RUSSIA — ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES FROM GERMANY AND ITALY NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 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: AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 22 February 2017
Document codes: WT/DS479/6
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Russia
Third parties: China, India, Japan, South Korea, U.S., Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

RUSSIA — ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
FROM GERMANY AND ITALY
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 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 20 February 2017, from the Delegation of Russia, is being
circulated to Members.

Russia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy (WT/DS479)
("Panel Report"). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
(WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010) ("Working Procedures"), the Russian Federation simultaneously
files this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.

2. For the reasons further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the
Russian Federation appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse or modify, certain issues
of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this dispute.
3. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, the present Notice of Appeal
provides an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors of
law and legal interpretation, without prejudice to the ability of the Russian Federation to refer to
other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.
I. Appeal of the Panel's legal interpretation of Article 4.1 of the A nti-Dumping
Agreement
4. The Russian Federation seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation of
Article 4.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement").
5. The Panel's interpretation is in error, inter alia, because:
 the Panel erred in its legal interpretation of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
by failing to take into account the requirement of "positive evidence" in the meaning of
Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
 the Panel erred in its legal interpretation of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
by not adhering to the principles of harmonious and effective interpretation;
 the Panel erred by finding the risk of material distortion in the injury analysis on the
basis of the "sequence of events" concerning the definition of the domestic industry;

 the Panel's findings of violation of Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
are not in conformity with Article 17.6 (ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
6. Accordingly, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body:
 to reverse or modify the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.21 (b), 7.21 (c) of its Report,
as well as paragraph 7.15 (c) together with the footnote 85 and paragraphs 7.27 and
7.26 (a) of its Report;
 to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.15 (a) and 7.21 (d), 8.1 (a) of its Report.
7. If the Appellate Body finds that the Panel erred in its conclusions regarding the
interpretation of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the Russian Federation respectfully
requests to reverse the findings of the Panel in paragraphs 7.16, 7.22, 7.27 and 8.1 (b) of its
Report that refer to consequential violation of Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
II. Appeal of the Panel 's error in interpreting and applying Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement
8. The Panel erred in concluding that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to take into account the impact of the financial crisis in
determining the appropriate rate of return in its consideration of price suppression because the
Panel erred in its application of the legal standard under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement to the facts before it.
9. Accordingly, the Russian Federation respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the
Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.64–7.67 and 8.1 (d)(i).
10. If the Appellate Body finds that the Panel erred in its legal findings related to the
determination by the D IMD of the rate of return for price su ppression analysis, the
Russian Federation respectfully requests to reverse the findings of the Panel in paragraphs of
7.181-7.182 and 8.1 (f)(i) of its Report that refer to violation of Article 3.1 and Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
III. Appeal of the Panel's legal interpretation of Articles 6.9 and 6.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and their application to the facts of the case
11. The Panel erred in the legal interpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in conjunction with Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by finding a
consequential violation of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and failing to examine how
the investigating authority disclosed the essential facts at issue.
12. Accordingly, the Russian Federation requests the Appellate Body:
 to modify the Panel's legal findings with regard to the relationship between Article 6.9
and Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;1
 to modify the Panel's legal findings relatin g to the confidential treatment of the actual
figures for the actual import volumes and the weighted average import price 2 of LCVs
produced by each German exporting producer 3 and find that the DIMD did not act
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by providing the
interested parties with summaries of omitted actual figures4;

1 Panel Report, paras. 7.268-7.270 and 7.278.
2 As well as the weighted average export price for LCVs exported by each German exporting producer
into the CU.
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.270 and 7.278 (including information listed in items (d), (e), (f), (i), (j) of
Table 12).
4 Panel Report, para. 7.278 (information listed in items (d) to (o) of Table 12).

 to find that the Panel erred when finding that the DIMD ac ted inconsistently with
Article 6.9 by not providing the interested parties with (i) the actual figures for the
actual import volumes and the weighted average import price of LCVs produced by each
German exporting producer 5; and (ii) the actual figures that show the domestic
consumption and production volumes of LCVs in the CU6;
 to reverse the Panel's find ings in paragraphs 7.268 -7.270, 7.278 and 8.1(h)(ii) of its
Report.
13. The Panel violated Article 15.2 of the DSU by adding in the final report a new legal finding in
paragraph 7.270 that had not appeared in the Panel's interim report. In addition, the Panel
violated Article 7 of the DSU by exceeding its terms of reference by making the legal finding in
paragraph 7.270 of its Report because the conformity of confidential treatment of data from the
electronic customs database was not specifically challenged by the European Union. The
Russian Federation respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse this finding of the Panel.
14. The Panel erred in finding that the actual import volumes and the weighted average import
price of LCVs produced by Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG, respectively, were not properly treated
as confidential because the Panel made an erroneous finding that the data from the electronic
customs database were not properly treated as confidential.
15. Accordingly, the Russian Federation respectfully requests the Appellate Body:
 to modify the Panel's legal findings under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
relating to the requirements to show "good cause" with respect to electronic customs
database that was submitted to the DIMD under the national law and the CU law and
find that under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement the requirement of the "good
cause" shown by the national customs authorities is fulfilled through the reference to the
legislation requiring to treat the information at issue as confidential;
 to modify the Panel's legal finding that the actual import volumes and the weighted
average import price of LCVs produced by each German exporting producer 7 were not
properly treated as confidential under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement8;
 to find that the Panel erred by not taking into account that the DIMD met the
requirements of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by providing the interested
parties with summaries of omitted actual figures for actual import volumes and t he
weighted average import price of LCVs produced by each German exporting producer9;
 to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.241-7.247, insofar as these findings refer
to disclosure of essential facts, paragraphs 7.269 -7.270, 7.278 and 8.1(h)(ii) of its
Report.