UNITED STATES – CUSTOMS BOND DIRECTIVE FOR MERCHANDISE SUBJECT TO ANTI-DUMPING/COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Document: 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 under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 5 May 2008
Document codes: WT/DS345/10
Complainant: India
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, China, EU, Japan, Thailand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 18.1, 1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 18.4, 18.5  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:2, VI:3, VI, X:1, X:2, I, II:1, XIII  GATT 1994Art. 32.1, 10, 1, 14, 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – CUSTOMS BOND DIRECTIVE FOR MERCHANDISE SUBJECT TO
ANTI-DUMPING/COUNTERVAILING DUTIES

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 under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification, dated 29 April 2008, from the Delegation of the United States, is
being circulated to Members.

Antidumping/Countervailing Duties () (“Panel Report”) and certain legal interpretations
developed by the Panel.
2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the
enhanced bond requirement is not consistent with the Ad Note to Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994") because it does not constitu te “reasonable” security (e.g.,
Panel Report, para. 7.130) and, related to this, the Panel’s c onclusion that the enhanced bond
requirement is not consistent with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VI of GATT 1994 (“Antidumping Agreement”) because it is not “in accordance with the provisions of
the GATT 1994, as interpreted by the Antidumping Agreement” (e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.131,
8.2(i)). These findings are in error and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal
interpretations, including that additional security may only be considered “reasonable” within the
meaning of the Ad Note if a Member demonstrates, first, that antidumping rates in the order “are
likely to increase” and, second, properly determines the “likely amount” of the increase (e.g., Panel
Report, paras. 7.116-7.126).
3. The United States also seeks review of the Panel’s conclusion that the enhanced bond
requirement is not justified pursuant to GATT 1994 Article XX(d) (e.g., Pa nel Report, para. 7.313),
including its finding that unless a Member demonstrates that rates in the order “are likely to increase”,
an additional security requirement cannot be consid ered “necessary” within the meaning of Article
XX(d) (e.g., Panel Report, para. 7.312). In these circumstances, the United States additionally
requests that the Appellate Body complete the Pane l's analysis with respect to Article XX(d). The
Appellate Body would not need to reach the U.S. appeal under this paragraph where the Appellate
Body has reversed the Panel findings and conclusions referenced in paragraph 1.