WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS379/6 
6 December 2010 
 (10-6557) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING AND 
COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA 
 
Notification of an Appeal by China
 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules   
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
   The following notification, dated 1 December  2010, from the Delegation of China, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of  the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate 
Review, China hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal to the Appellate 
Body certain issues of law and legal inte rpretation covered in the Panel Report in United States – 
Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Du ties on Certain Products from China  (WT/DS379/R) 
(Panel Report).  Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review,  China is 
simultaneously filing this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat. 
2. The measures at issue are certain anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce ("USDOC"), an d the definitive anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties imposed by the United States pursuant to thei r authority.  As further specified in China's 
Request for Establishment of a Panel (WT/DS379 /2), these determinations were made in the 
investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe  from the People's Republic of China 
("CWP"), Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China  ("OTR"), 
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China  ("LWR"), and 
Laminated Woven Sacks from th e People's Republic of China  ("LWS"). 
3. The issues that China raises in this appeal relate to the Pane l's findings and conclusions in 
respect of the consistency of the challenged measures with the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  ("SCM 
Agreement"). 
4. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of 
Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement as it relat es to Commerce's determinations in all four 
countervailing duty investigations that certain stat e-owned enterprises and/or state-owned commercial 
banks are "public bodies" within the meaning of that  provision.  The Panel's errors of law and legal 
interpretation include: WT/DS379/6 
Page 2  
 
  (a) The Panel erred in its interpretation and a pplication of the term "public body" in 
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement.
1 
(b) The Panel acted inconsistently with Artic les 3.2 and 11 of the DSU by relying on 
municipal law usages of certain terms to  interpret the term "public body" in 
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement.2 
5. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of 
Article 2.1(a) of the SCM Agreement as it rela tes to the finding by the USDOC in the OTR 
investigation that certain alleged loan subsidies were de jure specific.  The Panel's errors of law and 
legal interpretation include: 
(a) The Panel erred in interpreting the term "subsidy" in Article 2.1(a) of the SCM 
Agreement to refer to either a financial c ontribution or a benefit, and by failing to 
give effect to the requirement of an explicit limitation of access to a subsidy.3 
(b) The Panel erred in its interpretation of the term "certain enterprises" in Article 2 of 
the SCM Agreement and in its application of  that term to the measures that formed 
the basis for the USDOC's specificity determination.4  To the extent that the Panel's 
findings in respect of "certain enterprises" were based on its assessment of the facts, 
that assessment was not objective as required by Article 11 of the DSU.5 
(c) Conditionally, in the event that the Appellate  Body sustains the Panel's interpretation 
of Article 2.1(a), China appeals the Pane l's finding that the USDOC's specificity 
determination was not inconsistent with th at interpretation of Article 2.1(a).  The 
Panel's findings were legally insufficient to sustain Commerce's determination of 
de jure specificity, even under the Panel's interpretation of Article 2.1(a).6 
6. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of 
Article 2.2 of the SCM Agreement as it relates to the finding by the USDOC in the LWS investigation 
that the provision of allegedly subsidized land-use rights was "limited to certain enterprises located within a designated geographical region within the ju risdiction of the granting authority".  The Panel's 
errors of law and lega l interpretation include: 
(a) The Panel erred in interpreting the term  "subsidy" in Article 2.2 of the SCM 
Agreement to refer to either a financial cont ribution or a benefit, and in finding that 
Article 2.2 permits an investigating authorit y to make a finding of regional specificity 
based solely "on the element of  the financial contribution".
7 
                                                      
1Panel Report, paras. 8.55-8.94, 8.127-8.143.  The referenced paragraph numbers indicate the primary 
instances of the identified errors.  Ch ina appeals all findings and conclusions  of the Panel that are derived from 
or related to the identified errors, as well as the rele vant findings and conclusions of the Panel set forth in 
Section XVII of the Panel Report. 
2Panel Report, paras. 8.60-8.63, para. 8.69. 
3Panel Report, paras. 9.25-9.32, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.   
4Panel Report, paras. 9.66-9.72, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.   
5Panel Report, paras. 9.66-9.72, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.   
6Panel Report, paras. 9.66-9.72, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.   
7Panel Report, para. 9.155.  WT/DS379/6 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (b) The Panel erred in its interpretation of Ar ticle 2.2 of the SCM Agreement in finding 
that the existence of a "distinct" or "unique"  "regime" for the provision of a subsidy is 
legally relevant to a determination of specificity under this provision.8 
7. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of 
Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement as it relates to the USDOC's rejection of in-country private 
prices for hot-rolled steel as a benchmark in the CWP and LWR investigations.  The Panel's errors of 
law and legal interpretation include: 
(a) The Panel erred in interpreting Article 14(d)  to permit the rejection of in-country 
private prices as a benchmark where th e only evidence relied upon by the 
investigating authority is that the government  is a predominant supplier of the good in 
question.9 
(b) The Panel erred in interpreting Article 14( d) to permit investigating authorities to 
reject private prices as a benchmark based  exclusively on evidence relating to 
government market share, so long as the investigating authority "consider[s] … arguments and evidence" relating to fact ors other than government market share.
10 
(c) The Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by appearing to attribute to 
the USDOC a rationale for its rejection of private prices that differs from the rationale that appears in the USDOC's published determinations.
11 
8. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of 
Article 14(b) of the SCM Agreement as it relates to  the USDOC's selection of loan benchmarks in the 
OTR, LWS, and CWP investigations.  The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include: 
(a) The Panel erred in finding that the be nchmark used by the USDOC was "a 
comparable commercial loan which the firm could actually obtain on the market" within the meaning of Article 14(b).
12 
(b) The Panel acted inconsistently with Artic le 11 of the DSU by failing to assess the 
conformity of the benchmark used by th e USDOC with the legal requirements of 
Article 14(b).13  To the extent that the Panel's fi ndings and conclusions in respect of 
the USDOC loan benchmark were based on its assessment of the facts, that assessment was not objective as required by Article 11 of the DSU.
14 
(c) The Panel erred in its interpretation and a pplication of Article 14(b) in finding that 
observed interest rates for loans denominated in a particular currency can be rejected 
as a "distorted" benchmark, and in finding th at the USDOC had a legal basis to reject 
observed RMB interest rates as a loan benchmark.15 
9. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of th e Panel's conclusion that, in respect of the 
imposition of countervailing duties, th e covered agreements do not require the United States to take 
into account the extent to which it simultaneously offsets the same subsidies through the manner in 
                                                      
8Panel Report, paras. 9.159-9.164. 
9Panel Report, paras. 10.38-10.47, para. 10.61.   
10Panel Report, paras. 10.55-10.56.   
11Panel Report, paras. 10.55-10.56.   
12Panel Report, paras. 10.203-10.209.   
13Panel Report, paras. 10.203-10.209.   
14Panel Report, paras. 10.203-10.209.   
15Panel Report, paras. 10.108-10.130; paras. 10.144-10.148.   WT/DS379/6 
Page 4  
 
  which it calculates anti-dumping duties under its non-market economy (NME) methodology.  The 
Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include: 
(a) The Panel erred in finding that Article VI :3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 19.4 of the 
SCM Agreement do not require the United States to take into account the extent to which the use of its NME methodology in a parallel anti-dumping investigation 
affects the existence and amount of the s ubsidy that remains attributable to the 
imported product under investigation.
16 
(b) The Panel erred in finding that Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement does not require 
the United States to take into account th e extent to which the use of its NME 
methodology in a parallel anti-dumping inves tigation affects the appropriate amount 
of the countervailing duty to be levied.17 
(c) The Panel erred in finding that Article 10 of the SCM Agreement does not require the 
United States to take all necessary steps to ensure that it does not offset the same 
subsidies twice through the imposition of two different duties, and in finding that the 
United States did not act inconsistently w ith Article 10 in imposing the challenged 
countervailing duty measures.18 
(d) The Panel erred in finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with 
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement in imposing the challenge d countervailing duty 
measures.19 
(e) The Panel erred in finding that it was China' s obligation to "conclusively establish[]" 
that the USDOC offset the same subsidi es twice in the investigations at issue.20 
10. China respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse th e findings and conclusions of 
the Panel that are based on the errors of law and le gal interpretation identified above.  With respect to 
the claims of error iden tified in paragraphs 5 and 9 above, China respectfully requests that the 
Appellate Body complete the analysis to conclude  that the challenged measures were inconsistent 
with the obligations of the United States under the covered agreements.  China further requests that 
the Appellate Body complete the analysis with resp ect to China's claims of consequential violations 
under Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement as th ey pertain to all of the foregoing claims of 
error, in respect of which the Panel exercised judicial economy.21 
__________ 
 
                                                      
16Panel Report, paras. 14.112-14.123, para. 14.136. 
17Panel Report, paras. 14.128-14.130.   
18Panel Report, paras. 14.137-14.138.   
19Panel Report, para. 14.139.   
20Panel Report, para. 14.76.   
21Panel Report, para. 13.1.