PAKISTAN – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED POLYPROPYLENE FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY PAKISTAN UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17.1 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Document: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 25 February 2021
Document codes: WT/DS538/5
Complainant: UAE
Respondent: Pakistan
Third parties: Afghanistan, China, EU, Japan, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 1, 2.1, 3.1, 9.1, 9.3, 11.1, 5.10, 6.8, Annex II, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 11.2, 11.3, 2, 11.4, 6.7, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994

PAKISTAN – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED POLYPROPYLENE
FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY PAKISTAN UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND
ARTICLE 17.1 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
The following communication, dated 22 February 2021 , from the delegation of Pakistan, is being
circulated to Members.

Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Pakistan
hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report entitled Pakistan — Anti-Dumping
Measures on Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film from the United Arab Emirates (),
which was circulated on 18 Janu ary 2021 (the "Panel Report"). Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1)
of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Pakistan is simultaneously filing this Notice of
Appeal and its Appellant's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
2. For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submission to the Appellate Body, Pakistan
appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse, certain findings and conclusions of the Panel,
with respect to the following errors contained in the Panel Report:1
I. The Panel erred in finding that Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
requires an investigating authority to examine the impact of the dumped
imports on the domestic industry, effectively requiring the authority to conduct
a causation and non -attribution analysis with respect to the individual injury
factors
3. Pakistan appeals the Panel's finding that Article 3.4 requires an evaluation of the impact of
the dumped imports on the domestic industry. This finding is based on an incorrect interpretation of
Article 3.4. The Panel interprets Article 3.4 as requiring an investigating authority to evaluate not
only the state of the domestic industry, but also to analyse the effects of the dumped imports.
Effectively, the Panel reads Article 3.4 as requiring also a causation and non-attribution analysis for
the various individual factors. This is incorrect, because the examination of the cause of the injury
is a subsequent analytical step, undertaken under Article 3.5. The Panel thus duplicates the analytical
step req uired under Article 3.5, and effectively commingles and collapses the requirements of
Articles 3.4 and 3.5. Pakistan also appeals the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the NTC's
analysis of various injury factors, given that those findings and conclusions are based on the Panel's
incorrect legal standard under Article 3.4.

1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, this Notice of Appeal
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice
to Pakistan's right to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.

4. Pakistan thus requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and conclusions and
the Panel's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.352, 7.369, 7.383, 7.391, 7.393, 7.400,
7.404, 7.406, 7.410, and 7.413 - 7.415, as well as paragraph 8.1.a.v of the Panel Report.
II. The Panel erred in finding that the "other factors" raised by Taghleef during
the investigation were "known" to the NTC within the meaning of Article 3.5 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement and required the NTC to analyse those factors
5. Pakistan appeals the Panel's finding that certain factors pointed out by the UAE exporter
Taghleef during the investigation were "known" to the NTC within the meaning of Article 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, such that the NTC was required to conduct a non-attribution analysis for
those factors. Taghleef merely reproduced a list of six factors mentioned in the domestic producer's
2009 Annual Report and failed to provide any additional evidence that would have substantiated its
assertion that these factors were causing injury at the same time as the dumped imports. Indeed,
Taghleef did not even a rticulate a proper request to the NTC during the investigation to examine
these factors as possible factors causing injury to the domestic industry. The Panel thus erred in
finding that Taghleef's bare reference to the annual report of the domestic produce r was sufficient
to "clearly raise" the factors at issue and to make those factors "known" to the authority, thereby
triggering the NTC's duty to analyse those factors.
6. Therefore, Pakistan requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel 's conclusions and the
Panel's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.456-7.460, as well as paragraph 8.1.a.vi of
the Panel Report.
III. The Panel erred in finding that the sunset review determination was
inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because it was
allegedly based on determinations of dumping margins that were inconsistent
with Article 2
7. Pakistan submits that the Panel erred in finding that the NTC's Sunset Review Determination
was inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, on the grounds that, in
determining the likelihood of dumping, the NTC relied on dumping margins allegedly calculated
inconsistently with Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Contrary to the Panel's finding, the
NTC never intended to calculate a company-specific dumping margin and instead calculated country-
wide dumping estimates, which is entirely permissible under Article 11.3 and is not subject to
Article 2. The Panel's finding mischaracterizes the nature of the NTC's analysis and effe ctively
requires investigating authorities to calculate full -fledged company -specific dumping margins as
soon as they seek to quantify their assessment of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping. This is contrary to Article 11.3. Alternativ ely, should the Appellate Body consider the
Panel's finding concerning the NTC 's analysis to be of a factual nature, Pakistan submits that the
Panel exceeded the bounds of its discretion as the trier of facts, engaged in an analysis that lacked
objectivity and even-handedness, and thereby acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and
Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
8. Therefore, Pakistan requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings and
conclusions contained in paragraphs 7.554-7.560, 7.562, and 7.566 -7.569, as well as
paragraph 8.1.d.i of the Panel Report.
IV. Conclusion
9. Pakistan respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings and conclusions of
the Panel identified in this Notice of Appeal. Pakistan notes that the above grounds of appeal are
without prejudice to the more detailed arguments developed in Pakistan's Appellant's Submission.