UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDIA 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
Document: AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 18 August 2014
Document codes: WT/DS436/7
Complainant: India
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, Canada, China, EU, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. 12, 14, 15, 19, 32  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 21, 22  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. I  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED CARBON
STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM INDIA
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 13 August 2014, from the Delegation of the United States,
is being circulated to Members.

 Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the
United States hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law
covered in the Report of the Panel on United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain
Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India () and certain legal interpretations
developed by the Panel in this dispute.

(1) The United States seeks review by the Appe llate Body of the Panel's legal interpretation
of the term "public body" under Article 1.1(a)(1) of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement") that "[t]he relevant entity must be shown to have
been vested with governmental authority, or to have actually exercised such authority through the
performance of governmental functions."
1 The United States respectfully requests that the
Appellate Body modify this interpretation and clarify that an entity may be a public body within the
meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1) if a government controls that entity such that the government can use
the entity's resources as its own. In that circumstance, when the entity conveys economic
resources, it is the government's own resources that are being conveyed.

(2) The United States seeks review of the Panel's legal conclusions that
19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(G) is inconsistent with Articles 15.3 and 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the
SCM Agreement, both "as such" and "as applied" in the original investigation at issue in this
dispute.
2 These findings are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and
related legal interpretations, including the Panel's conclusions that "Article 15.3 establishes a
necessary pre-condition for cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports in question …
rather than a limitation on the sco pe of application of Article 15.3"
3; that the term "subsidized
imports" in other provisions of Article 15 constitutes an "express limitation of the imports to be
considered" in an injury analysis 4; and that the context provided by Article VI:6(a) of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") and Article 3.3 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the Ge neral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("AD Agreement") does not support the use of cross-cumulation. 5 The United States respectfully
requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings and conclude that
19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(G) is not inconsistent with Articles 15.3 and 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the
SCM Agreement "as such" or as applied in the original investigation at issue in this dispute.

1 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.356, 7.369, 8.2(c), and 8.2(d).
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.343 and 7.341.
4 Panel Report, paras. 7.346 and 7.360.
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.347-7.351.

(3) The United States also seeks review of the Panel's conclusion that
19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(G) "requires, in certain circumstances, the [U.S. International Trade
Commission] to cumulate the effects of subsidized imports with the effects of dumped,
non-subsidized imports."
6 This finding is based on the Panel's failure to make "an objective
assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case" as
required by Article 11 of the DSU because the Panel' s conclusion is not based on any evaluation of
the measure at issue, including its text or other evidence bearing on its meaning. For this reason
also, the United States respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings
and conclude that 19 U.S.C. §1677(7)(G) is not inconsistent "as such" with Articles 15.3 and 15.1,
15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.