UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO
Document: Notification of an Appeal by Mexico under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20(1)of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 10 August 2005
Document codes: WT/DS282/6
Complainant: Mexico
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Canada, China, Taiwan, EU, Japan, Venezuela, Thailand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 18  Anti-dumpingArt. VI, X  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL
COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO

Notification of an Appeal by Mexico under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the 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 () (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.

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.

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 under 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 USITC's sunset review determination based on
an erroneous finding that Mexico had failed 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 decided 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 determination 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.

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 inconsistent 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.