WT/DS397/21  
 
15 September 2015  
(15-4707)  Page: 1/2  
  Original: English  
 
 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINI TIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA 
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CHINA 
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
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 9 September 2015, from the Delegation of the 
European Union, is being circulated to Members.  
_______________ 
  
 Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU the European Union hereby notifies to the Dispute 
Settlement Body its decision to appeal to the Appe llate Body certain issues of law covered in the 
Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute 
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). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of 
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the European Union simultaneously files this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat. 
For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the European 
Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, with respect to th e following errors contained in the Panel Report:
1 
(a) the Panel erred when finding that China's claims under Articles 6.5, 6.4, 6.2, 6.1.2, 2.4, 4.1 
and 3.1 of the AD Agreement fell within its te rms of reference. The Panel erred with respect 
to the correct legal interpretation and application of Article 21.5 of the DSU and failed to 
comply with its functions as required by  Article 11 of the DSU. As a result, the 
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 
7.34, 7.80, 7,114, 7.115, 7.171, 7.291, as well as 8.1( i)-(iii) and (v) of its Report; 
(b) the Panel incorrectly interpreted and applied Arti cle 6.5 of the AD Agreement to the facts of 
the case, and also failed to comply with its functions as required by Article 11 of the DSU 
when finding that the European Union violated Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement by treating 
as confidential the information submitte d by Pooja Forge regarding the list and 
characteristics of its products. As a result, the European Union requests the Appellate Body 
to reverse  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.50, 7.51 and 8.1(i) of its report; 
(c) the Panel erred in the interpretation and applic ation of Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement when 
finding that the Commission violated this provision by failing to provide the 
Chinese producers with timely opportunities to see the information on the list and characteristics of Pooja Forge's products, which information was not confidential within the meaning of Article 6.5, and which was relevant to the presentation of the Chinese producers' 
                                               
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Proc edures for Appellate Review this Notice of Appeal 
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Pa nel Report containing the alle ged 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/DS397/21 
 
- 2 - 
 
  cases and used by the Commission. The European Union further submits that the Panel 
erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement when finding 
that the Commission violated this provision by  not allowing the Chinese producers to see the 
information on the file regarding the list and characteristics of Pooja Forge's products. In 
view of those errors, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's 
findings in paragraphs 7.92, 7.96 and 8.1(ii) of its Report; 
(d) the Panel erred in the interpretation and applic ation of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement when 
finding that the Commission violated this pr ovision by failing to provide the Chinese 
producers with specific product data regarding the characteristics of Pooja Forge's products that were used in determining normal values in the investigation at issue. As a result, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's findings of violation in 
paragraphs 7.148, 7.149 and 8.1(iii) of the Panel Report; 
(e) the Panel erred in the interpretation and app lication of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement 
when finding that the Commission violated this provision by not taking into consideration, in 
its dumping determinations, Chinese producers' exports of models that did not match any of 
the models sold by the Indian analogue count ry producer Pooja Forge. As a result, the 
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's findings in 
paragraphs 7.276 and 8.1(iv) of its Report; and 
(f) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the 
AD Agreement when finding that, by defining the domestic industry on the basis of domestic producers that came forward in response to a notice of initiation which stated that only 
those producers willing to be included in the injury sample would be considered as 
cooperating, the Commission acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the AD agreement and consequently with Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement. As a result, the European Union requests 
the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.299 and 8.1(v) of its 
Report. 
  
 
__________