WT/DS479/ 7 
 
2 March  2017 
(17-1256) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
 RUSSIA – ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON LI GHT COMMERCIAL VEHIC LES  
FROM GERMANY AND ITA LY 
NOTIFICATION OF AN  OTHER  APPEAL BY  THE EUROPEAN UNION UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 A ND 
ARTICLE 17 OF THE UN DERSTANDING ON RULES  AND PROCEDURES GOVER NING  
THE SETTLEMENT OF DI SPUTES (DS U), AND UNDER RULE 2 3(1) OF  
THE WORKING PROCEDUR ES FOR APPELLATE REV IEW 
The following communication, dated 27 February 2017, from the delegation of the 
European  Union , is being circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article  17.1 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 dispute Russia – 
Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy (WT/DS479) . Pursuant 
to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the European Union simultaneously 
files this Notice of Other Appeal with the Appellate Body Secre tariat.  
 
For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to t he Appellate Body, the 
European  Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to re verse or declare moot and of 
no legal effect the findings and conclusions of the Panel with respect  to the errors of law and legal 
interpretations contained in the Panel Report described below, and where indicated to complete 
the analysis on the basis of the Panel's findings and uncontested facts on the record .1 
 
I. ERRORS RELATING TO T HE PANEL'S FINDINGS ON THE DIMD 'S INJURY 
DETERMINATION  
The European Union submits that the legal findings and conclusions of the Panel concerning the 
DIMD 's injury analysis are legally erroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse them, 
specifically with respect to the following:  
1. The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it in accordance with 
Article 11 of the DSU and failed to determine whether the DIMD's establishment of the facts was 
proper and whether its evaluation of those facts was unbiased and o bjective as provided by 
Article  17.6 of the AD Agreement, by basing its assessment of the EU's claims under Article 3.1 
and 3.4 of the AD Agreement relating to three mandatory injury factors (return on investments, 
actual and potential effect s on cash flow, and the ability to raise capital or investments) on the 
alleged confidential version of DIMD's Final Report. As a consequence, the Panel's finding that the 
EU had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently wit h Article 3.1 and 3.4 o f the 
AD Agreement with respect to these three injury factors is also in error. Thus, the European Union 
requests the Appellate Body to reverse paragraphs 7.165 -7.172, 7.173(i) and 8.1(e)(x) , complete 
the analysis on the basis of the Panel's findings and u ncontested facts on the record and find that 
the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement by failing to examine 
those three mandatory injury factors.  
                                                
1 Pursuant to Rule 23(2 )(c)(ii)(C) of the Working Procedures 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 to the ability of the European Union to refer to other  paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of 
its appeal.  WT/DS479/7  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2. The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it in  accordance with 
Article 11 of the DSU, by finding that the DIMD properly considered (i) whether the price 
suppression was the effect of dumped imports ("explanatory force"), as well as (ii) whether the 
price suppression was "to a significant degree", when  the Panel ha d already found that the 
DIMD's  selection of the very basis of its price suppression analysis – the 2009 rate of return 
without any adjustments – was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement. Thus, 
the European Union requests  the Appellate Body to reverse paragraphs 7.77 -7.81, footnote 197, 
paragraphs 7.104 -7.107, and paragraphs 8.1(d)(iii) and 8.1(d)(iv) of the Panel Report and declare 
the Panel's findings and conclusions on the "explanatory force" of subject imports and the 
"significant degree" of the price suppression moot and of no legal effect.  
3. Should the Appellate Body consider that the Panel did not make a reversible error under 
Article 11 of the DSU as described in the previous paragraph, the European Union submits that  the 
Panel failed to properly interpret and apply Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement, when finding 
that the DIMD's methodology for establishing price suppression – which compares the actual 
domestic prices to the target domestic prices – will necessa rily and automatically show that the 
dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the suppression of domestic prices. Thus, the 
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and conclusions in 
paragraphs 7.77 -7.78 and 8.1(d)(iii ) and complete the analysis on the basis of the Panel's findings 
and uncontested facts on the record by finding that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 
and 3.2 of the AD Agreement when failing to consider whether the subject imports have 
"explanatory force" for the occurrence of significant price suppression.  
4. The Panel erred in the interpretation and consequent application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of 
the AD Agreement when rejecting the European Union's argument that the DIMD failed to examine 
whether the market would accept any additional domestic price increases on the basis of a 
requirement that interested parties must have explicitly questioned the ability of the market to 
absorb additional price increases, even if there was evidence before th e investigating authority of 
significant price increases in the past as well as significant increases in costs of production. Thus, 
the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and conclusions in 
paragraphs 7.87 -7.91 and 8 .1(d)(iii) and complete the analysis on the basis of the Panel's findings 
and uncontested facts on the record by finding that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 
and 3.2 of the AD Agreement by failing to examine whether the market would accept additional 
domestic price increases.  
5. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of  Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the 
AD Agreement by finding that the DIMD was not required to examine the information about stocks 
provided by Turin Auto (Sollers' relat ed trader) as part of the mandatory factors belonging to the 
state of the domestic industry.2 The European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the 
Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.122, 7.123, 7.173(b) and 8.1(e)(ii) and declare them moot and 
with no legal effect.   
II. ERRORS RELATING TO T HE PANEL'S FINDINGS ON THE EU'S CLAIM UN DER 
ARTICLE 6.9 OF THE A D AGREEMENT  
The European Union submits that the legal findings and conclusions of the Panel concerning the 
disclosure of essential facts by the DIMD list ed below are legally erroneous and requests that the 
Appellate Body reverse them, specifically with respect to the following:  
1. The Panel incorrectly interpreted Article 6.9 by finding, in general terms, that a 
"methodology " is not a fact, or an essential fa ct.3 
2. The Panel incorrectly interpreted Article 6.9 by finding that "not every "essential fact " 
is required to be disclosed ", but rather that Article 6.9 applies only to those essential 
facts which are additionally shown to be "under consideration ".4 
3. The Pa nel incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 6.9 by finding that the source of 
data cannot be an essential fact under consideration, and/or that the source of the 
                                                
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.122, 7.123, 7.173(b) and 8.1(e)(ii).  
3 Panel Report, para. 7.256.  
4 Panel Report, para. 7.256.  WT/DS479/7  
 
- 3 - 
 
  data concerning import volumes and values on which the DIMD 's dumping and injury 
analyses were based is not an essential fact under consideration.5 
With respect to these errors, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse these 
findings, complete the analysis on the basis of the Panel's findings and uncontested facts on the 
record  and find that, by failing to disclose the source of information concerning import volumes 
and values in the context of its dumping and injury analyses, the DIMD acted inconsistently with 
Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement.  
 
__________  
                                                
5 Panel Report, paras. 6.42, 7.256 -7.257, 7.278 and 8.1(h).