WT/DS486/7  
 
5 September 2017  
(17-4732) Page: 1/2 
  Original:   English   
 
EUROPEAN UNION — COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES ON CERTAIN  
POLYETHYLENE TEREPHT HALATE FROM PAKISTAN  
NOTIFICATION OF AN O THER APPEAL BY PAKIS TAN UNDER ARTICLES 1 6.4 AND 17  
OF THE UNDERSTANDING  ON RULES AND PROCEDU RES GOVERNING  
THE SETTLEMENT OF DI SPUTES (DSU) AND UND ER RULE 23(1) OF THE   
WORKING PROCEDURES F OR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 4 September 2017, from the delegation of Pakistan , is being 
circulated to Members.  
_______________  
 
Pursuant to Article s 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, 
Pakistan hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal to the 
Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report entitled 
European  Union — Countervailing Measures on Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate from Pakistan 
(WT/DS486/R), which was circulated on 6 July 2017 (the "Panel Report" ). Pursuant to Rule 23(1) 
of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Pakistan is simultaneously filing this notice of 
other appeal and its other appellant's submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.   
For the reasons further elaborated in its su bmission to the Appellate Body, Pakistan appeals and 
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
Panel, with respect to the error contained in the Panel Report described below.1 
I. The Panel's finding under Art icle 15.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement)  
 
1. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement 
when rejecting Pakistan's claim that the European Commission's approach of find ing a causal link 
between the subject imports and the observed injury and then inquiring whether any injury 
attributable to other factors "breaks the causal link" previously found (the "breaking the causal 
link" approach) was inconsistent with Article 15.5 .2   
2. In particular, and without prejudice to the arguments developed in Pakistan's other 
appellant's submission, the Panel incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 15.5 of the 
SCM Agreement by finding that it did "not see how [the breaking the causal li nk] approach, in this 
case, led to the disregard of a relevant legal standard"3 under Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement —
that is, whether the causal link between the subject imports and the  observed injury constitutes 
"a genuine and substantial relationship  of cause and effect".4  
 
                                                
1 Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(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 Pakistan's right to refer to ot her paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its other appeal.  
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.117 -7.120 and 8.1.d.i.  
3 Panel Report, para. 7.119.  
4 Appellate Body Report, US – Wheat Gluten , para. 69.  WT/DS486/7  
 
- 2 - 
 
  II. Request for findings and completion of the analysis  
3. Pakistan respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel’s finding contained in 
paragraphs 7.120 and 8.1.d.i of the Panel Report, that Pakistan failed to establish  that the 
European Commission's use of the "breaking the causal link" analytical approach was inconsistent 
with Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.    
4. In addition, Pakistan requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis and find 
that the European Commission acted inconsistently with Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement by 
using the "breaking the causal link" approach in its causation/non -attribution analysis. The factual 
findings contained in the Panel Report, as well as the undisputed facts on the record in the 
determinations of the European Commission, constitute a sufficient basis to find that the measures 
at issue were inconsistent with Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
 
__________