WT/DS454/7  
 
22 May 2015  
(15-2666)  Page: 1/2  
  Original: English  
 
 CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN 
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY JAPAN 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SE TTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW 
The following communication, dated 20 May 2015, from the delegation of Japan, is being circulated 
to Members.  
_______________ 
 
 Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
("Working Procedures"), Japan hereby notifies th e Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to 
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report in China – Measures 
Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performan ce Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") 
from Japan (WT/DS454/R) ("Panel Report"), and certain legal interpretations developed by the 
Panel in this dispute. 
For the reasons to be elaborated in its submissions and oral statements to the Appellate Body, 
Japan appeals the following errors in the issues of law in the Panel Report and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse and modify the related findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, and where indicated to complete the 
analysis.
1 
1. With respect to Japan's claims that the price effects analysis conducted by the Ministry of 
Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Articl e VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement"): 
a. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement in concluding that an investigating authority may complete its 
analysis of the "effect of the dumped imports on prices" under Article 3.2 by simply 
finding price undercutting to exist solely based on the consideration of whether subject import prices are mathematically lower than prices of domestic like products, without 
consideration of whether, by selling at lower prices, subject imports have the effect of 
g i v i n g  r i s e  t o  a n  a c t u a l  d e c r e a s e  o r  p r e v e n t i o n  o f  i n c r e a s e  i n  p r i c e s  i n  t h e  d o m e s t i c  market for like products, or alternatively taking the place of domestic like products.
2 
Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse and modify the Panel's legal interpretation 
in this regard, and complete the analysis to find instead that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by concluding an 
analysis of the "effect of the dumped imports on prices" with a finding of price 
                                               
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii)of the Working Procedures, this Notice of Appeal includes an indicative 
list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing th e alleged errors, without prejudice to the ability of Japan 
to refer to other paragraphs of the Pane l Report in the context of its appeal. 
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.124-7.130, 7.138, 7.152, 7.155. WT/DS454/7 
 
- 2 - 
 
  undercutting for Grade C solely based on a mathematical comparison of imported and 
domestic Grade C prices.3 
b. The Panel erred in interpreting Articles 3. 1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to 
mean that it is sufficient under Article 3.2 for an investigating authority to find 
mathematically lower prices of subject imports at a single point in time during the period 
of investigation ("POI").4 Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse and modify the 
Panel's legal interpretation in this regard. 
2. With respect to Japan's claims that MOFCOM's impact analysis is inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: 
a. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement in concluding that an investigating authority may find the required 
"consequent impact" by finding simply that "the state of the domestic industry shows 
injury, and the subject imports are sold at prices that undercut certain like products 
produced and sold by that industry", without any further consideration of the relationship 
between subject imports and the state of the domestic industry, or the explanatory force 
of subject imports on the state of the do mestic industry, and the logical connection 
between the volume and price effects found to exist under the Article 3.2 analysis and 
the state of the domestic industry.5 Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse and 
modify the Panel's legal interpretation in this regard, and complete the analysis to find that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to examine the relationship between subject imports and the state 
of the domestic industry, and by conducting an impact analysis that was at odds with 
and did not follow from its volume and price effects analyses. 
b. The Panel erred in finding that Japan's clai m that MOFCOM failed to examine whether 
subject imports provided explanatory force fo r the state of the domestic industry was 
outside the Panel's terms of reference.
6 Japan requests that the Appellate Body reverse 
the Panel's finding in this regard, and complete the analysis to find that MOFCOM acted 
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to 
examine whether subject imports provided explanatory force for the state of the domestic industry. 
3. With respect to Japan's claims that MOFCOM's causation analysis is inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: 
c. The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it as required by 
Article 11 of the DSU by erroneously concluding that Japan has not advanced 
independent claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in those 
instances where the Panel had rejected (or not evaluated) one of Japan's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 concerning MOFCOM's price effects analysis or under Articles 3.1 and 
3.4 concerning MOFCOM's impact analysis, as well as by failing to examine and by 
abstaining from making findings on those independent claims.
7 Japan requests that the 
Appellate Body complete the analysis to fi nd that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with 
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in those instances where Japan's 
claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 concerning MOFCOM's price effects analysis or under 
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 concerning MOFCOM's impact analysis have been rejected by the Panel or the Appellate Body. 
 
__________  
                                               
3 This dispute concerns three grades of HP-S SST products: (i) TP347HFG (Grade A); (ii) S30432 
(Grade B); and (iii) TP310HNbN (Grade C). 
4 Panel Report, paras. 7.125, 7.139-7.142. 
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.152-7.155. 
6 Panel Report, para. 6.31 and note 274. 
7 Panel Report, paras. 6.43, 7.192.