CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS
Document: Notification of an Other Appeal by Mexico 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: 12 September 2011
Document codes: WT/DS398/11
Complainant: Mexico
Respondent: China
Third parties: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Taiwan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. VIII:1, VIII:4, X:1, X:3, XI:1  GATT 1994Part I, para. 1.2, Part I, para. 5.1, Part I, para. 5.2, , Part I, para. 8.2  Protocol of Accession

CHINA – MEASURES RELATED TO THE EXPORTATION
OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIALS

Notification of an Other Appeal by Mexico
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 6 Septembe r 2011, from the Delegation of Mexico, is being
circulated to Members.

Mexico hereby notifies its decision to appeal to th e Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in
the Panel Report on China – Measures Related To The Ex portation Of Various Raw Materials
(WT/DS398) ("Panel Report"), and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this dispute.

2. Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , this notice of
appeal includes and indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report cont aining the alleged errors,
without prejudice to Mexico's ability to refer to othe r paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of
this appeal.

I. Conditional Appeal of the Panel's Recommendations on Annual Export Quota and
Export Duty Measures
3. Mexico also seeks conditional review by the Appellate Body relating to the Panel's
recommendations. If the Appellate Body, pursuant to China's appeal of the Panel's "recommendation
with respect to the 'series of measures' that have an ongoing effect through annual replacement
measures,"1 were to grant China's request to "reverse the Panel's recommendations in paragraphs 8.8;
8.15 and 8.22 of the Panel Report to the exte nt that they apply to replacement measures," 2 and if the
Appellate Body were to find that no recommenda tion should have been made on the "series of
measures" as they existed as of the date of panel establishment, then Mexico would seek review of the
Panel's legal interpretation 3 and conclusion 4 not to make a recommendation on the export quota and
export duty measures that were annually recurring a nd in effect on the date of panel establishment,
i.e., December 21, 2009, but that subsequently we re replaced or superseded by other legal
instruments. In that event, Mexico would contend that this interpretation and conclusion are in error

1See China's Appellant Submission, Section III.
2China's Appellant Submission, para. 167.
3See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.26-7.32.
4See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.33(d), 8.22.

and based on erroneous findings on issues of law and re lated legal interpretations of Articles 6.2, 7.1,
11, and 19.1 of the DSU. Mexico would request the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's legal
conclusion and to make the recommendation provid ed for in DSU Article 19.1. However, the
Appellate Body would not need to review this legal interpretation and conclusion if the condition
precedent to this appeal is not met.

II. Appeal of the Panel Conclusion that China's Administration of its Export Quota
through the Involvement of the CCCMC Complied With Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994
4. Mexico appeals various elements of the Pa nel's findings under Article X:3(a) of the
GATT 1994 regarding the involvement of the China Chamber of Commerce on Metals, Minerals in
the administration of export quotas.

5. Mexico addresses the following errors in th e Panel's findings and conclusions concerning
China's an CCCMC's administration of quotas
5:

a) First, the Panel erred in its interpretati on of Article X:3(a) as requiring complainants
to demonstrate, in an as such claim, that a challenged measure must necessarily lead
to partial and/or unreasonable administration of export quotas.
b) Second, the Panel erred in its interpreta tion of Article X.3(a) requiring evidence of
partiality/unreasonableness when complainants argue that a measure is inherently
partial/ unreasonable. Proper interpretation of Article X:3(a) leads to the conclusion
that China's delegation of authority to CCCMC is inherently partial/unreasonable.
c) Third, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the facts of the case as
required by Article 11 of the DSU with respect to the role of CCCMC in the quota
process. The CCCMC Secretariat's role in administering quotas is much more than
purely administrative in nature. Specifically, the CCCMC gains access to confidential
business information on applicants, exercises discretion in determining qualifying
applicants, and is the sole verifier of certain eligibility data.
6. As a result, Mexico requests that the Appe llate Body reverse the Panel's findings and
conclusions at, e.g., paragraphs 7.784-7.787, 7.795-7.797, 8.18 c) and d) of the Panel Report.

5See Panel Report, paras. 7.774-7.797.