. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS282/7 
19 August 2005 
 (05-3686) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON  
OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States  
under Article 16.4 and Article 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   
   The following notification dated 16 August 2005,  from the delegation of the United States, is 
being circulated to Members. 
_______________ 
 
 Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the United States 
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate  Body certain issues of law covered in the Report 
of the Panel on  United States – Anti-dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from 
Mexico (WT/DS282/R) ("Panel Report") and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in 
this dispute. 
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the 
Sunset Policy Bulletin is inconsis tent with Article 11.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the General Ag reement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("Anti-Dumping Agreement").  This 
conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous fi ndings on issues of law and related interpretations, 
including: 
(a) The Panel failed to apply the correct burden of proof.1  Although elsewhere in the 
report the Panel correctly articulated the standard for burden of proof and making a prima facie  case
2, the Panel failed to apply that standard in evaluating whether 
Mexico made a prima facie case with respect to th e Sunset Policy Bulletin.3  T h e  
Panel also misapplied the Appellate Body’s analysis in United States – Sunset 
Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on O il Country Tubular Goods from Argentina  in 
concluding that Mexico had made a prima facie case.4 
(b) The Panel failed to apply the correct sta ndard in evaluating whether the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin is inconsistent with Article  11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.5 
                                                      
1See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 6.26-6.28, 8.1. 
2Panel Report, para. 7.8. 
3Panel Report, paras. 6.28, 7.49 and 7.64, footnote 85. 
4Panel Report, para. 6.27. 
5Panel Report, paras. 7.55, 7.61, 7.63, footnote 86. WT/DS282/7 
Page 2  
 
2. The United States seeks review by the Appe llate Body, pursuant to Article 11 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Go verning the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), of the 
finding that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is inconsis tent "as such" with the obligation set forth in 
Article 11.3 of the Antidumping Agreement.
6  The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the 
matter before it, including a failure to make an obj ective assessment of the facts of the case, contrary 
to Article 11 of the DSU.  For example, the Unite d States noted that the Panel had failed to identify 
other factors that formed the basis for Commerce’s determination in Sugar and Syrups from Canada7, 
but the Panel simply dismissed the consideration of other factors as "subsidiary".8  The Panel also 
selectively quoted statements from the sunset determinations it analyzed, ignoring exculpatory statements found in the same determinations.
9  The Panel’s analysis was also contradictory10 and 
unsupported by the facts.11 
__________ 
                                                      
6Panel Report, para. 8.1. 
7U.S. Comments on Interim Report, para. 8. 
8Panel Report, para. 6.35. 
9See, e.g., paras. 6.35, 7.60.  See U.S. Comments on Interim Report, paras. 6 and 8-9, Panel Report, 
para. 6.29. 
10Panel Report, paras. 7.38, 7.40, 7.58, and 7.63. 
11Panel Report, paras. 7.45, 7.55, and 7.61.