement by failing to 
ensure that the information provided by Pooja Fo rge concerning the list and characteristics of its 
products was made available promptly to the Chinese producers.
4  
12. The Panel erred in its interpretation of the term "interested parties" as included in 
Article 6.11 in considering that the status of "inter ested parties" is dependent on a decision of the 
investigating authorities which must appear in the investigation record and in stating that such 
decision is made at the request of the party concerned. The Panel also erred in its interpretation 
and application of Article 6.1.2 in concluding that  the obligation in Article 6.1.2 only applies to 
those parties which are "interested parties" under Article 6.11.5 The Panel also erred in its 
interpretation of the Appellate Body's findings in the original dispute.6 
13. China requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and conclusions and to 
find that the European Union violated Article 6.1. 2 of the AD Agreement by failing to ensure that 
the information provided by Pooja Forge was made available promptly to the Chinese producers.  
5   REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CHINA'S CLAIM UNDER 
ARTICLE 6.5.1 OF THE AD AGREEMENT 
14. If the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's findings and conclusions that the European Union 
violated Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement by treati ng as confidential the information submitted by 
Pooja Forge regarding the list and characteristics of its products and instead finds that the European Union did not violate Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement, then China requests the Appellate 
Body to complete the analysis of China's claim under Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement for which 
the Panel did not make findings.
7 
15. More specifically, China requests that the Appellate Body finds and concludes that the 
European Union violated Article 6.5.1 of the AD  Agreement because it failed to ensure that 
Pooja Forge provides a meaningful non-confidential summary of the list of its products and of the 
information concerning the characteristics of its products and/or because it failed to ensure that Pooja Forge identifies the existence of exceptio nal circumstances and provides a statement of 
reasons why summarization of such information was not possible. 
__________  
                                               
4 Panel Report, paras. 7.116 – 7.123 and para. 8.2(i). 
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.118 – 7.119. 
6 Panel Report, paras. 7.120 – 7.122. 
7 Panel Report, paras. 7.50 and 8.3.