. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS398/11 
12 September 2011  
 
(11-4372) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION 
OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by Mexico 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules 
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
  The following notification, dated 6 Septembe r 2011, from the Delegation of Mexico, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 1. Pursuant to Articles 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 , 
Mexico hereby notifies its decision to appeal to th e Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in 
the Panel Report on China – Measures Related To The Ex portation Of Various Raw Materials 
(WT/DS398)  ("Panel Report"), and certain le gal interpretations developed by  the Panel in this dispute. 
 
2. Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii) of the  Working Procedures for Appellate Review , this notice of 
appeal includes and indicative list of the paragraphs  of the Panel Report cont aining the alleged errors, 
without prejudice to Mexico's ability to refer to othe r paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of 
this appeal.  
I. Conditional Appeal of the Panel's Recommendations on Annual Export Quota and 
Export Duty Measures 
3. Mexico also seeks conditional review by the Appellate Body relating to the Panel's 
recommendations.  If the Appellate Body, pursuant to  China's appeal of the Panel's "recommendation 
with respect to the 'series of measures' that  have an ongoing effect through annual replacement 
measures,"1 were to grant China's request to "reverse the Panel's recommendations in paragraphs 8.8; 
8.15 and 8.22 of the Panel Report to the exte nt that they apply to replacement measures,"2 and if the 
Appellate Body were to find that no recommenda tion should have been made on the "series of 
measures" as they existed as of the date of panel est ablishment, then Mexico would seek review of the 
Panel's legal interpretation3 and conclusion4 not to make a recommendation on the export quota and 
export duty measures that were annually recurring a nd in effect on the date of panel establishment, 
i.e., December 21, 2009, but that subsequently we re replaced or superseded by other legal 
instruments.  In that event, Mexico would contend that this interpretation and conclusion are in error 
                                                      
1See China's Appellant Submission, Section III. 
2China's Appellant Submission, para. 167. 
3See, e.g.,  Panel Report, paras. 7.26-7.32. 
4See, e.g.,  Panel Report, paras. 7.33(d), 8.22. WT/DS398/11 
Page 2  
 
  and based on erroneous findings on issues of law and re lated legal interpretations of Articles 6.2, 7.1, 
11, and 19.1 of the DSU.  Mexico would request the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's legal 
conclusion and to make the recommendation provid ed for in DSU Article 19.1.  However, the 
Appellate Body would not need to review this legal interpretation and conclusion if the condition 
precedent to this appeal is not met. 
 
II. Appeal of the Panel Conclusion that China's Administration of its Export Quota 
through the Involvement of the CCCMC Complied With Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994 
4. Mexico appeals various elements of the Pa nel's findings under Article X:3(a) of the 
GATT 1994 regarding the involvement of the China Chamber of Commerce on Metals, Minerals in 
the administration of export quotas.  5. Mexico addresses the following errors in th e Panel's findings and conclusions concerning 
China's an CCCMC's administration of quotas
5: 
 
a) First, the Panel erred in its interpretati on of Article X:3(a) as requiring complainants 
to demonstrate, in an as such claim, that  a challenged measure must necessarily lead 
to partial and/or unreasonable administration of export quotas. 
b) Second, the Panel erred in its interpreta tion of Article X.3(a) requiring evidence of 
partiality/unreasonableness when complainants  argue that a measure is inherently 
partial/ unreasonable.  Proper interpretation of Article X:3(a) leads to the conclusion 
that China's delegation of authority to CCCMC is inherently partial/unreasonable. 
c) Third, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the facts of the case as 
required by Article 11 of the DSU with respect to the role of CCCMC in the quota 
process.  The CCCMC Secretariat's role in administering quotas is much more than 
purely administrative in nature.  Specifi cally, the CCCMC gains access to confidential 
business information on applicants, exercises discretion in determining qualifying applicants, and is the sole verifier of certain eligibility data. 
6. As a result, Mexico requests that the Appe llate Body reverse the Panel's findings and 
conclusions at, e.g., paragraphs 7.784-7.787, 7.7 95-7.797, 8.18 c) and d) of the Panel Report. 
 
 
__________  
                                                      
5See Panel Report, paras. 7.774-7.797.