WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS282/6 
10 August 2005 
 (05-3559) 
 Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL 
COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO 
 
Notification of an Appeal by Mexico under Ar ticle 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding  
on Rules and Procedures Governing th e Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and  
Rule 20(1)of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review   
   The following notification dated 4 August 200 5, from the delegation of Mexico, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
Mexico notifies its decision to appeal to the Appe llate 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) (the "Panel Report") and cer tain legal interpretations developed 
by the Panel in this dispute. 
1. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to find that the Sunset 
Review Determination of the US  International Trade Commission ("USITC") in OCTG from Mexico 
was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent and Article VI of the GATT 1994 because the 
USITC did not establish the required causal link between the likely dumping and the likely injury.1  
The Panel's conclusions on this issue are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law 
and related legal interpretations: 
a. By failing to find that a WTO-consistent determination of likely dumping is a legal 
predicate to a WTO-consistent determinati on of likely injury, the Panel erred in its 
interpretation and application of Articles 1, 3, 11.1, 11.3 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, and failed to comply with its obligation 
under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the matter before it.2 
b. Although the Panel found that the Sunset Review  Determination of the US Department of 
Commerce ("USDOC") was inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement3, it failed to find that the USITC Sunset Review Determination was also 
WTO-inconsistent.  The Panel dismissed Mexico's claim that the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and the GATT 1994 established inhere nt causation requirements, parallel to 
                                                      
1Panel Report, paragraph. 8.7. 
2Panel Report, paragraphs.  6.12, 6.14, 7.113, 7.114, 7.115, 7.117, 7.121, 7.122, 7.123, 7.130, 7.138, 
7.143, 7.144, 8.7. 
3Panel Report, paragraph. 8.2. WT/DS282/6 
Page 2  
 
 but independent of those in Article 3.5.
4  The Panel incorrectly interpreted Articles 1, 3, 
11.1, 11.3, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  The Panel also failed to comply with its obl igation under Article 11 of the DSU to make 
an objective assessment of the matter before it.
5 
c. The Panel failed to apply the rulings adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body in United 
States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
from Argentina  (DS268).6  The DSB rulings in DS268, combined with the Panel's 
rulings in this case,  establish that there is no WTO-consistent basis for a finding of 
likely dumping for any  of the reviews of the WTO Members included in the USITC's 
cumulative likelihood of injury analysis.  The Panel in the present case erroneously 
failed to find that the USITC lacked a WTO- consistent basis for its  determinations on 
likely injury, likely price effects or likely impact.7  The Panel thus erred in interpreting 
and applying Articles 1, 3, 11.1, 11.3, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  The Panel also failed to comply with its obligation under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the matter before it.
 8 
2. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to find that the Sunset 
Review Determination of the USITC was WTO-inconsistent because the USITC failed to comply with the conditions for a WTO-consistent likelihood of injury analysis.
9  Although the Panel 
recognized that "Mexico requested a finding regard ing its 'third cumulation argument' (regarding the 
evidentiary basis for the USITC's determination th at imports would be simultaneously present in the 
US market)10, the Final Report contains no explanation of  why it was appropriate for the Panel not to 
rule on Mexico's claim.11  The Panel erred in interpreting and applying Articles 1, 11.3, and 18.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and failed to comply  with its obligation under Article 11 of the DSU 
and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to  make an objective assessment of the matter 
before it.12  Mexico respectfully requests the Appellate Body to address, complete the analysis, and 
rule in favor of Mexico on the following issues of law and related legal inte rpretations, on which the 
Panel declined to rule: 
a. The Panel erroneously concluded that the US ITC's analysis of the cumulated imports 
for purposes of its likelihood of injury dete rmination was consistent with Article 11.3 
                                                      
4Panel Report, paragraph. 6.12. 
5Panel Report, paragraphs. 6.12, 6.14, 7.113, 7.114, 7.115, 7.117, 7.121, 7.122, 7.123, 7.130, 7.138, 
7.143, 7.144, 8.7. 
6See United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
(OCTG) from Mexico , DS282, Request of the Panel for Comments on the Appellate Body's Report in US-OCTG 
from Argentina , DS268, Nov. 22, 2004;  see also  Panel Report, Annex E-14, Annex E-15. 
7Panel Report, paragraph. 8.7. 
 8Panel Report, paragraphs. 6.12, 6.14, 7.113, 7.114, 7.115, 7.117, 7.121, 7.122, 7.123, 7.130, 7.138, 
7.143, 7.144, 8.7. 
 9Panel Report, paragraphs. 8.5, 8.7, 8.8. 
 10Panel Report, paragraph. 6.19;  see also  Panel Report, paragraph. 3.1 (16th bullet) ("irrespective of 
the applicability of Article 3.3 to Article 11.3, the USIT C failed to satisfy the requirements inherent in the 
conduct of any cumulative injury assessment;  the USITC failed to ensure that cumulation was appropriate in 
light of the conditions of competition between imported OCTG, and between imported OCTG and the domestic 
like product, which findings required a threshold finding that the imports would be simultaneously present in the US market"). 
 
11Panel Report, paragraphs. 6.19, 7.150, and 7.151. 
12Panel Report, paragraphs. 6.19, 7.150, 7.151, 8.5, 8.7, 8.8.  WT/DS282/6 
 Page 3 
 
 
 exclusively because it determined that Ar ticle 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
does not apply to Article 11.3 reviews.13 
b. The Panel failed to find that the USIT C's Sunset Review Determination was 
inconsistent with US obligations un der the Anti-Dumping Agreement because: 
(i) The likelihood of injury determinati on lacked a sufficient factual basis and 
could not result in an objective examin ation of whether the subject imports 
were likely to be simultaneously present in the domestic market for purposes of determining the likelihood of injury; 
(ii) The USITC failed to ensure that cumulation was appropriate in light of the 
conditions of competition between im ported OCTG, and between imported 
OCTG and the domestic like product, which findings required a threshold 
finding that the subject imports would be simultaneously present in the US market; 
(iii) The USITC employed a WTO-inconsistent standard in the cumulative 
likelihood of injury analysis
14;  and 
(iv) The USITC's determination did not  identify any time-frame within which 
the subject imports would be simultaneously present in the US market during which time the corresponding likely injury would occur. 
c. The Panel erroneously disregarded certain of Mexico's arguments supporting its claim 
regarding the WTO-inconsistency of the USIT C's sunset review determination based on 
an erroneous finding that Mexico had faile d to develop and elaborate its arguments.
15 
d. The Panel also erroneously disregarded Me xico's separate claim that even assuming 
arguendo  that the USITC was neither prohib ited from, nor required to, conduct a 
cumulative injury assessment, because it decide d to undertake cumulative analysis, then 
the USITC was obliged to make sure that th e inherent conditions necessary to cumulate 
were satisfied.16 
3. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to comply with its 
obligation under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, and its 
error in the interpretation and application of Ar ticles 1, 2, 11.3, and 18.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement regarding Mexico's claims related to th e USDOC's determination of the "margin likely to 
prevail."17  Specifically: 
a. The Panel erred in failing to find that the USDOC's determination of the "margin likely 
to prevail" for OCTG from Mexico violated  Articles 2 and 11.3 because the margin was 
not calculated in accordance with the requirements of Article 2, and was used as an integral part of the determ ination under Article 11.3; 
                                                     
 
13Panel Report, paragraphs. 7.150, 7.151, 8.8. 
14Panel Report, paragraph. 8.5. 
15Panel Report, paragraph. 6.19. 
16See Panel Report, paragraphs. 7.150, 7.151, 8.8;  see also  Panel Report, paragraph. 3.1 (15th bullet) 
("in the alternative, assuming arguendo , that a cumulative injury analysis is  permitted in sunset reviews, USITC 
violated Articles 11.3 and 3.3 because USITC failed to apply the requirements of Article 3.3 in this case"). 
17Panel Report, paragraphs. 6.10 , 6.11, 7.78, 7.81, 7.83, 8.3. WT/DS282/6 
Page 4  
 
 b. The Panel failed to find that the "margin lik ely to prevail" determined by the USDOC 
was a pre-WTO margin that was not the result of the application of the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and was therefore inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 11.3, 
and 18.3 of the Agreement;  and 
c. The Panel failed to find that the USITC's use of the WTO-inconsistent "margin likely to 
prevail" for purposes of its likelihood of  injury analysis rendered its likelihood 
determination inconsiste nt with Article 11.3. 
4. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's failure to make a specific finding 
that the United States had no legal basis to conti nue its anti-dumping measure on OCTG from Mexico 
beyond the maximum five year period established by  Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
The Panel's conclusions on this issue are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law 
and related legal interpretations.  The erroneous findings of the Pane l include the Panel's conclusions 
that "[o]ur decision not to make any suggestion regarding implementation, and specifically not to 
suggest immediate termination of the measure, fu lly disposed of Mexico's request, and no further 
findings are necessary."
18  In making this determination, the Pa nel erred in interpreting and applying 
Article 11.3. 
5. In the event of appeal by the United States and reversal by the Appellate Body on any of the 
conclusions reached by the Panel regarding the USDOC's Sunset Policy Bulletin (SPB), Mexico 
respectfully requests the Appellate Body to address,  complete the analysis, and rule in favor of 
Mexico on the following claims, on which the Panel declined to rule: 
a. Mexico's claim that the US statute, the US Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), 
and the SPB violate Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as such.  The Panel 
considered that it was not "obliged to make findings in this context with respect to each 
aspect of Mexico's arguments in support of its claim."19 
b. Mexico's claim that United States failed to administer in an impartial and reasonable 
manner US anti-dumping laws, regulations, deci sions and rulings with respect to the 
USDOC's sunset reviews of anti-dumping duty or ders, in violation of Article X:3(a).  
Having found that the relevant portions of th e SPB were inconsistent with Article 11.3, 
the Panel stated that it did not need to address this claim.20 
 
__________ 
 
                                                      
18Panel Report, paragraphs. 6.22.  See also  paragraph. 8.18. 
19Panel Report, paragraph. 6.6. 
20Panel report, paragraphs. 7.67, 8.13.