WT/DS513/5  
 
23 November 2018  
(18-7400) Page: 1/4 
  Original: English  
 
MOROCCO – ANTI -DUMPI NG MEASURES ON CERTA IN HOT -ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY  
NOTIFICATION OF AN A PPEAL BY MOROCCO UND ER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17  
OF THE UNDERSTANDING  ON RULES AND PROCED URES GOVERNING  
THE SETTLEMENT OF DI SPUTES (DSU ), AND UNDER RULE 20 (1) OF  
THE WORKING PROCEDUR ES FOR APPELLATE REV IEW 
The following communication, dated 20 November 2018 , from the delegation of Morocco , is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understa nding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
(WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010) ("Working Procedures"), Morocco hereby notifies the Dispute 
Settlement Body ("DSB") of its de cision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in 
the Panel Report in Morocco — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot -Rolled Steel from Turkey  
(WT/DS513/R) ("Panel Report").  
2. Pursuant to Rules 21 of the Working Procedures, Morocco files th is Notice of Appeal together 
with its Appellant Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
3. 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 the  alleged errors, without prejudice 
to Morocco's ability to rely on other paragraphs of the Panel Report in its appeal.  
4. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings regarding its terms of 
reference. In particular, the Panel erred in fi nding that Turkey's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement fell within its terms of reference.1 Accordingly, Morocco requests that 
the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings in, inter alia , paragraphs 7.27 -7.29 and 7.66, and 
find that Turkey's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 were not within the Panel's terms of reference. 
Morocco additionally requests the Appellate Body to reverse all of the Panel's substantive findings 
under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , including, inter alia , the findings in 
paragraphs 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, 7.222, 7.235, 7.245, 7.250, 7.254, 
7.262, 7.274, 7.277, 7.278, 7.283, 7.285, 7.287, 7.288, 7.289, and 8.3  d-f. 
5. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body o f the Panel's findings under Article 6.8 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.8, and 
also failed to make an objective assessment of the matter, including an objective assessment of the 
facts of t he case, under Article 11 of the DSU. The Panel's errors include, inter alia : 
• finding that the MDCCE had not made an affirmative determination of non -cooperation in 
the final determination.2 The Panel also acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in  
reaching its finding;  
                                                
1 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.29.  
2 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.91.  WT/DS513/5  
 
- 2 - 
 
  • finding that the MDCCE was required to "engage meaningfully" with the producers and 
that the MDCCE failed to do so;3  
• finding that the MDCCE could not have reasonably applied facts available as a result of the 
MDCCE 's inability to ve rify export sales information at third -party traders;4 
• finding that the MDCCE did not have a proper basis to determine that the two producers 
had themselves failed to report the export sales;5 and, 
• finding that MDCCE could not reject and replace all the sa les information that the 
producers had reported.6 
6. Morocco also seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's treatment of Exhibit MAR -11 
(BCI) in the context of the Panel 's assessment of Turkey 's claim under Article 6.8 o f the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. T he Panel 's treatment of MAR -11 is not consistent with the obligation 
under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the matter, including an objective 
assessment of the facts of the case.7 
7. As a result of the errors indicated in paragraphs 5  and 6 above, Morocco requests that the 
Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings, inter alia , in paragraphs 7.92, 7.93, 7.94, 7.95, 7.97, 
7.99, 7.100, 7.101, 7.102, 7.103, 7.104, 7.107, and 8.3 b., that the MDCCE 's recourse to facts 
available in respect of the producers' alleged failure to report the entirety of their export sales was 
inconsistent with Article 6.8.  
8. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's findings under Article 3.1 of the 
Anti-Dumpi ng Agreement. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 3.1, and 
also failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU. The Panel 's 
errors include:  
• finding that Article 3.1 can be violated independentl y when an erroneous act or omission, 
such as an erroneous finding that the domestic industry in question is unestablished, taints 
the overall injury analysis;8 
• finding that it need not rule on whether the Anti -Dumping Agreement requires an 
investigating au thority to determine that the domestic industry is unestablished in the 
context of making a determination that the establishment of that industry is materially 
retarded;9 
• undertaking an assessment and making findings under Article 3.1 in the abstract witho ut 
regard to whether an obligation to determine "unestablishment" exists or the contours of 
that obligation;10 
• finding that the MDCCE did not assess, based on positive evidence and an objective 
examination, whether the domestic industry was established;11 
• finding that the MDCCE did not properly examine the question of the domestic industry's 
establishment;12 
                                                
3 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.92, 7.93, 7.99, and 7.101.  
4 See, For example, Panel Report, paras. 7.94 -7.95. 
5 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.95, 7.97, 7.99, 7.100, 7.101, and 7.102 . 
6 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.103.  
7 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.101.  
8 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.148 and 7.151.  
9 See, for example, Panel Report, fn 213 to para. 7.148.  
10 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.151, 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, 
and 8.3 d.  
11 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.219.  
12 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.219.  WT/DS513/5  
 
- 3 - 
 
  • finding that the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement in determining that the domestic industry was unestablished;13 and 
• additionally, the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that the 
MDCCE 's analysis of "establishment" violated the Anti -Dumping Agreement without finding 
that the Anti -Dumping Agreement requires an investigating authority to determine that 
the domestic industry is "unestablished".14 In reaching this finding, the Panel failed to 
make an objective assessment of the matter, including an objective assessment of the 
applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreement s. 
9. Based on the above, Morocco requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings in, 
inter alia , footnote 213 to paragraph 7.148 and paragraphs 7.148, 7.151, 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 
7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, and 8.3 d. of the Panel Report. Moroc co also requests that the Appellate 
Body find that the Panel acted inconsistently with its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the 
matter under Article 11 of the DSU.  
10. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement with respect to "material retardation of the establishment of the 
domestic industry". The Panel 's finding regarding the MDCCE 's decision to conduct the injury analysis 
in the form of "material retardation of the es tablishment of the domestic industry" is entirely 
premised on its finding under Article 3.1 regarding "unestablishment" .15 Accordingly, as a 
consequence of reversing the Panel 's finding under 3.1 regarding the finding of "unestablishment"16, 
Morocco requests  that the Appellate Body also reverse the Panel 's findings in, inter alia , 
paragraphs  7.222 and 8.3 e., that the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement by conducting the injury analysis in the form of "material r etardation of 
the establishment of the domestic industry ". 
11. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement with regard to its assessment of the captive market. The Panel erred 
in the interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4. The Panel 's errors include, inter alia : 
• finding that, in failing to evaluate each of the two parts that made up the hot -rolled steel 
domestic industry in Morocco, the MDCCE failed to even -handedly evaluate the domestic 
industry as a whole, and therefore failed to meet the requirement of objectivity set out in 
Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement;17 
• finding that the requirement of objectivity in Article 3.1 applies to the MDCCE 's evaluation 
of each injury factor that formed part of its injury analysis, and therefore required the 
MDCCE to evaluate data pertaining to the captive market in its evaluation of each of those 
injury factors;18 
• finding that MDCCE 's conclusion that captive sales do not compe te directly with imports 
did not serve as a satisfactory explanation based on which the MDCCE could exclude the 
captive market from its injury analysis;19 and, 
• finding that the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreeme nt in disregarding the captive market in its injury analysis.20 
12. Accordingly, Morocco requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings in, 
inter alia, paragraphs 7.273, 7.274, 7.277, 7.278, 7.289 b., and 8.3 f(ii) of the Panel Report.  
13. Morocco also seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's interpretation and application 
of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement with regard to its assessment of the 
                                                
13 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, and 8.3 d.  
14 See, for example, Panel Report, fn. 213 to para. 7.148.  
15 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.222 and 8.3 e. 
16 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7 .166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, and 8 .3 d. 
17 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.274.  
18 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.274.  
19 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.277.  
20 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.278, 7.289 b., and 8.3 f(ii).  WT/DS513/5  
 
- 4 - 
 
  McLellan  Report. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Artic les 3.1 and 3.4. The 
Panel 's errors include, inter alia :  
• faulting the MDCCE for relying on the McLellan report because some of the projections in 
the report did not turn out to be entirely accurate;21 
• finding that the MDCCE did not base its injury determin ation on an objective examination22 
because it dismissed the significance of the inaccuracies in the Business Plan without 
further investigating the impact of those inaccuracies on Maghreb Steel 's actual and 
projected performance levels based on explanation s that were not reasoned and 
adequate;23 and,  
• finding that that the MDCCE 's reliance on the McLellan Report was improper, and that the 
MDCCE 's overall injury analysis, which was based on that report, was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.24 
14. Accordingly, Morocco requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings in, 
inter alia, paragraphs 7.283, 7.285, 7.287, 7.288, 7.289 c., and 8.3 f(iii) of the Panel Report.  
 
__________  
                                                
21 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.283, 7.285, 7.287, and 7.288.  
22 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.289 c.  
23 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.283, 7.285, 7.287, 7.288, 7.289 c., 8.3 f.(iii).  
24 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7. 288, 7.289 c., and 8.3 (f)(iii).