MOROCCO — DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY MOROCCO 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: 4 August 2021
Document codes: WT/DS578/5
Complainant: Tunisia
Respondent: Morocco
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, China, EU, Japan, Madagascar, Russia, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.8, 9.2, 11.1(a), 12.2, 12.2.2, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:6  GATT 1994

MOROCCO — DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY MOROCCO 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 28 July 2021, from the delegation of Morocco, is being circulated
to Members.

I. NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL
1. In accordance with Article 16.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Morocco notifies the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the (WTO) of its decision to appeal certain findings, legal interpretations, and rulings
of the Panel in its final report in Morocco — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on School Exercise
Books from Tunisia ().
II. OVERVIEW
2. Morocco appreciates the difficult context in which the Panel in DS578 assessed and addressed
the complaints of Tunisia. Morocco thanks the Panellists for accepting to serve in the middle of a
pandemic, and for their active engagement with the Parties in on line hearings. As against their
challenging task and this difficult background – and especially given the costs imposed on Morocco
in defending itself – Morocco deeply regrets the multiple, fundamental, and manifest errors of the
Panel in respect of jurisd iction, standard of review, and interpretation and application of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement. These errors are of such magnitude that they have impeded a mutually
satisfactory resolution of the dispute and now leave no choice for Morocco but to have recour se to
the Appellate Body, when it is reconstituted.
3. The Panel made four types of error that go to the heart of dispute settlement in the WTO:
▪ failure to correctly determine and apply its jurisdiction;
▪ failure to correctly interpret and apply the standa rd of review under the Anti-Dumping
Agreement;
▪ failure to correctly identify and apply the customary rules of interpretation in public
international law, and therefore failure to correctly interpret and apply certain provisions
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
▪ failure to correctly and objectively appreciate and address certain of Morocco 's
arguments and evidence.
4. Each group of errors is enough to justify the need for a rigorous functioning Appellate Body;
together, they underline the critical importan ce of a speedy resolution of the current impasse.

Morocco sets out below its grounds for appeal and asks the Appellate Body to reverse each of the
erroneous findings and rulings.
III. THE PANEL'S MULTIPLE AND MANIFEST ERRORS
A. The Panel's jurisdictional errors
5. In its preliminary jurisdictional ruling set out in Annex A-3 the Panel made six material and
reversible errors of law:
i. The Panel's exposition of the arguments of the Parties in sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2
of Annex A-3 evinces at best a lack of understanding and appreciation of Morocco's arguments
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, and vitiates the entirety of section 3.2 of the
preliminary ruling.
ii. The Panel's jurisdiction is set out in Tunisia 's Panel Request. 1 And yet, as a general
approach the Panel purported in paragraph 3.21 of Annex A-3 to examine the Panel Request
in the light of the Tunisia 's First Written Submission without having undertaken even a
cursory review of the terms of its jurisdictional document on its own. In doing so it acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.2, 6.2, 7, and 11 of the DSU, vitiating the entirety of
subsection 3.2.2 of the preliminary ruling.
iii. In addressing Morocco's specific requests about the lack of coherence between claims
set out in Tunisia 's First Written Submission and the Panel Request, in paragraph 3.29 of
Annex A-3 the Panel purported to use Tunisia's First Written Submission to "clarify" the Panel
Request without first examining the wording of the Panel Request itself. In doing so, the
Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 3.2, 6.2, 7, and 11 of the DSU, vitiating its findings
under paragraphs 3.35, 3.48, and 4.1 of Annex A-3.
iv. In paragraph 3.33 of Annex A-3, the Panel's partial recitation of a claim of violation set
out in its jurisdictional document effectively amended the document and corrected manifest
legal deficiencies in the Panel Request. In doing so, the Panel acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.2, 6.2, 7, and 11 of the DSU, vitiating its findings under paragraphs 3.35 and 4.1
of Annex A-3.
v. In paragraph 3.41 of Annex A -3, the Panel improperly characterized the specific
qualification of a claim as an argument. In doing so, the Panel acted inconsistent ly with
Articles 3.2, 6.2, 7, and 11 of the DSU, vitiating its findings under paragraphs 3.42 and 4.1
of Annex A-3.
vi. In paragraph 3.56 of Annex A -3, the Panel erred by accepting a mere recitation of a
broad and "overarching" provision of the Anti-Dumping as a "specific" claim. In doing so, the
Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 6.2 and 11 of the DSU, vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 3.58 and 4.1 of Annex A-3.
6. The Panel made two reversible errors in its jurisdictional findings in its final report.
i. The Panel observed in paragraph 7.21 that Morocco 's second set of jurisdictional
objections could have been presented in its request for a preliminary ruling. However,
Morocco's second set of jurisdictional objections were expressly based on and arose from the
Panel's [erroneous] preliminary findings. Because Morocco could not have anticipated the
Panel's errors in its preliminary decision, Morocco could not have presented its second set of
jurisdictional arguments earlier. The Panel 's observati on is on its face inconsistent with
Article 11 of the DSU, vitiating its findings under paragraphs 7.34 and 8.1(a).

1 WT/DS578/2, 20 September 2019.

ii. In paragraphs 7.26-7.33, the Panel purported to:
a) read four distinct provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement together to arrive at
a conclusion that expressly excluded one of the listed provisions (Article 2.2.1.1
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement);
b) find explicit links between the measure in question and the listed provisions where
the justification proffered had nothing to d o with the provision at issue
(Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement); and
c) confirm its erroneous interpretation of the jurisdictional document by referring to
the first written submission of Tunisia, even as this submission made no reference
to the provision at issue (Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement).
In doing so, the Panel read Article 2.2.1.1 out of the Panel Request, impermissibly amended
the Panel Request, acted inconsistently with Articles 6.2 and 11 of the DSU, and improperly
accepted jurisdiction inconsistently with Article 7 of the DSU, vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.34 and 8.1(a).
B. The Panel's errors in respect of "normal value"
7. The Panel made six material and reversible errors in its assessment of and findi ngs on the
normal value claims of Tunisia:
i. The Panel excluded, in the title of section 7.2.1.1, a provision explicitly listed in the
Panel Request. Whether deliberate or accidental, this evinces lack of due attention or
objectivity inconsistent with Article 11 of the DSU, vitiating the Panel 's findings in
section 7.2.1.1 in its entirety and paragraph 8.1(b)(i).
ii. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of the DSU, the Panel failed in
paragraphs 7.42 and 7.43 to undertake a c orrect interpretation of Article 17.6 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, resulting in an erroneous application of the standard of
review under the Anti -Dumping Agreement and vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.41, 7.43, 7.59, and 8.1(b)(i).
iii. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 2.2.2 in at least two ways:
a) acting inconsistently with Article 3.2 of the DSU, the Panel adopted an incorrect
interpretive approach to Article 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, resulting
in an erroneous interpretation and application of that Article, vitiating its findings
under paragraphs 7.54, 7.59, and 8.1(b)(i); and
b) the Panel otherwise incorrectly applied Article 2.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement to the facts of the case, vitiating its findin gs under paragraphs 7.82,
7.86, and 8.1(b)(i).
iv. The Moroccan authority excluded certain subsidized notebooks from the calculation of
normal value on the grounds that Tunisia had prohibited the notebooks from being
exported. The Panel made certain advers e findings in this respect. To arrive at its
findings, however, the Panel failed to engage with evidence and argument before it
and impermissibly addressed arguments never made. In doing so, the Panel acted
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, vitiating its findings vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.82, 7.86, and 8.1(b)(i).
v. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of the DSU, the Panel failed in
paragraphs 7.92 and 7.93 to undertake a correct interpretation of Article 17.6 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, resulting in an erroneous application of the standard of
review under the Anti -Dumping Agreement, vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.91, 7.93, 7.103, 7.107, and 8.1(b)(ii).

C. The Panel's error in applying Article 12.2.2
8. Acting inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the Panel failed to read the reasoning of the Moroccan authority in its proper context
and substituted, in paragraphs 7.141 and 7.142, its own preferred formul ation for that of the
Moroccan authority. In doing so, the Panel also misapplied Article 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, vitiating its finding in paragraphs 7.143, 7.144, and 8.1(b)(viii).
D. The Panel's errors in respect of "fair comparison"
9. The Panel made six material and reversible errors in its assessment of and findings on the fair
comparison claims of Tunisia:
i. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of the DSU, the Panel failed in paragraphs
7.152 and 7.153 to undertake a correct in terpretation of Article 17.6 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, resulting in an erroneous application of the standard of
review under the Anti -Dumping Agreement, vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.151, 7.152, 7.153, 7.184, and 8.1(b)(iii).
ii. Acting in consistently with Articles 3.2 of the DSU and 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the Panel failed in paragraphs 7.165, 7.167, and 7.168 to undertake a
correct interpretation of the first sentence of Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement. In particular, the Panel:
a) impermissibly extended and applied panel and Appellate Body findings in respect
of zeroing to the facts of this case even as the Panel found, in paragraph 7.176,
that the methodological prerequisite for those findings did not exist in this case;
and
b) incorrectly found that the first sentence of Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement applies to all calculation methodologies.
In doing so, the Panel misapplied Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, vitiating its
findings under paragraphs 7.165, 7.167, 7.168, 7.184, and 8.1(b)(iii).
iii. Acting inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, the Panel in paragraphs 7.159 and 7.160 incorrectly found that
ponderation by volume is not consis tent with Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement. In doing so, the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied Article 2.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, vitiating its findings under paragraphs 7.161, 7.184, and
8.1(b)(iii).
iv. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2, 6.2, 7, and 11 of the DSU, and Articles 2.4 and
17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
a) having correctly observed in paragraph 7.171 that the provision specifically
applicable to the facts and claim at issue was Article 2.4.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, and in paragraph 7.172 that Tunisia had not made a claim under
Article 2.4.2, the Panel inexplicably and impermissibly read the disciplines of
Article 2.4.2 into Article 2.4, and improperly found a violation of this latter; and
b) despite Morocco's repeated submissions to the Panel concerning the customary
rules of interpretation of public international law – starting as early as the
comments of the Parties on the working procedures – the Panel inexplicably and
impermissibly replaced the tr eaty text with decontextualized references to the
Larousse and the Robert.
In doing so, the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied Article 2.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, vitiating its findings under paragraphs paras. 7.171, 7.184, and 8.1(b)(iii).

E. The Panel's errors in respect of "material injury"
10. The Panel made five material and reversible errors in its assessment of and findings on the
material injury claims of Tunisia:
i. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of the DSU, instead of properly
interpreting Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in paragraph 7.196 the Panel
purported to rely on an existing Appellate Body report, materially misquoting the report
in the process. In doing so, the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, vitiating its findings under section 7.3.1.2.2, and paragraphs
7.196, 7.252, and 8.1(b)(iv).
ii. Acting inconsistently with Article 3.2 of the DSU, in paragraph 7.208 the Panel made
certain observations about the relevance of Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
in the interpretation of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that are manifestly
inconsistent with the text of the latter. In doi ng so, the Panel misinterpreted and
misapplied Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, vitiating its findings in
paragraphs 7.208, 7.209, 7.252, and 8.1(b)(iv).
iii. The Panel found, in paragraphs 7.216 and 7.217, that Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement requires that the period of price analysis must be the same as the period
for the evaluation of the economic situation of the domestic industry under Article 3.4.
In doing so, the Panel misinterpreted and misapplied Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, vitiating its findings in paragraphs 7.216, 7.217, 7.252, and 8.1(b)(iv).
iv. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of the DSU, in paragraphs 7.219 -7.221,
instead of interpreting the legal provisions at issue, the Panel purported to fol low
previous panel findings that were inapposite to the facts of the case and thereby drew
irrelevant conclusions from those other cases, misunderstood or mischaracterized the
arguments of Morocco, and misapplied Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In
doing, the Panel also made an error of law under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, vitiating its findings under paragraphs 7.219, 7.220, 7.221, 7.222, 7.252,
and 8.1(b)(iv).
v. Acting inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, the Panel appears to have
misunderstood Morocco's position concerning exercise of judicial economy in respect
of price effects analyses under Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Despite its
own findings in paragraph 7.252, and its exercise of judicial economy in respect of the
volume effects analysis of the same provision, the Panel proceeded to make obiter
findings that will not serve in any way in resolving the dispute. The Panel 's failure to
correctly appreciate, clarify, and engage with Morocco's arguments vitiate its findings
in paragraphs 7.224-7.252, and 8.1(b)(iv).
F. The Panel's errors in respect of the launch of an investigation
11. The Panel made five material and reversible errors in its assessment of and findings on the
claims of Tunisia related to the launch of the investigation:
i. Despite Morocco's repeated submissions to the Panel concerning the customary rules
of interpretation of public international law – starting as early as the comments of the
Parties on the working procedures – in paragraph 7.358 the Panel inexplicably and
impermissibly replaced the treaty text with a decontextualized and unhelpful reference
to the Larousse. In doing so, the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of
the DSU, and misinterpreted and misapplied Article 5 .3 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, vitiating its findings under paragraphs 7.358, 7.381, 7.395, and 8.1(b)(ix).
ii. The Panel refused to accept evidence on the grounds that Morocco submitted it late in
the proceedings without a valid reason. Having deprived itself of cogent evidence, the
Panel found that Morocco had not submitted the document to the Panel. In making
each of these findings, the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU,
vitiating its findings under paragraphs 7.378, 7.381, 7.395, and 8.1(b)(ix).

iii. Acting inconsistently with Articles 3.2 and 11 of the DSU, in paragraphs 7.380 and
7.387, instead of interpreting the legal provisions at issue, the Panel purported to follow
previous panel findings that where inapposite to the facts of the case and thereby drew
irrelevant conclusions from those other cases. In doing so, the Panel misinterpreted
and misapplied Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.380, 7.381, 7.395, and 8.1(b)(ix).
iv. Acting inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, in paragraph 7.393 the Panel failed to
engage with the totality of Morocco 's response, vitiating its findings under
paragraphs 7.393, 7.394, 7.395, and 8.1(b)(ix).
IV. CONCLUSION
12. Morocco requests that the Appellate Body, consistently with Article 17.12 of the DSU, address
each of the issues of law covered in the report of the Panel, legal interpretations developed by the
panel, and the conduct of the Panel pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU, as set out in this Notification
of Appeal.
13. Morocco further requests that the Appellate Body reverse the erroneous findings set out in
this Notification of Appeal.

Note by the Secretariat: Annex not reproduced.