WT/DS479/6  
 
22 February 2017  
(17-1070) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
 RUSSIA — ANTI -DUMPING DUTIES ON LI GHT COMMERCIAL VEHIC LES  
FROM GERMANY AND ITALY  
NOTIFICATION OF AN A PPEAL BY THE RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 A ND ARTICLE 17 OF THE  UNDERSTANDING ON RUL ES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVER NING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),   
AND UNDER RULE 20(1)  OF THE WORKING PROCE DURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 20 February 2017,  from the Delegation of Russia,  is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the DS U, the Russian Federation 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) 
("Panel Report"). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working  Procedures for Appellate Review  
(WT/AB/WP/6, 16  August 2010) ("Working Procedures"), the Russian Federation simultaneously 
files this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
 
2. For the reasons further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the 
Russian  Federation appeals, and requests  the Appellate Body to reverse or modify, certain issues 
of law covere d in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this dispute.  
3. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, the present Notice of Appeal 
provides an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the  alleged errors of 
law and legal interpretation, without prejudice to the ability of the Russian Federation to refer to 
other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.  
I. Appeal of the Panel's legal interpretation of Article 4.1 of the A nti-Dumping 
Agreement  
4. The Russian Federation seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation of 
Article 4.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (the "Anti -Dumping Agreement").   
5. The Panel's interpretation is in error, inter alia , because:  
 the Panel erred in its legal interpretation of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
by failing to take into account the requirement of "positive evidence" in the meaning of 
Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement;  
 the Panel erred in its legal interpretation of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
by not adhering to the principles of harmonious and effective interpretation;  
 the Panel erred by finding the risk of material distortion in  the injury analysis on the 
basis of the "sequence of events" concerning the definition of the domestic industry;  WT/DS479/6  
 
- 2 - 
 
   the Panel 's findings of violation of Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
are not in conformity with Article 17.6 (ii) of the An ti-Dumping Agreement.  
6. Accordingly, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body:  
 to reverse  or modify  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.21 (b), 7.21 (c) of its Report, 
as well as paragraph 7.15 (c) together with the footnote 85 and paragraphs 7.27  and 
7.26 (a) of its Report;  
 to reverse  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.15 (a) and 7.21 (d), 8.1 (a) of its Report.  
7. If the Appellate Body finds that the Panel erred in its conclusions regarding the 
interpretation of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Ag reement, the Russian Federation respectfully 
requests to reverse  the findings of the Panel in paragraphs 7.16, 7.22, 7.27 and 8.1 (b) of its 
Report that refer to consequential violation of Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  
II. Appeal of the Panel 's error in interpreting and applying Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  
8. The Panel erred in concluding that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to take into account the impact of the financial crisis in 
determining the appropriate rate of return in its consideration of price suppression because the 
Panel erred in its application of the legal standard under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement to the facts before it.  
9. Accordingly, the Russian Federation respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the 
Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.64 –7.67 and 8.1 (d)(i).  
10. If the Appellate Body finds that the Panel erred in its legal findings related to the 
determination by the D IMD of the rate of return for price su ppression analysis, the 
Russian  Federation respectfully requests to reverse  the findings of the Panel in paragraphs of 
7.181 -7.182 and 8.1 (f)(i) of its Report that refer to violation of Article 3.1 and Article 3.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
III. Appeal of the Panel's legal interpretation of Articles 6.9 and 6.5 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and their application to the facts of the case  
11. The Panel erred in the legal interpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement in conjunction with Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by finding a 
consequential violation of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and failing to examine how 
the investigating authority disclosed the essential facts at issue.  
12. Accordingly, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body:  
 to modify  the Panel's legal findings with regard to the relationship between Article 6.9 
and Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement;1 
 to modify  the Panel's legal findings relatin g to the confidential treatment of the actual 
figures for the actual import volumes and the weighted average import price2 of LCVs 
produced by each German exporting producer3 and find that the DIMD did not act 
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by providing the 
interested parties with summaries of omitted actual figures4; 
                                                
1 Panel Report, paras. 7.268 -7.270 and 7.278.  
2 As well as the weighted average export price for LCVs exported by each German exporting producer  
into the CU.  
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.270 and 7.278 (including information listed in  items ( d), (e), (f), (i), (j) of 
Table  12). 
4 Panel Report, para. 7.278 (information listed in items (d) to (o) of Table 12).  WT/DS479/6  
 
- 3 - 
 
   to find that the Panel erred when finding that the DIMD ac ted inconsistently with 
Article  6.9 by not providing the interested parties with (i)  the actual figures  for the 
actual import volumes and the weighted average import price of LCVs produced by each 
German exporting producer5; and (ii)  the actual figures that show the domestic 
consumption and production volumes of LCVs in the CU6;  
 to reverse  the Panel's find ings in paragraphs 7.268 -7.270, 7.278 and 8.1(h)(ii) of its 
Report.  
13. The Panel violated Article 15.2 of the DSU by adding in the final report a new legal finding in 
paragraph 7.270 that had not appeared in the Panel's interim report. In addition, the Panel 
violated Article 7 of the DSU by exceeding its terms of reference by making the legal finding in 
paragraph 7.270 of its Report because the conformity of confidential treatment of data from the 
electronic customs database was not specifically challenged by the European Union. The 
Russian  Federation respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse  this finding of the Panel.  
14. The Panel erred in finding that the actual import volumes and the weighted average import 
price of LCVs produced by Daimler AG and Vol kswagen AG, respectively, were not properly treated 
as confidential because the Panel made an erroneous finding that the data from the electronic 
customs database were not properly treated as confidential.  
15. Accordingly, the Russian Federation respectfully r equests the Appellate Body:  
 to modify  the Panel's legal findings under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement 
relating to the requirements to show "good cause" with respect to electronic customs 
database that was submitted to the DIMD under the national  law and the CU law and 
find that under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement the requirement of the "good 
cause" shown by the national customs authorities is fulfilled through the reference to the 
legislation requiring to treat the information at issu e as confidential;  
 to modify  the Panel's legal finding that the actual import volumes and the weighted 
average import price of LCVs produced by each German exporting producer7 were not 
properly treated as confidential under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement8; 
 to find that the Panel erred by not taking into account that the DIMD met the 
requirements of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by providing the interested 
parties with summaries of omitted actual figures for actual import volumes and t he 
weighted average import price of LCVs produced by each German exporting producer9; 
 to reverse  the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.241 -7.247, insofar as these findings refer 
to disclosure of essential facts, paragraphs 7.269 -7.270, 7.278 and 8.1(h)(ii) of its 
Report.  
 
__________  
                                                
5 Ibid. 
6 Panel Report, paras. 7.269 and 7.278.  
7 As well as the weighted average export price for LCVs exported by each German e xporting producer  
into the CU.  
8 Including information listed in items (d), (e), (j) of Table 12.  
9 Panel Report, para. 7.278.