RUSSIA – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON LIGHT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES FROM GERMANY AND ITALY AB-2017-3
Document: Report of the Appellate Body
Date: 22 March 2018
Document codes: WT/DS479/AB/R
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
AB-2017-3
Report of the Appellate Body

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Description
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade 1994
BCI business confidential information
confidential investigation
report
Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from the
anti-dumping investigation relating to light commercial vehicles
originating in Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey and imported into
the common customs territory of the Customs Union
(Confidential version) (Moscow, 2013) (Panel Exhibit RUS-14 (BCI))
Customs Union Customs Union between the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of
Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation
Customs Union Commission Customs Union Commission
DIMD Department for Internal Market Defence of the EEC
draft investigation report Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Report on the findings of the
anti-dumping investigation on imports of light commercial vehicles
from Germany, Italy, Poland, and Turkey (Non-confidential version)
(Draft report, 28 March 2013) (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and RUS-10)
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes
EAEU Eurasian Economic Union
EEC Eurasian Economic Commission
electronic customs
database
Electronic customs database of national customs authorities of the
Customs Union between the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of
Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation
Fiat Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
GAZ Gorkovsky Avtomobilny Zavod
LCVs light commercial vehicles
MIT Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation
non-confidential
investigation report
Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from the
anti-dumping investigation relating to light commercial vehicles
originating in Germany, Italy, Poland, and Turkey and imported into
the common customs territory of the Customs Union (Moscow,2013)
(Non-confidential version) (Panel Exhibits EU-21 and RUS-12)
Panel Interim Report Interim Report of the Panel issued to the parties on 26 August 2016
Panel Report Panel Report, Russia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial
Vehicles from Germany and Italy, WT/DS479/R and Add.1
PCA Peugeot Citroen Automobiles SA
PCR Peugeot Citroën Russia
period of injury assessment 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2011
period of investigation 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011
RUB Russian roubles
Sollers Sollers-Elabuga LLC
USD US dollars

Abbreviation Description
Vienna Convention Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, done at Vienna, 23 May
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review, WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August
2010
WTO World Trade Organization

PANEL EXHIBITS CITED IN THIS REPORT
Panel
Exhibit Short title Description
EU-4 Sollers' updated questionnaire
response of 31 January 2013
Response dated 31 January 2013 by Sollers-Elabuga
LLC to the EEC's "Questionnaire to Determine Material
Injury to an Industry in the Member States of the
Customs Union for Manufacturers"
(Non-confidential version)
EU-6 Turin Auto's updated
questionnaire response of
31 January 2013
Response dated 31 January 2013 by Turin Auto to the
EEC's "Questionnaire for Trading Houses"
(Non-confidential version)
EU-8 Daimler's and Mercedes'
comments of 16 March 2012 on
the public hearing
Letter dated 16 March 2012 from Daimler AG and
CJSC Mercedes-Benz RUS to the MIT, concerning
"Information to be presented … during the public
hearings scheduled for 22 March 2012 in respect of
the anti-dumping investigation concerning light
commercial vehicles conducted by the Ministry for
Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation under
the claim of OOO Sollers-Elabuga"
(including Annexes 1-9)
EU-11 Volkswagen's comments of
6 April 2012 on the public
hearing
Letter dated 6 April 2012 from Volkswagen AG to the
MIT, concerning the public consultation of 22 March
2012 (anti-dumping investigation on light commercial
vehicles from Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey)
EU-12 Annex 2 to Volkswagen's
comments of 6 April 2012
Republic of Tartastan Business Center, Press article,
"Ford Sollers Elabuga plant delivered first 1200 cars to
dealers", 1 March 2012
EU-16 draft investigation report Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Results of the
anti-dumping investigation with regard to light
commercial vehicles originating in Germany, Italy,
Poland and Turkey imported into the common customs
area of the Customs Union (Non-confidential version)
(Draft report, 28 March 2013)
EU-19 Daimler's and Mercedes'
comments of 11 April 2013 on
the draft investigation report
Letter dated 11 April 2013 from Daimler AG and ZAO
Mercedes-Benz RUS, concerning "Comments
presented on the Report of 28 March 2013, prepared
by the Department of Protection of Internal Market of
the Eurasian Economic Commission on the preliminary
findings of the anti-dumping investigation in respect of
light commercial vehicles originating in Germany,
Italy, Poland and Turkey and imported into the
common customs territory of the Customs Union of
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan"
EU-20 PCA's and PCR's comments of
11 April 2013 on the draft
investigation report
Letter dated 11 April 2013 from Peugeot Citroën
Automobiles SA (PCA) and Peugeot Citroën Russia
(PCR), concerning "the report on the results of the
anti-dumping investigation in respect of light
commercial motor vehicles originated from Federal
republic of Germany, Italian republic, Polish Republic
and Republic of Turkey and imported into the common
customs territory of the Customs Union"

Panel
Exhibit Short title Description
EU-21 non-confidential investigation
report
Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from
the anti-dumping investigation relating to light
commercial vehicles originating in Germany, Italy,
Poland, and Turkey and imported into the common
customs territory of the Customs Union (Non-
confidential version) (Moscow, 2013)
EU-22 EEC Decision No. 113 Eurasian Economic Commission, Board Decision
No. 113 of 14 May 2013, "Regarding the application of
an anti-dumping measure by introducing an
anti-dumping duty on light commercial vehicles
originating from the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Italian Republic and the Republic of Turkey, and
imported into the common customs territory of the
Customs Union"
EU-31 Comments of the Association of
Turkish exporters from the
automotive industry of
11 February 2012

Letter dated 11 February 2012 (No. 14/02-11) from
the Association of Turkish exporters from the
automotive industry, concerning the dumped import
[and its conditions], the possible injury to the
domestic industry, the causal link between the two
and the national interest factor in the investigation
RUS-2 Notice of Initiation Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian
Federation, Order No. 1587 (15 November 2011),
Notice "On Initiation of Anti-dumping Investigation
related to Light Commercial Vehicles Originating from
German, Italy, Poland and Turkey and Imported into
the Single Customs Territory of the Customs Union"
RUS-10 draft investigation report Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from
the anti-dumping investigation relating to light
commercial vehicles originating from Germany, Italy,
Poland and Turkey and imported into the single
customs territory of the Customs Union
(Non-confidential version) (Draft report, 28 March
2013)
RUS-12 non-confidential investigation
report
Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from
the anti-dumping investigation relating to light
commercial vehicles originating in Germany, Italy,
Poland, and Turkey and imported into the common
customs territory of the Customs Union of the
Department for Internal Market Defence of the
Eurasian Economic Commission (Non-confidential
version) (Moscow, 2013)
RUS-14
(BCI)
Confidential investigation
report
Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from
the anti-dumping investigation relating to light
commercial vehicles originating in Germany, Italy,
Poland and Turkey and imported into the common
customs territory of the Customs Union
(Confidential version) (Moscow, 2013)
RUS-18 EEC Letter No. 14-176 Letter No. 14-176 dated 11 April 2013 from the
Eurasian Economic Commission to ZAO Mercedes-Benz
RUS and OOO Volkswagen Group RUS

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear,
WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, p. 515
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon,
WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3327
Australia – Salmon Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/R
and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS18/AB/R, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3407
Canada – Renewable
Energy / Canada – Feed-
in Tariff Program
Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable
Energy Generation Sector / Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff
Program, WT/DS412/AB/R / WT/DS426/AB/R, adopted 24 May 2013, DSR 2013:I,
p. 7
China – Broiler Products Panel Report, China  Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler
Products from the United States, WT/DS427/R and Add.1, adopted 25 September
2013, DSR 2013:IV, p. 1041
China – GOES Appellate Body Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain
Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States, WT/DS414/AB/R,
adopted 16 November 2012, DSR 2012:XII, p. 6251
China – GOES Panel Report, China – Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented
Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States, WT/DS414/R and Add.1,
adopted 16 November 2012, upheld by Appellate Body Report WT/DS414/AB/R,
DSR 2012:XII, p. 6369
China – HP-SSST (Japan)
/ China – HP-SSST (EU)
Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on
High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from Japan /
China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless
Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from the European Union, WT/DS454/AB/R
and Add.1 / WT/DS460/AB/R and Add.1, adopted 28 October 2015
China – HP-SSST (Japan)
/ China – HP-SSST (EU)
Panel Reports, China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-
Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from Japan / China –
Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel
Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from the European Union, WT/DS454/R and Add.1 /
WT/DS460/R, Add.1 and Corr.1, adopted 28 October 2015, as modified by
Appellate Body Reports WT/DS454/AB/R / WT/DS460/AB/R
Colombia – Textiles Appellate Body Report, Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of
Textiles, Apparel and Footwear, WT/DS461/AB/R and Add.1, adopted 22 June
2016
EC – Asbestos Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and
Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR
2001:VII, p. 3243
EC – Countervailing
Measures on DRAM Chips
Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea, WT/DS299/R, adopted 3 August 2005,
DSR 2005:XVIII, p. 8671
EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R,
adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995
EC – Fasteners (China) Panel Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on
Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/R and Corr.1, adopted
28 July 2011, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS397/AB/R, DSR
2011:VIII, p. 4289
EC – Fasteners (China)
(Article 21.5 – China)
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China – Recourse to Article 21.5
of the DSU by China, WT/DS397/AB/RW and Add.1, adopted 12 February 2016
EC – Salmon (Norway) Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon
from Norway, WT/DS337/R, adopted 15 January 2008, and Corr.1, DSR 2008:I,
p. 3
EC – Seal Products Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the
Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, WT/DS400/AB/R / WT/DS401/AB/R,
adopted 18 June 2014, DSR 2014:I, p. 7

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
EC – Selected Customs
Matters
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters,
WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3791
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on
Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, WT/DS219/AB/R, adopted
18 August 2003, DSR 2003:VI, p. 2613
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast
Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, WT/DS219/R, adopted 18 August 2003, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS219/AB/R, DSR 2003:VII, p. 2701
EC and certain member
States – Large Civil
Aircraft
Appellate Body Report, European Communities and Certain Member States –
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft, WT/DS316/AB/R, adopted 1 June
2011, DSR 2011:I, p. 7
Egypt – Steel Rebar Panel Report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from
Turkey, WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2002, DSR 2002:VII, p. 2667
India – Solar Cells Appellate Body Report, India – Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar
Modules, WT/DS456/AB/R and Add.1, adopted 14 October 2016
Korea – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of
Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I,
p. 3
Mexico – Anti-Dumping
Measures on Rice
Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and
Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice, WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted 20 December
2005, DSR 2005:XXII, p. 10853
Mexico – Olive Oil Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Countervailing Measures on Olive Oil from the
European Communities, WT/DS341/R, adopted 21 October 2008, DSR 2008:IX,
p. 3179
Russia – Commercial
Vehicles
Panel Report, Russia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from
Germany and Italy, WT/DS479/R and Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 27
January 2017
Thailand – H-Beams Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and
Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/AB/R,
adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, p. 2701
US – Hot-Rolled Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001,
DSR 2001:X, p. 4697
US – Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties
(China)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/AB/R, adopted
25 March 2011, DSR 2011:V, p. 2869
US – Anti-Dumping
Methodologies (China)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Certain Methodologies and Their
Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China, WT/DS471/AB/R and
Add.1, adopted 22 May 2017
US – Anti-Dumping
Methodologies (China)
Panel Report, United States – Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-
Dumping Proceedings Involving China, WT/DS471/R and Add.1, adopted 22 May
2017, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS471/AB/R
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R
and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, p. 3779
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application of
Zeroing Methodology, WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 19 February 2009, DSR
2009:III, p. 1291
US – Countervailing Duty
Investigation on DRAMS
Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea, WT/DS296/R,
adopted 20 July 2005, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS296/AB/R,
DSR 2005:XVII, p. 8243
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April
2005, DSR 2005:XII, p. 5663 (and Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5475)
US – Hot-Rolled Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001,
DSR 2001:X, p. 4697

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
US – Large Civil Aircraft
(2nd complaint)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil
Aircraft (Second Complaint), WT/DS353/AB/R, adopted 23 March 2012, DSR
2012:I, p. 7
US – Section 211
Appropriations Act
Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
of 1998, WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, DSR 2002:II, p. 589
US – Softwood Lumber VI
(Article 21.5 – Canada)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the
DSU by Canada, WT/DS277/AB/RW, adopted 9 May 2006, and Corr.1, DSR
2006:XI, p. 4865
US – Steel Safeguards Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports
of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R,
WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R,
WT/DS259/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:VII, p. 3117
US – Upland Cotton
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton – Recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil, WT/DS267/AB/RW, adopted 20 June 2008, DSR
2008:III, p. 809
US – Washing Machines Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing
Measures on Large Residential Washers from Korea, WT/DS464/AB/R and Add.1,
adopted 26 September 2016

APPELLATE BODY

Russia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Light
Commercial Vehicles from Germany and
Italy

Russian Federation, Appellant/Appellee
European Union, Other Appellant/Appellee

Brazil, Third Participant
China, Third Participant
Japan, Third Participant
Korea, Third Participant
Turkey, Third Participant
Ukraine, Third Participant
United States, Third Participant
AB-2017-3

Appellate Body Division:

Zhao, Presiding Member
Bhatia, Member
Servansing, Member

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. The Russian Federation (Russia) and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law
and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Russia – Anti-Dumping Duties on Light
Commercial Vehicles from Germany and Italy 1 (Panel Report). The Panel was established on
20 October 20142 to consider a complaint by the European Union3 with respect to the consistency
of the levying of certain anti -dumping duties by Russia with the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti­Dumping Agreement) and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). The factual aspects of this dispute are
set forth in greater detail in the Panel Report.
1.2. Following consultation with the parties, the Panel adopted its Working Procedures on
1 December 2015 and Additional Wo rking Procedures Concerning Business Confidential
Information on 14 January 2016.4
1.3. Before the Panel, the European Union raised several claims5 in relation to anti-dumping
duties levied by Russia on certain light commercial vehicles (LCVs) from Germany and Italy
pursuant to Decision No. 113 of 14 May 2013 of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission
(EEC)6, including related annexes, notices, and reports of the Department for Internal Market
Defence of the EEC (DIMD). 7 Specifically, t he European Union claimed that the measure at

1 WT/DS479/R, 27 January 2017.
2 WT/DSB/M/351, para. 5.4.
3 Panel Report, para. 1.3; Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union,

4 Panel Report, paras. 1.8.a and 1.8.c, and Annexes A-1 and A-2.
5 Panel Report, paras. 3.1.a-3.1.i; European Union's first written submission to the Panel, para. 453.
6 See Eurasian Economic Commission, Board Decision No. 113 of 14 May 2013, "Regarding the
application of an anti-dumping measure by introducing an anti-dumping duty on light commercial vehicles
originating from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Turkey, and
imported into the common customs territory of the Customs Union" (Panel Exhibit EU-22).
7 While the European Union challenged anti-dumping duties imposed by Russia, it was the DIMD that
completed the anti-dumping investigation underlying the decision to impose those duties. When the
European Union requested consultations (on 21 May 2014) with Russia in relation to this dispute, Russia was
the only WTO Member that was part of the then called Customs Union between Belarus, Kazakhstan, and
Russia (the Customs Union), which is now the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

issue8 was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement:
(i) Articles 3.1 and 4.1 by excluding Gorkovsky Avtomobilny Zavod (GAZ) from the definition of
domestic industry; (ii) Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 , and 3.5 by selecting non -consecutive periods of
non-equal duration for the examination of the trends in the domestic industry; (iii) Articles 3.1 and
3.2 by failing to analyse properly price suppression; (iv) Articles 3.1 and 3.4 by failing to evaluate
properly all injury factors; (v) Articles 3.1 and 3.5 by failing to examine properly (a) the causal
relationship between the imports at issue and the alleged injury , and (b) factors other than the
imports at issue that have injured the domestic industry; (vi) Article 6.5 by according confidential
treatment to information without a proper showing of "good cause"; (vii) Article 6.5.1 by failing to
require interested parties to provide proper non-confidential summaries or to explain why
summarization was not possible; and (viii) Article 6.9 by failing to inform the interested parties of
the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to impose
anti-dumping measures. As a consequence of these inconsistencies, the European Union claimed
that Russia also acted inconsistently with Articles 1 and 18.4 of the A nti-Dumping Agreement and
Article VI of the GATT 1994.
1.4. In the Panel Report, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on
27 January 2017, the Panel found that:
a. with respect to the definition of domestic industry:
i. the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in its
definition of "domestic industry"9; and
ii. the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
because it undertook its injury and causation analyses on the basis of information
related to an improperly defined domestic industry10;
b. the European Union had failed to estab lish that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by purportedly using "non-equal and
non-consecutive" periods in the examination of developments in injury indicators for the
domestic industry11;
c. with respect to price suppression:
i. 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 its price
suppression analysis12;
ii. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the DIMD mixed data

8 The product at issue in the underlying anti-dumping investigation was LCVs originating from Germany,
Italy, Poland, and Turkey and imported into the then territory of the Customs Union. The LCVs investigated
were those with a gross vehicle weight of 2.8 tonnes to 3.5 tonnes inclusive, van-type bodies, with a diesel
engine with cylinder capacity not exceeding 3.000 cc, "designed for the transport of cargo of up to two tonnes
(cargo all-metal van version) or for the combined transport of cargo and passengers (combi cargo and
passenger van version) falling under HS code 8704 21 310 0 and HS code 8704 21 910 0". (European Union's
first written submission to the Panel, para. 11. See also Eurasian Economic Commission, DIMD, Findings from
the anti-dumping investigation relating to light commercial vehicles originating in Germany, Italy, Poland and
Turkey and imported into the common customs territory of the Customs Union of the Department for Internal
Market Defence of the Eurasian Economic Commission (Non-confidential version) (Moscow, 2013)
(non-confidential investigation report)(Panel Exhibits EU-21, p. 16 and RUS-12, p. 15); Notice of Initiation
(Panel Exhibit RUS-2), p. 1).
9 Panel Report, paras. 7.16 and 8.1.a.
10 Panel Report, paras. 7.16 and 8.1.b.
11 Panel Report, paras. 7.53 and 8.1.c. Having reached this conclusion, the Panel also rejected the
European Union's consequential claims of inconsistency under Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
12 Panel Report, paras. 7.67, 7.108.a, and 8.1.d.i.

expressed in US dollars (USD) and Russian roubles (RUB) without any explanation in
its price suppression analysis13;
iii. the European Union had not established that the DIMD's consideration of whether
the subject imports have "explanatory force " for the occurrence of significant
suppression of domestic prices was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement14; and
iv. the European Union had not established that the DIMD did not demonstrate that the
alleged price suppression was "to a significant degree " because the DIMD did not
compare the target domestic prices and the actual prices for the domestic like
product15;
d. with respect to the state of the domestic industry:
i. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in its consideration of
profit/profitability data16;
ii. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in its consideration of
inventories data17;
iii. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently w ith
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to compare
systematically data for 2011 with data for 2008 for all economic indicators18;
iv. the European Union had not established that the DIMD failed to examine objectively
the domestic industry's profit/profitability during the period of investigation, the first
half of 2011, and the full year of 201119;
v. the European Union had not established that the DIMD assumed that the exceptional
positive developments in the domestic industry during 2009 could continue during
2010-2011 without more explanation and "base[d] its conclusions on a comparison
between these two time periods"20;
vi. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to consider whether
the market would accept further price increases21;
vii. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to address specifically
the interested parties' arguments on the comparison of the domestic industry' s
market share in 2010 and 200822;
viii. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to evaluate the
inventories of independent dealers and the reason for the increase in inventories23;

13 Panel Report, paras. 7.73, 7.108.b, and 8.1.d.ii.
14 Panel Report, paras. 7.108.c and 8.1.d.iii.
15 Panel Report, paras. 7.107, 7.108.d, and 8.1.d.iv.
16 Panel Report, paras. 7.117, 7.173.a, and 8.1.e.i.
17 Panel Report, paras. 7.123, 7.173.b, and 8.1.e.ii.
18 Panel Report, paras. 7.133, 7.173.c, and 8.1.e.iii.
19 Panel Report, paras. 7.138, 7.173.d, and 8.1.e.iv.
20 Panel Report, paras. 7.141, 7.173.e, and 8.1.e.v.
21 Panel Report, paras. 7.143, 7.173.f, and 8.1.e.vi.
22 Panel Report, paras. 7.153, 7.173.g, and 8.1.e.vii.
23 Panel Report, paras. 7.155, 7.157, 7.173.h, and 8.1.e.viii.

ix. the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by
failing to evaluate the magnitude of the margin of dumping24; and
x. the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to evaluate the
domestic industry's return on investments, actual and potential effects on c ash flow,
and the ability to raise capital or investments25;
e. with respect to causation and non-attribution:
i. the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article s 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement insofar as it relied on its price suppression analysis in its causation
determination26;
ii. the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD's determination that the
increased volume of dumped imports caused material injury to the domestic industry
was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement27;
iii. the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to conduct a proper
non-attribution analysis of the termination of the licence agreement with
Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino (Fiat)28;
iv. the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in its non-attribution analysis of
the competition from GAZ29;
v. the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to consider the alleged
financing difficulties as an "other factor" causing injury30;
vi. the European Union had failed to establi sh that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to consider the alleged
discontinuation of the government support programmes as an "other factor" causing
injury31; and
vii. the DIMD acted inconsistently wi th Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement by failing to: (a) examine whether the alleged overly ambitious business
plan of Sollers-Elabuga LLC (Sollers), in particular its level of capacity, was causing
injury to the domestic industry at the same time as dumped imports ; and, if so, (b)
separate and distinguish the injurious effects of that factor from the injurious effect s
of the dumped imports32;

24 Panel Report, paras. 7.162, 7.174, and 8.1.e.ix.
25 Panel Report, paras. 7.172, 7.173.i, and 8.1.e.x.
26 Panel Report, paras. 7.182. 7.236, and 8.1.f.i.
27 Panel Report, paras. 7.237.a and 8.1.f.ii.
28 Panel Report, paras. 7.202, 7.237.b, and 8.1.f.iii.
29 Panel Report, paras. 7.214, 7.237.c, and 8.1.f.iv.
30 Panel Report, paras. 7.230, 7.237.d, and 8.1.f.v.
31 Panel Report, paras. 7.235, 7.237.e, and 8.1.f.vi.
32 Panel Report, paras. 7.226, 7.237, and 8.1.f.vii.

f. with respect to confidential treatment of information:
i. the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by
treating all information set out in Table 11 of the Panel Report as confidential in the
absence of any showing of "good cause"33; and
ii. the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD treated the Sollers letter
dated 25 December 2012 and the letter of the Association of Russian Automakers
dated 11 February 2013 as confidential34;
g. with respect to claims concerning the disclosure of essential facts:
i. the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to inform all interested parties
of the information listed in items (a) to ( c) of Table 12 in paragraph 7.278 of the
Panel Report35; and
ii. the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by
failing to inform all interested parties of the information listed in items ( d) to (o) of
Table 12 in paragraph 7.278 of the Panel Report36; and
h. with respect to the European Union's consequential claims:
i. Russia acted inconsistently with Article 1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and
Article VI of the GATT 199437; and
ii. the European Union had not established its consequential claim under Article 18.4 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.38
1.5. In accordance with Article 19.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and having found that Russia acted inconsistently with certain
provisions of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and th e GATT 1994, the Panel recommended that
Russia bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under those Agreements.39
1.6. On 20 February 2017 , Russia notified the Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB), pursuant to
Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the
Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel , and filed a Notice of
Appeal40 and appellant's submission pursuant to Rule 20 and Rule 21, respectively, of the
Working Procedures for Appellate Review41 (Working Procedures). On 27 February 2017 , the
European Union notified the DSB, pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the DSU, of its intention to
appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed
by the Panel , and filed a Notice of Other Appeal 42 and other appellant's submission pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Working Procedures.
1.7. On 24 February 2017, the Appellate Body received a communication from the United States
requesting an extension of the deadline for filing third participants' submissions. On 1 March and
3 March 2017, the Appellate Body received a communication from Russia and the European Union,
respectively, requesting an extension of the deadline for filing appellees' submissions. After having
invited the participants and third participants to comment on these requests, the Division issued a
Procedural Ruling on 4 March 2017, extending the deadline for filing appellees' submissions to

33 Panel Report, para. 8.1.g.i. See also para. 7.247. In light of this finding, the Panel did not consider it
necessary to address the European Union's claims under Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
(Ibid., paras. 7.249 and 8.2)
34 Panel Report, paras. 7.246.d and 8.1.g.ii.
35 Panel Report, paras. 7.278 and 8.1.h.i.
36 Panel Report, paras. 7.278 and 8.1.h.ii.
37 Panel Report, paras. 7.280 and 8.3.a.
38 Panel Report, paras. 7.281 and 8.3.b.
39 Panel Report, para. 8.5.
40 WT/DS479/6.
41 WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010.
42 WT/DS479/7.

14 March 2017, and the deadline for filing third participant's submissions and notifications under
Rule 24(1) and (2) of the Working Procedures to 17 March 2017.43
1.8. On 14 March 2017, the European Union and Russia each filed an appellee's submission .44
On 17 March 2017, Brazil, Japan, Ukraine, and the United States each filed a third participant's
submission.45 On the same day, Korea notified its intention to a ppear at the oral hearing as a
third participant.46 Subsequently, China and Turkey each notified its intention to appear at the
oral hearing as a third participant.47
1.9. By letter dated 13 April 2017, the Chair of the Appellate Body notified the Chair of the DSB
that the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its Report in this appeal wit hin the
60-day period pursuant to Article 17.5 of the DSU , or within the 90 -day period pursuant to the
same provision .48 The Chair of the Appellate Body explained that this was due to a number of
factors, including the substantial workload of the Appellate Body in 2017, scheduling issues arising
from overlap in the composition of the Divisions hearing different appeals, the number and
complexity of the issues raised in this and concurrent appellate proceedings, together with the
demands that these appellate proceedings place on the WTO Secretariat's translation services, and
the shortage of staff in the Appellate Body Secretariat. By letter dated 8 March 2018, the Chair of
the Appellate Body informed the Chair of the DSB that the Report in these pro ceedings would be
circulated no later than 22 March 2018.49
1.10. On 11 September 2017, the Chair of the Appellate Body notified the participants and
third participants that Appellate Body Member Mr Hyun Chong Kim, a member of the Division
selected to hear this a ppeal, had resigned on 1 August 2017 pursuant to Rule 14 of the
Working Procedures with immediate effect. The Chair of the Appellate Body indicated that,
pursuant to Rules 6(2) and 13 of the Working Procedures, Appellate Body Member Mr Shree B.C.
Servansing replaced Mr Kim on the Appellate Body Division hearing this appeal.
1.11. On 21 September 2017, Russia requested the Division hearing this appeal to reschedule the
oral hearing from 13 -14 November 2017 to the middle of January 20 18. On 22 September 2017,
the Division invited the European Union and the third participants to comment on Russia's request.
In a letter dated 25 September 2017, the European Union objected to Russia's request to delay
the hearing. By letter dated 27 September 2017, the Divisio n informed the participants and third
participants that it was not in a position to accommodate Russia's request.
1.12. By letter dated 23 October 2017, Russia and the European Union jointly requested the
Division hearing this appeal to adopt additional procedures for the protection of business
confidential information ( BCI) in these appellate proceedings . On 25 October 2017, the Division
invited the third participants to comment on the joint request . By letter dated 27 October 2017,
the United States commented on the suggested provision regarding the resolution of any
disagreement on the BCI designation of information. No other third participant commented on the
joint request. On 7 November 2017, the Division issued a Procedural Ruling according additional
protection, on specified terms, to the information that the Panel treated as BCI in its Report and in
the Panel record.50

43 On 6 March 2017, in order to rectify a clerical error, a corrected version of the Procedural Ruling and
a revised Working Schedule for this appeal were conveyed to the participants and third participants. The
corrected Procedural Ruling is contained in Annex D-1 of the Addendum to this Report
(WT/DS479/AB/R/Add.1).
44 Pursuant to Rules 22 and 23(4) of the Working Procedures.
45 Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures.
46 Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working Procedures.
47 On 7 and 8 November 2017, respectively, China and Turkey submitted their delegation lists for the
oral hearing to the Appellate Body Secretariat and the participants and third participants in this dispute. For
purposes of this appeal, we have interpreted China's and Turkey's action to be a notification expressing the
intention to attend the oral hearing pursuant to Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures.
48 WT/DS479/8.
49 WT/DS479/9.
50 The Procedural Ruling is contained in Annex D-2 of the Addendum to this Report
(WT/DS479/AB/R/Add.1).

1.13. The oral hearing in this appeal was held on 13-14 November 2017 . The participants and
four of the third participants (Japan, Ukraine, Turkey, and the United States) made
oral statements and responded to questions posed by the Members of the Division hearing the
appeal.
2 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS
2.1. The claims and arguments of the participants are reflected in the executiv e summaries of
their written submissions provided to the Appellate Body.51 The Notice s of Appeal and
Other Appeal, and the executive summaries of the participants' claims and arguments, are
contained in Annexes A and B of the Addendum to this Report, WT/DS479/AB/R/Add.1.
3 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS
3.1. The arguments of the third participants that filed a written submission ( Brazil, Japan,
Ukraine, and the United States ) are reflected in the executive summar ies of their written
submissions provided to the Appellate Body52, and are contained in Annex C of the A ddendum to
this Report, WT/DS479/AB/R/Add.1.
4 ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL
4.1. The following issues are raised in this appeal:
a. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD acted inconsistently with these
provisions in its definition of "domestic industry" (raised by Russia);
b. with respect to price suppression:
i. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD acted inconsistently with these
provisions because it failed to take into account the impact of the financial crisis in
determining the rate of return used to construct t he target domestic price for its
price suppression analysis (raised by Russia);
ii. whether the Panel failed to make an objective assessment under Article 11 of the
DSU in finding that the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted
inconsistently w ith Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement when
assessing the "explanatory force" of dumped imports for price suppression and
whether the degree of price suppression was "significant" (raised by the
European Union);
- conditionally, in the event the Appellate Body disagrees with the
European Union's claims under Article 11 of the DSU, whether the Panel erred in
its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement in finding that the DIMD's methodology will necessarily show that the
dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the existence of price suppression
(raised by the European Union); and
- in the event that the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's findings in this regard ,
whether the Appellate Body can complete the analysis and find that the DIMD
acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by
failing to consider whether the dumped imports have explanatory force for the
existence of "significant" price suppression (requested by the European Union);

51 Pursuant to the Appellate Body's communication on "Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" and "Guidelines in Respect of Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" (WT/AB/23, 11 March 2015).
52 Pursuant to the Appellate Body's communication on "Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" and "Guidelines in Respect of Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" (WT/AB/23, 11 March 2015).

iii. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of
the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the evidence on the record was not
sufficient to require an objective and unbiased investigating authority to consider
whether the market would absorb price increases beyond those that actually took
place in the context of its consideration of price suppression (raised by the
European Union);
- conditionally, in the event that the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's findings in
this regard, whether the Appellate Body can complete the analysis and find that
the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement by failing to examine whether the market would ac cept additional
domestic price increases (requested by the European Union);
c. whether, by basing its assessment of the European Union's claims under A rticles 3.1 and
3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on parts of the confidential investigation report, the
Panel failed to: (i) make an objective assessment of the matter before it pursuant to
Article 11 of the DSU; and (ii) determine whether the DIMD's establishment of the facts
was proper and whether its evaluation of those facts was unbiased and objective within
the mean ing of Article 17.6 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement (raised by the
European Union);
i. conditionally, in the event that the Appellate Body reverses the Panel findings,
whether the Appellate Body can complete the analysis and find that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti –Dumping Agreement by failing to
evaluate the three injury factors at issue (requested by the European Union);
d. with respect to dealers related to Sollers , whether the Panel erred in its interpretation
and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the
DIMD was not required to evaluate the inventory information of Turin Auto in examining
injury to the domestic industry (raised by the European Union); and
e. with respect to the disclosure of essential facts:
i. whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and applica tion of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that:
- a failure to disclose essential facts that were not properly treated as confidenti al
under Article 6.5 would lead to an inconsistency with Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement (raised by Russia);
- the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
not disclosing the actual figures for the import volumes and the weighted average
import price of LCVs produced by each German exporting producer and the
figures for domestic consumption and production volumes of LCVs in the
Customs Union (raised by Russia);
- the data concerning the actual import volumes and the weighted average import
price of LCVs produced by Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG that originated from
the electronic customs database was not properly treated as confidential
(raised by Russia);
- a methodology is not an "essential fact" within the meaning of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement (raised by the European Union);
- not every "essential fact" is required to be disclosed, but only those that are
additionally shown to be "under consideration" (raised by the European Union);
- a source of data in general and the source of data concerning import volumes and
values used by the DIMD in its dumping and injury determinations are not
"essential facts" within the meaning of Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
(raised by the European Union);

ii. whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 15.2 and 7 of the DSU by
adding, in paragraph 7.270 of the Panel Report, a legal finding under Article 6.5 of
the Anti -Dumping Agreement that had not appeared in the Panel's Interim Report
(raised by Russia);
iii. conditionally, in the event that the Appellate Body reverses the relevant Panel's
findings concerning essential facts:
- whether the Appellate Body can complete the analysis and find that the DIMD
acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to
disclose the "essential facts" at issue (requested by the European Union); and
- whether the Appellate Body can complete the analysis and find that, by failing to
disclose the source of information concerning import volumes and values in its
dumping and injury determinations, the DIMD ac ted inconsistently with
Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (requested by the European Union).
5 ANALYSIS OF THE APPELLATE BODY
5.1 Definition of domestic industry
5.1.1 Introduction
5.1. Russia appeals the Panel's f inding that the DIMD acted incon sistently with Articles 3.1
and 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement when defining the domestic industry. 53 Russia's main
claim is that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 4.1 by failing to take into
account Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Russia argues that an injury determination
would be inconsistent with Article 3.1 if an investigating authority were to rely on deficient
information provided by domestic producers of the like product. To Russia, producers that provided
such deficient information cannot be included in the definition of domestic industry under
Article 4.1.54 Russia requests us to reverse the Panel findings at issue. 55 By contrast, the
European Union requests us to uphold the Panel's findings. To the European Union, the Panel
correctly found that Article 4.1, "in light of the requirement to carry out an objective assessment
based on positive evidence, implies that an investigating authority cannot define … a 'domestic
industry' on the basis of the alleged deficient information provided by one or some producers."56
5.2. At the outset, we recall that both Sollers and GAZ produced the domestic like product at
issue in this anti -dumping investigation. The DIMD sent anti -dumping questionna ires to both
companies and, after reviewing their responses, defined the domestic industry as comprising only
Sollers.57
5.3. Before examining Russia's claims of error on appeal, we summarize the relevant Panel
findings with respect to Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We then set out our
understanding of this provision. Thereafter, we turn to examine the merits of Russia's claims on
appeal.
5.1.2 Panel's findings
5.4. Before the Panel, the European Union argued that the DIMD's definition of domestic industry
is inconsistent with Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because GAZ was
impermissibly excluded from the domestic industry, leading to a risk of distorting the injury

53 Panel Report, paras. 7.15-7.16; Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 63-65.
54 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 40-42, 44, 50-51, and 54.
55 Russia refers to: (i) paragraphs 7.15.c, 7.21.b, 7.21.c, 7.26.a, 7.27, 8.1.a, and footnote 85 to
paragraph 7.15.c (regarding the interpretation of Article 4.1); (ii) paragraphs 7.15.a and 7.21.d (regarding the
risk of distortion); and (iii) paragraphs 7.16, 7.22, 7.27, and 8.1.b of the Panel Report (regarding the
consequential inconsistency with Article 3.1). (Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 63-65)
56 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 34.
57 Panel Report, para. 7.12.

analysis.58 Russia responded that, although the domestic industry initially included both Sollers
and GAZ, the DIMD conducted the injury analysis only in relation to Sollers due to the deficiency in
GAZ's questionnaire responses.59
5.5. The Panel noted that the term "domestic industry" in Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement may be interpreted as either the domestic producers as a whole of the
like products, or domestic producers whose collective output constitutes a major proportion of the
total domestic production of those products. The Panel also observed that "producers of d omestic
like products may not be left out of the definition of domestic industry on the basis of
considerations or selection methods that, by their nature, are likely to distort the subsequent
injury determination."60
5.6. Turning to the facts of this case, the Panel observed that, according to the DIMD's
investigation report on imports of LCVs from Germany, Italy, Poland, and Turkey 61, the DIMD
initially identified the domestic producers of the like product as Sollers and GAZ. The DIMD then
sent questionnaires to both producers, reviewed their responses, and defined the domestic
industry as comprising only Sollers on the basis of its 87.9% share of total domestic production of
the like product. 62 The Panel considered that an 87.9% share of total domestic production falls
within the quantitative bounds of the term "major proportion" of the total domestic production in
Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.63 The Panel noted, however, that the de finition of
domestic industry as a "major proportion of the total domestic production" under Article 4.1 has
both a quantitative and a qualitative aspect .64 A qualitative assessment of a "major proportion" of
the total domestic production implies ensuring t hat the approach of the investigating authority ,
including its methodology for selecting the domestic industry, does not create a risk of distortion in
the injury analysis.65
5.7. The Panel identified three concerns related to the DIMD's approach in this investigation. First,
the DIMD decided not to include in the definition of domestic industry a known producer of the like
product that had provided data and had sought to cooperate in the investigation , after having
reviewed that producer's data. To the Panel, this sequence of events gave rise to an appearance of
selecting among domestic producers based on their data to ensure a particular outcome, resulting
in a risk of distortion in the subsequent injury analysis.66
5.8. Second, the reasons given by Russia for the DI MD's decision not to include GAZ in the
definition of domestic industry were not set out in the investigation report. The Panel thus
considered that these reasons constituted an impermissible post hoc rationalization.67
5.9. Third, in relation to Russia's argum ent that the data provided by GAZ suffered from
deficiencies, the Panel considered that nothing in Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
suggests that a Member may ignore a domestic producer for purposes of defining the domestic
industry on the basis o f alleged deficiencies in the information provided by that producer to the

58 Panel Report, paras. 7.4-7.5; European Union's first written submission to the Panel, para. 63.
59 Panel Report, paras. 7.6-7.8; Russia's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 38 and 41-43;
response to Panel question No. 13(c), para. 44; second written submission to the Panel, paras. 24 and 46-47;
response to Panel question No. 64, paras. 20-22.
60 Panel Report, para. 7.11. In this respect, the Panel noted the following two examples: (i) an
investigating authority may not leave out an entire group of domestic producers of the like product (referring
to Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), paras. 7.107-7.108 and 7.112); and (ii) an investigating authority
may not limit the domestic industry to only those producers willing to participate in the investigation by
providing data for a sample (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), paras. 426-427
and 430). (Panel Report, para. 7.11)
61 Non-confidential investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-21 and RUS-12).
62 Panel Report, para. 7.12.
63 Panel Report, para. 7.13.
64 Panel Report, para. 7.15 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), paras. 5.298-5.303).
65 Panel Report, para. 7.15.
66 Panel Report, para. 7.15.a.
67 Panel Report, para. 7.15.b.

investigating authority.68 To the Panel, t he definition of domestic industry and the collection and
use of data from that domestic industry are separate issues.69
5.10. The Panel concluded that the DIMD defined the domestic industry as Sollers only after it had
received the questionnaire responses from both Sollers and GAZ. For the reasons set out above,
the Panel found that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
in its definition of domestic industry. As a consequence, the Panel also found that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.70
5.1.3 Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.11. Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement defines the term "domestic industry" as referring
to: (i) the domestic producers as a whole of the like products; or (ii) those producers whose
collective output of the products constitutes a major proportion of th e total domestic production of
those products. At the same time, Article 4.1 provides for two situations where producers of the
like product may be excluded from the definition of domestic industry: (i) where producers are
"related" to exporters or importe rs or are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped product;
and (ii) where the territory of a Member is divided into competitive markets and the producers
within each market are regarded as a separate industry under specified conditions.
5.12. The Appellate Body has explained that, by using the term "major proportion", the second
method of defining the domestic industry focuses on the question of how much production must be
represented by those producers of the like product making up the domestic industry wh en the
domestic industry is defined as less than the domestic producers as a whole. 71 The Appellate Body
has read the "major proportion" requirement in Article 4.1 as having both quantitative and
qualitative connotations.72
5.13. Regarding the quantitative element , Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement does not
stipulate a specific proportion for evaluating whether a certain percentage constitutes a "major
proportion".73 The Appellate Body, however, has indicated that "[t]he absence of a specific
proportion does not mean … that any percentage, no matter how low, could automatically qualify
as 'a major proportion'."74 The qualitative element, in turn, is concerned with ensuring that the
domestic producers of the like product that are included in the definition of domestic industry are
representative of the total domestic production. The Appellate Body has explained that there is an
inverse relationship between, on the one hand, the proportion of total production included in the
domestic industry and, on the other h and, the existence of a material risk of distortion in the
definition of domestic industry and in the assessment of injury. The lower the proportion, the more
sensitive an investigating authority will have to be to ensure that the proportion used sufficien tly

68 Panel Report, para. 7.15.c. The Panel explained that, where producers included in the domestic
industry fail to cooperate with the investigation, the investigating authority "may be forced to … seek additional
information, … may face difficulties in verifying information received [and] may ultimately have to proceed on
the basis of less than complete information regarding the domestic industry". (Ibid., fn 85 thereto)
69 Panel Report, fn 85 to para. 7.15.c.
70 Panel Report, para. 7.16. Given that, at the later stages of the Panel proceedings, both Russia and
the European Union suggested a different sequence of events with respect to the timing of the definition of
domestic industry, the Panel made alternative findings in relation to alternative factual scenarios. In this
respect, the Panel addressed Russia's contention that the DIMD had initially defined the domestic industry as
comprising both Sollers and GAZ, then considered only Sollers' information because of deficiencies in GAZ's
information, and redefined the domestic industry to include only Sollers. The Panel noted that Russia's
contention is not supported by the chronology of events set out in the DIMD's investigation report, and thus
constituted a post hoc rationalization. (Ibid., paras. 7.22, 7.26.b, and 7.27) Even if it were to accept that the
DIMD initially defined the domestic industry to include Sollers and GAZ, the Panel explained that it would have
found that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by excluding GAZ
from the domestic industry. (Ibid., paras. 7.22 and 7.27)
71 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 411.
72 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 – China), para. 5.302.
73 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 411. As the Appellate Body clarified, the 25%
benchmark under Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement concerns the issue of standing of the domestic
industry for the initiation of an investigation, and does not address the question of what constitutes "a major
proportion" in Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (Ibid., paras. 418 and 425)
74 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 412.

represents the total production of the producers as a whole. 75 A definition of domestic industry
that includes a very high proportion that "substantially reflects the total domestic production" will
very likely satisfy both the quantitative and qualitat ive aspects of the requirements of Articles 4.1
and 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.76
5.14. The Appellate Body has read the definition of domestic indu stry in Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement together with the require ment in Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement that the determination of injury "be based on positive evidence and involve an
objective examination". 77 An " objective examination", pursuant to Article 3.1 , requires that the
effects of dumped imports on the domestic industry be investigated in an unbiased manner, without
favouring the interests of any interested party, or group of interested parties in the investigation.78
In this respect, to ensure the accuracy of an injury determination, an investigating authority must
not act so as to gi ve rise to a material risk of distortion in defining the domestic industry, for
example, by excluding a whole category of producers of the like product.79
5.1.4 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1
and 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.15. At the outset, we observe that the European Union submits that certain of Russia's claims
and arguments concern the Panel's alternative findings 80 and thus need not be addressed . To the
European Union, given that Russia has not appealed th e assessment of facts by the Panel under
Article 11 of the DSU, Russia accepts the factual basis on which the Panel made its main finding. 81
The Panel's main finding was based on the factual assessment that the DIMD defined the domestic
industry as Sollers only after it had received the questionnaire responses from both Sollers and
GAZ.82 The Panel's alternative findings were based on the alternative factual assessment that the
DIMD had initially defined the domestic industry as comprising both Sollers and GA Z, then
considered only Sollers' information because of deficiencies in GAZ's information, and redefined
the domestic industry to include only Sollers.83
5.16. We note that Russia has not challenged on appeal the Panel's factual assessment
underpinning its main finding under Article 4.1. To the extent that this assessment is left
undisturbed, we consider that it is not necessary to address Russia's claims and argument s
concerning the Panel's alternative factual findings. Nevertheless, we observe that some of the
Panel's reasoning substantiating its main and alternative findings is intertwined. Thus, insofar as
Russia refers to elements of the Panel's alternative findings that are also reflected in the Panel's
main finding, we consider these references when address ing the substantive issues raised by
Russia on appeal.

75 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 412; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.302.
76 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), paras. 414 and 419; EC – Fasteners (China)
(Article 21.5 – China), paras. 5.300 and 5.303. The Appellate Body has recognized the difficulty of obtaining
information regarding domestic producers, particularly in special market situations, such as fragmented
industries with numerous producers. In such special cases, the term "major proportion" in Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement provides an investigating authority with some flexibility to define the domestic
industry. Therefore, what constitutes a "major proportion" may be lower in light of the practical constraints of
obtaining information in a special market situation. Nevertheless, in such cases, an investigating authority
bears the same obligation to ensure that the way in which it defines the domestic industry does not introduce a
material risk of skewing the economic data and, consequently, distorting its analysis of the state of the
industry. Ultimately, the definition of domestic industry must remain representative of total domestic
production. (See Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 416; EC – Fasteners (China)
(Article 21.5 – China), paras. 5.301 and 5.303)
77 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.
78 Appellate Body Reports, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 193; EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC –
Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 – China), para. 5.300. See also Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China)
(Article 21.5 – China), paras. 5.319 and 5.323.
79 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.
80 See supra, fn 70.
81 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 27-28, 31, 60, 75, and 83.
82 See Panel Report, paras. 7.15-7.16.
83 See Panel Report, paras. 7.17-7.27.

5.17. Russia claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 4.1 by
failing to take into account Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.84 Russia's claim concerns
the Panel's understanding that the definition of domestic industry and the collection and use of
data from that domestic industry are separate issues. The Panel considered that "data collection
concerns cannot be a consideration for determining w hich specific producers are included in the
domestic industry and which are not."85
5.18. Russia submits that the definition of domestic industry must be based on ample and reliable
data to ensure an accurate injury analysis. To Russia, where the definition of do mestic industry
includes the domestic producers of the like product that did not provide credible and reliable data,
an investigating authority is not able to meet the requirement of Article 3.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement to determine injury based on "p ositive evidence". Russia thus argues
that, when interpreted in the context of Article 3.1, Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
requires investigating authorities to define the domestic industry based on considerations of
"objective examination" and "positive evidence".86 Russia submits that the Panel's interpretation of
Article 4.1 creates a conflict between the obligation to define the domestic industry under
Article 4.1 and the obligation to base the injury determination on "positive evidence" under
Article 3.1.87 In Russia's view, the Panel's conclusion results in a situation where, in the absence of
reliable data on injury indicators, the investigating authority would be required to base its injury
determination on data that does not comport with the requirements of Article 3.1.88
5.19. The European Union submits that Russia confuses, on the one hand, the obligation to define
the domestic industry in an objective manner and the evidence required to do so under Article 4.1
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement and, on the other hand, the collection and use of data from the
domestic industry to determine injury under Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.89 To the
European Union, there is no reason why compliance with Article 4.1 would conflict with the
obligation to base the injury determination on "positive evidence ".90 In addition, the
European Union contends that allowing an investigating authority to define the domestic industry
on the basis of its assessment of the quality of the information gives rise to a mat erial risk of
distortion in the injury analysis.91
5.20. As noted above, Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement defines the term
"domestic industry" in relation to the domestic producers of the like product . Article 4.1 also
provides for two specific situations where those producers may be excluded from the definition of
domestic industry.92 This provision does not , however, refer to the non -inclusion of producers of
the like product in the domestic industry definition based on the investigating authori ty's
consideration of alleged deficiencies in the information submitted by domestic producers.
In addition, as noted earlier, t he Appellate Body has read the definition of domestic industry in
Article 4.1 together with the require ment in Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the
determination of injury "be based on positive evidence and involve an objective examination". 93 To
ensure the accuracy of an injury determination, an investigating authority must not act so as to
give rise to a material risk of distortion in defining the domestic industry.94

84 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 40-42.
85 Panel Report, fn 85 to para. 7.15.c.
86 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 23 and 40-41.
87 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 42 and 44.
88 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 45.
89 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 61, 65, 67, and 77. To the European Union, while
data collection problems can arise during an investigation, the issue under Article 4.1 concerns the definition of
domestic industry and not the quality of the data provided by domestic producers. (Ibid., para. 61)
90 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 65 and 70. The European Union submits that, rather
than excluding a part of the domestic industry, an investigating authority making an objective assessment
based on positive evidence under Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is required to seek the evidence
necessary to undertake the injury assessment in relation to the domestic industry, as defined at the outset.
(Ibid., para. 70)
91 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 61.
92 See para. 5.11 above.
93 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.
94 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.

5.21. Thus, contrary to Russia's argument, Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement neither
permits nor obliges an investigating authority to derogate from defining the domestic industry in
relation to the dome stic producers of the like product, so as to leave out producers that provided
allegedly deficient data. Rather than being permitted or even required by Article 3.1, as Russia
seems to argue, the non -inclusion of domestic producers of the like product in t he domestic
industry definition solely on the basis that they furnished allegedly deficient information is
incompatible with the requirements of this provision. This is because, i f an investigating authority
were permitted to leave out, from the definition of domestic industry , domestic producers of the
like product that provided allegedly deficient information, a material risk of distortion would arise
in the injury analysis. 95 The non-inclusion of this category of producers could make the domestic
industry definition no longer representative of the total domestic production, thereby undermining
the accuracy of the injury analysis.
5.22. Rather than leaving a producer of the like product that provided allegedly deficient
information out of the domestic industry, t he investigating authority should seek to obtain
additional information from that domestic producer. In this respect, Article 6.6 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that investigating authorities shall, "during the course of an
investigation", satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of the information supplied. Article 6.7 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement sets out additional actions that authorities may take to verify
information provided or to obtain further details. Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement allows
investigating authorities to make determinations on the basis of facts available in cases where an
interested party refuses access to or otherwise does not provide necessary information, or
significantly impedes the investigation. Thus, tools exis t under the Anti -Dumping Agreement to
address the inaccuracy and incompleteness of information. We therefore disagree with Russia's
proposition that, in order to ensure the accuracy of the injury analysis, an investigating authority
needs, from the outset, to leave out of the definition of domestic industry the domestic producers
of the like product that provided allegedly deficient information. As noted by the United States, the
deficiency of information need not have a bearing on whether a domestic producer can be included
in the definition of domestic industry under Article 4.1, or o n whether the r equirements of
Article 3.1 could be met.96
5.23. For the reasons above, we do not consider that the requirements of Article 3.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement permit investigating authorities to leave domestic producers of the like
product out of the definition of domestic industry because of alleged deficiencies in the information
submitted by those producers. We also disagree with Russia that the Panel's interpretation of
Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement creates a conflict between the obligation to defin e the
domestic industry under Article 4.1 and the obligation to base the injury determination on "positive
evidence" under Article 3.1.97 To the contrary, the requirement in Article 3.1 that an investigating
authority conduct an "objective examination" does not provide support for the proposition that
domestic producers of the like product providing allegedly deficient information may be left out of
the definition of domestic industry. Instead, as explained above, the Appellate Body has relied on
Article 3.1 to explain that an investigating authority must not act so as to give rise to a material
risk of distortion in the injury analysis when defining the domestic industry.98
5.24. Russia also claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by reducing the term "major proportion" to inutility.99 Russia argues that
Article 4.1 allows an investigating authority to define the domestic industry as a "major proportion

95 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.
96 United States' third participant's submission, para. 13.
97 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 42 and 44.
98 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.
99 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 51 and 55.

of the total domestic production" when information on certai n domestic producers is deficient,
unreliable, incomplete, or unavailable.100
5.25. The European Union submits that the Panel's interpretation of Articl e 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement does not prevent an investigating authority from basing the definition of
domestic industry on a "major proportion of the total domestic production". The European Union
stresses that the "major proportion" criterion is subject to the qualitative requirement under
Article 4.1.101
5.26. We first observe that Russia contended before the Pane l that GAZ was not part of the
definition of domestic industry because of the alleged deficiency in the information provided by this
producer. The Panel considered that the reason given by Russia was not set out in the DIMD's
investigation report. On this basis, the Panel stated that this reason constitute d an impermissible
post hoc rationalization.102 We note that Russia does not challenge this Panel statement on appeal.
Thus, this assertion by Russia has not been substantiated and was rejected by the Panel as an
impermissible post hoc rationalization.
5.27. Turning to the substance of this claim, we note Russia's argument that Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement allows an investigating authority to define the domestic industry as a
"major proportion of the total domestic production" when information on certain domestic
producers is deficient, unrelia ble, incomplete, or unavailable. 103 We recall that , if an investigating
authority does not include domestic producers of the like product in the domestic industry
definition because th ose producers submitted allegedly deficient information, a material risk o f
distortion would arise in the injury analysis. This is because the failure to include those producers
could make the definition of domestic industry no longer representative of the total domestic
production.104 As explained earlier, the Appellate Body has interpreted the "major proportion"
requirement under A rticle 4.1 as having both quantitative and qualitative connotations .105 The
qualitative element is concerned with ensuring that the domestic producers of the like product that
are included in the "domesti c industry" are representative of the total domestic production. While
the definition of domestic industry that is based on the "major proportion" needs to satisfy both
elements, there is an inverse relationship between, on the one hand, the proportion of the total
production included in the domestic industry and, on the other hand, a material risk of distortion in
the definition of domestic industry and in the assessment of injury.106
5.28. Moreover, we recall that the Appellate Body has recognized the difficulty of obtaining
information regarding domestic producers in certain situations, such as fragmented industries with
numerous producers.107 In such special cases, the term "major proportion" in Article 4.1 allows an
investigating authority a certain degree of flexibility in defining the domestic industry. 108
Nevertheless, an investigating authority continues to bear the obligation to ensure that the way in
which it defines the domestic industry does not introduce a material risk of distortion into the

100 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 54. Russia takes issue with the Panel's understanding that,
pursuant to Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, it is not possible to leave domestic producers of the
like product out of the definition of domestic industry on account of the non-availability of reliable and correct
information from those producers. (See ibid., paras. 50-51) While Russia refers to a passage of the Panel's
alternative findings (ibid., para. 49 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.27)), we observe that the Panel made a
similar statement in the context of its main finding under Article 4.1. There, the Panel stated that "[n]othing in
Article 4.1 suggests that a Member may ignore a domestic producer for the purposes of defining the domestic
industry on the basis of alleged 'gaps' in the information the producer has provided to the investigating
authority." (Panel Report, para. 7.15.c. (emphasis original))
101 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 79.
102 Panel Report, para. 7.15.b (in relation to the Panel's main finding), and para. 7.27 (in relation to the
Panel's alternative findings).
103 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 54.
104 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 414; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.300.
105 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 – China), para. 5.302.
106 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 412; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.302.
107 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 415; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.301.
108 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), paras. 414-416 and 419; EC – Fasteners (China)
(Article 21.5 – China), para. 5.301.

injury analysis.109 In our view, the situation where an investigating authority is unable to collect
any information at all from every domestic producer due to the fragmented nature of the industry
is different from the situation where a domestic producer sought to coo perate in the investigation
and did submit information that the investigating authority, however, considered to be deficient.
5.29. We consider that the Panel correctly recognized that an investigating authority could define
the domestic industry as a "major pro portion" of the total domestic production as long as both the
quantitative and qualitative elements are satisfied. 110 The Panel also correctly found that
Article 4.1 does not allow an investigating authority to leave out of the definition of domestic
industry the domestic producers of the like product that provided allegedly deficient information .
Thus, contrary to Russia's claim on appeal 111, we do not consider that the Panel's interpreta tion of
Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement reduces the term "major proportion" in this provision to
inutility.
5.30. Russia also claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 4.1 of
the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the sequence of events in the anti -dumping
investigation at issue result ed in a risk of distortion in the injury analysis. 112 Russia submits that
the Anti -Dumping Agreement does not prescribe the exact sequence of steps to be taken in
defining the domestic industry. Thus, Russia claims that the Panel erred in reading obligations into
Article 4.1 concerning the timing of the definition of domestic industry that are not there.113 Russia
also argues that it is not possible for an investigating authority to select from the information
provided so as to ensure a particular outcome in th e injury analysis if the information at issue is
deficient and incorrect.114
5.31. The European Union submits that defining the domestic industry only after having examined
the information submitted by the domestic producers results in an appearance of selecting among
domestic producers based on their information. This, in turn, creates a risk of distortion in the
subsequent injury analysis, as the Panel correctly found.115
5.32. In its third participant's submission, the United States does not consider that collecting and
reviewing data before defining the domestic industry is per se contrary to Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement or that such an approach inherently gives rise to a risk of distortion.
For example, an authority may need to collect and review evidence to define what constitutes the
"like product" or to assess whether parties are "related" before the "domestic industry" is defined .
These are steps that ordinarily precede the definition of domestic industry.116
5.33. The Panel found that the DIMD decided not to include in its definition of domestic industry a
known producer of the like product that had provided data and sought to cooperate in the

109 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 416; EC – Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 –
China), para. 5.301.
110 Panel Report, para. 7.15.
111 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 51 and 55.
112 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 58-62 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.15.a).
113 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 59-60. Russia also submits that the sequence of events in
this investigation was the only possible sequence that allowed the DIMD to comply with Article 3.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Russia refers to its earlier arguments that Article 4.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement allows investigating authorities to define the domestic industry based on
considerations of "objective examination" and "positive evidence", in particular where a domestic producer has
not provided credible and reliable information. (Ibid., para. 61) We have examined above Russia's arguments
at issue and explained that Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement does not allow investigating authorities
to leave domestic producers of the like product out of the definition of domestic industry because of alleged
deficiencies in the information submitted by those producers. (See paras. 5.20-5.23 above)
114 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 62.
115 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 83 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.15.a).
116 United States' third participant's submission, para. 24. The United States also notes that Articles 4.1
and 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement do not suggest that the domestic industry may only be defined at a
particular point in the investigation, without the possibility of future revision. The United States considers that
it may be appropriate to redefine the domestic industry in certain scenarios, and this would not necessarily
give rise to a risk of distortion in the injury analysis. The United States submits that, e.g. it may be appropriate
to narrow or broaden the original definition if, after gathering evidence, an authority modifies the scope of the
investigated product. This could, in turn, affect the definition of domestic industry. (Ibid., para. 25)

investigation after having reviewed that producer's data. 117 The Panel then stated that this
"sequence of events gives rise to an appearance of selecting among domestic producers based on
their data to ensure a particular outcome, resulting in an obvious risk of … distortion in the
subsequent injury analysis."118
5.34. We note that this statement by the Panel is not accom panied by specific references to any
determination, exhibits, or other factual evidence on the record of the investigation. Rather, the
Panel consider ed the sequence of events by itself, and conclude d that it gave rise to an
appearance of selecting among domestic producers to ensure a particular outcome. The
Appellate Body's interpretation of the "domestic industry" based on a "major proportion of total
domestic production" does not take into account the timing of the definition of domestic industry.
Rather, it is concerned with ensuring that the domestic producers of the like product selected for
inclusion in the domestic industry are sufficiently representative of the total domestic production.
Given the relationship between Article 3 and Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement – namely,
that the injury analysis under Article s 3.1 and 3.4 is conducted on the basis of the domestic
industry as defined under Article 4.1 – the domestic industry would logically be defined before the
injury analysis. 119 That sai d, we do not consider that these provisions prevent an investigating
authority from initially examining the information submitted by the domestic producers before
defining the domestic industry to the extent that the information submitted or collected is
pertinent to defining the domestic industry. In deed, for example, Article 4.1(i) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement provides for a scenario where this may be necessary . It cannot be
excluded that a n investigating authority may need to examine the information sub mitted in
relation to a certain domestic producer before coming to a definitive assessment of whether that
producer is related to an exporter or importe r, or is itself an importer of the alleged dumped
product.120
5.35. Notwithstanding the above observations, our analysis of the Panel Report suggests that the
Panel's reasoning is more nuanced than the statements above concerning the "sequence of
events", and that the Panel 's findings should be viewed holistically in light of its entire reasoning.
In this respect, we note that the Panel based its finding of inconsistency on the following elements:
(i) the DIMD decided not to include in its definition of domestic industry a known producer of the
like product that had provided information and sought to cooperate in th e investigation after
having reviewed that producer's information 121; (ii) the DIMD did not explain in its investigation
report the decision not to include GAZ in the domestic industry 122; and (iii) even if the DIMD had
justified its decision based on the fact that GAZ submitted allegedly deficient information – as
Russia contended before the Panel – this is not a valid reason to leave a domestic producer out of
the definition of domestic industry.123
5.36. Thus, in light of the above, we are of the view t hat the Panel did not reach its finding solely
on the basis of the fact that the DIMD reviewed the information submitted by Sollers and GAZ
before defining the domestic industry. Rather, the Panel focused on the actions taken by the DIMD
in the investigati on at issue, including the fact that no explanation was contained in the DIMD's
investigation report for the decision not to include GAZ in the definition of domestic industry. In
addition, we agree with the Panel's understanding that the fact that GAZ allegedly failed to
distinguish between confidential and non -confidential information and that GAZ's questionnaire
responses allegedly suffered from gaps and inaccuracies are not the grounds on which the DIMD
should have left GAZ out of the domestic industry in this investigation. Thus, in light of the specific
circumstances of this case, we find no reversible error in the Panel's interpretation and application
of Article 4.1, as read together with Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

117 Panel Report, para. 7.15.a.
118 Panel Report, para. 7.15.a. The European Union advances a similar understanding when it submits
that defining the domestic industry only after having examined the data from the relevant producers
necessarily brings about an appearance of selecting among domestic producers based on their data.
(European Union's appellee's submission, para. 83)
119 See European Union's appellee's submission, para. 84.
120 As explained above, however, an investigating authority must not act so as to give rise to a material
risk of distortion in defining the domestic industry.
121 Panel Report, para. 7.15.a.
122 Panel Report, para. 7.15.b.
123 Panel Report, para. 7.15.c.

5.37. Finally, we examine Russia's request that we reverse the Panel's finding under Article 4.1 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement because, according to Russia, the DIMD acted in conformity with one
of the "permissible" interpretations of Article 4.1 within the meaning of Article 17.6(ii) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.124
5.38. The second sentence of Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that, where
the panel finds that a relevant provision of the Agreement admits of more than one permissible
interpretation, the panel shall f ind the investigating authorities' measure to be in conformity with
the Agreement if it rests upon one of those permissible interpretations. Read together with the
first sentence of Article 17.6(ii), t he second sentence allows for the possibility that the application
of the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties125 (Vienna Convention) may give rise
to an interpretative range and, if it does, an interpretation falling within that range is permissible
and must be given effect by holding the challenged measure to be in conformity with th e
Anti-Dumping Agreement.126
5.39. In this case, the Panel did not find that the interpreta tion of Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, according to the customary rules of interpretation codified in the Vienna C onvention,
resulted in at least two permissible interpretations. We have found above that, i f an investigating
authority does not include certain domestic producers of the like product in the domestic industry
definition because th ose producers submitted allegedly deficient information, a material risk of
distortion would arise in the injury analysis. Therefore, Russia's proposed interpretation of
Article 4.1 is not a permissible interpretation within the meaning of Article 17.6(ii) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.1.5 Conclusions
5.40. Article 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement provides that the "domestic industry" is
composed of domestic producers of the like product. I f an investigating authority were permitted
to leave out, from the definition of domestic industry , the domestic producers of the like product
that provided allegedly deficient information, a material risk of distortion would arise in the injury
analysis. This is because the non -inclusion of those producers could make the definition of
domestic industry n o longer representative of the total domestic production. We do not consider
that Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement allows investigating authorities to leave domestic
producers of the like product out of the definition of domestic industry because of alleged
deficiencies in the information submitted by those producers. The Anti -Dumping Agreement, in
particular Article 6, sets out tools to address the inaccuracy and incompleteness of information.
Thus, in o ur view, the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.1 does not create a conflict between the
obligations in Article 3.1 and Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We also do not read the
Panel's interpretation of Article 4.1 as having reduced the term "ma jor proportion" to inutility in
this provision . Moreover, we do not consider that Articles 3.1 and 4.1 prevent an investigating
authority from initially examining the information submitted by domestic producers before defini ng
the domestic industry to the extent that the information collected is pertinent to defining the
domestic industry. We do not consider that the Panel reached its finding solely on the basis of the
fact that the DIMD reviewed the information submitted by Sollers and GAZ before defining the
domestic industry. In light of the specific circumstances of this case, we find no reversible error in
the Panel's interpretation and application of Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.41. We therefore find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD acted inconsistently
with these provisions in its definition of "domestic industry". Consequently, we uphold the Panel's
findings in paragraphs 8.1.a and 8.1.b of the Panel Report.
5.2 Price suppression
5.42. In this section, we address the claims of error raised by both Russia and the
European Union relating to the Panel's findings with respect to the DIMD's determination of price

124 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 66-67.
125 Done at Vienna, 23 May 1969, UN Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331.
126 Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Zeroing, para. 272; US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 59.

suppression under Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We examine, first, Russia's claim of
error, and then turn to examine the European Union's claims on appeal.
5.2.1 The 2009 rate of return used to construct the target domestic price
5.2.1.1 Introduction
5.43. Russia challenges the Panel's findings 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 rate of return used to construct the target domestic price. To Russia, the
focus on one particular factor – such as the financial crisis – would lead to a biased price
suppression analysis because the rate of return could be potentially influenced by a number of
factors127, and an analysis of all known factors is not required under Article 3.2.128 Russia requests
us to reverse the Panel's findings at issue. 129 The European Union disagrees with Russia's
contention that an investigating authority is not obliged to consider evidence that questions the
rate of return used to cons truct the domestic target price .130 The European Union seeks to have
the Panel's findings at issue upheld.131
5.44. We begin by summarizing the relevant Panel finding s. Thereafter , we set out our
understanding of the relevant aspect of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.
Finally, we examine the merits of Russia's claim on appeal.
5.2.1.2 Panel's findings
5.45. Before the Panel, the European Union claimed that the DIMD's price suppression analysis is
inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because the DIMD used an
improper rate of return when constructing the target domestic price. 132 The Panel observed that,
for its price suppression analysis, the DIMD constructed the estimated domestic price that would
have existed in the absence of dumped i mports – the "target domestic price" – on the basis of the
actual costs of production and a "reasonable rate of return". 133 The DIMD used the rate of return
achieved by Sollers in 2009 as the benchmark rate of return for constructing the target domestic
price. According to its investigation report , the DIMD chose this rate of return because 2009 was
the year in which the market share of dumped imports was the lowest. The Panel explained that
the DIMD compared the data pertaining to actual economic indicators (e.g. the prices and profits
achieved by the domestic industry) with the data pertaining to the constructed counterfactual, and
concluded that domestic prices had been significantly suppressed by dumped imports.134
5.46. The Panel noted that the reference price for assessing price suppression under Article 3.2 of
the Anti -Dumping Agreement is the domestic price "which otherwise would have occurred". 135
Article 3.2 does not provide specific guidance on how such a counterfactual situation should be
constructed.136 According to the Panel, the investigating authority is guided by the principle set out
in Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Thus, where an investigating authority constructs a
target domestic price, it must use a rate of return that is objective and b ased on positive
evidence.137 The Panel therefore considered that an investigating authority would act inconsistently
with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 if the rate of return used in constructing a counterfactual target domestic
price is not one that the domestic industry could have expected to achieve in the subsequent years

127 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 76.
128 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 77.
129 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 89 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.64-7.67 and 8.1.d.i). In
the event that we reverse the Panel findings at issue, Russia also requests us to reverse the Panel's findings in
paragraphs 7.181-7.182 and 8.1.f.i of the Panel Report regarding the consequential inconsistency with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (Ibid., para. 90)
130 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 92 and 105-106.
131 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 120-121.
132 Panel Report, para. 7.59; European Union's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 138-142;
response to Panel questions No. 29, para. 98 and No. 35, paras. 113 and 116.
133 Panel Report, para. 7.58.
134 Panel Report, para. 7.58 (referring to investigation report, Section 5.2).
135 Panel Report, para. 7.61 (referring to Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 141).
136 Panel Report, para. 7.61.
137 Panel Report, para. 7.61.

under normal conditions of competition and in the absence of dumped imports. 138 If there is
evidence before the investigating authority of market conditions during the selected year that calls
into question whether that rate of return could be achieved in subsequent years under normal
conditions of competition and in the absence of dumped imports, an investigating authority may
not ignore such evidence.139
5.47. In relation to the rate of return used by the DIMD, the Panel did not find it unreasonable for
the DIMD to have used the 2009 rate of return as a starting point for the calculation of the target
domestic price. It was the rate of return actually achieved by the domestic industry during a period
in wh ich the dumped imports had a low market share. 140 The Panel then noted that, as
acknowledged by the DIMD in its investigation report, Sollers' performance in 2009 was positively
affected by the financial crisis, when "consumers preferred the cheaper light co mmercial vehicles"
manufactured in the Customs Union between the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan,
and the Russian Federation .141 In the Panel's view, the financial crisis was an extraordinary event
affecting the domestic industry's operations in 2009.142 Therefore, the Panel did not consider it
reasonable for an investigating authority to base its analysis on facts relating to a period in which
extraordinary conditions prevailed without, at a minimum, explaining why the extraordinary
conditions are not relevant to its counterfactual analysis. 143 The Panel concluded that nothing in
the DIMD's investigation report suggested that it had considered, in its evaluation of price
suppression, whether the high rate of return reported in 2009 could reasonabl y be expected in the
subsequent years in the absence of dumped imports.144
5.48. For these reasons, the Panel found that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article s 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.145
5.2.1.3 Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.49. This dispute calls for us to examine the disciplines of Article 3 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement, and in particular those paragraphs relating to price suppression. The paragraphs of
Article 3 stipulate, in detail, an investigating authority's obligations in determining the injury to the
domestic indus try caused by dumped imports. 146 These provisions contemplate a logical
progression of inquiry l eading to an investigating authority's ultimate injury and causation
determination.147 This process entails a consideration of the volume of dumped imports and their
price effects, and requires an examination of the i mpact of such imports on the state of the
domestic industry. These various elements are linked through a causation and non -attribution
analysis between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry, taking into account
all factors that must be considered and evaluated.148
5.50. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provide:
3.1 A determination of injury for purposes of Article VI of GATT 1994 shall be based
on positive evidence and involve an objective examination of both (a) the volume o f
the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic

138 Panel Report, paras. 7.61 and 7.64.
139 Panel Report, para. 7.64.
140 Panel Report, para. 7.63.
141 Panel Report, para. 7.66 (quoting investigation report, Section 4.3).
142 Panel Report, para. 7.66.
143 Panel Report, para. 7.66. In the Panel's view, an investigating authority may take extraordinary
conditions into account in its consideration of price effects in different ways, but it may not ignore the
possibility that such conditions will not continue. According to the Panel, this could involve making an
adjustment to the chosen rate of return, or taking into account the extraordinary circumstances in considering
the "explanatory force" of dumped imports for price suppression. (Ibid.)
144 Panel Report, para. 7.66.
145 Panel Report, para. 7.67.
146 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 128.
147 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 128. See also Appellate Body Reports, China ‒ HP-SSST
(Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.140.
148 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.140. See also
Appellate Body Report, China ‒ GOES, para. 128.

market for like products, and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic
producers of such products.
3.2 With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the in vestigating authorities
shall consider whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either
in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the importing Member.
With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the investigating authorities
shall consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the dumped
imports as compared with the price of a like product of the importing Member, or
whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress pri ces to a significant
degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a
significant degree. No one or several of these factors can necessarily give decisive
guidance.
5.51. Article 3.1 is an overarching provision that sets forth a Membe r's fundamental, substantive
obligation with respect to the determination of injury and informs the more detailed obligations in
succeeding paragraphs.149 In Article 3.1, the thrust of an investigating authority's obligation lies in
the requirement that it base its determination on "positive evidence " and conduct an
"objective examination".150 The term "positive evidence" relates to the quality of the evidence that
authorities may rely on in making a determination.151 The term "objective examination" is concerned
with the investigative process itself. The word "examination" relates to the way in which the evidence
is gathered, inquired into , and, subsequently, evaluated. The word "objective" indicates that the
examination process must conform to the principles of good faith and fundamental fairness.152 Thus,
an "objective examination" requires that the domestic industry, and the effects of dumped imports,
be investigated in an unbiased manner, without favouring the interests of any interested party, or
group of interested parties, in the investigation.153
5.52. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 3.2, an investigating authority shall consider
whether the effect of dumped imports is to prevent price increases, which otherwise would have
occurred, to a significant degree . Articles 3.1 and 3.2 do not prescribe a particular methodology
that an investigating authority must follow in assessing whether price suppression has occurred.
An investigating authority enjoys a certain degree of discretion in adopting a methodology to guide
its analysis. Within the bounds of this discretion, an investigating authority may have to rely on
reasonable assumptions or draw inferences. 154 The exercise of this discretion must nonetheless
comply with the requirements of Articles 3.1 and 3.2. Accordingly, when an investigating
authority's determination rests upon assumptions, these assumptions should be derived as
reasonable inferences from a credible basis of facts, and should be sufficiently explained so that
their objectivity and credibility can be verified. 155 An investigating authority that uses a
methodology premised on unsubstantiated assumptions does not conduct an examination based
on positive evidence .156 An assumption is not properly substantiated when the investigating
authority does not explain why it would be appropriate to use it in the analysis.157
5.53. With regard to the examination of whether imports have prevented domestic price increases
to a significant degree under Article 3.2, it would not be sufficient that prices of like domestic
products have not risen during the period of investigation , even though they would normally be
expected to have risen. 158 Rather, b y asking the question " whether the effect of " the dumped
imports is significant price suppression, the second sentence of Article 3.2 specifically instructs an
investigating authority to consid er whether certain price effects are the consequences of dumped

149 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 106.
150 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 192.
151 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 192.
152 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 193. See also Appellate Body Reports, China –
GOES, para. 126; China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.138.
153 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 193. See also Appellate Body Reports, China –
GOES, para. 126; China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.138.
154 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 204.
155 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 204.
156 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 205.
157 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 205.
158 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 138.

imports.159 Article 3.2 thus contemplates an inquiry into the relationship between dumped imports
and domestic prices. Specifically, in China – GOES, the Appellate Body stated that an investigating
authority is required to consider whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the
occurrence of significant suppression of domestic prices. 160 In this respect, an investigating
authority may not disregard evidence regarding elements that call into question the explanatory
force of dumped imports for significant price suppression. Where there is evidence on the
investigating authority's record concerning elements other than dumped imports that may explain
the significant suppression of domestic prices, the investigating authority must consider relevant
evidence pertaining to such elements for purposes of understanding whether dumped imports
indeed have a suppressive effect on domestic prices.161
5.54. The inquiry into whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for significant
suppression of domestic prices under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement is distinct from
the injury causation and non -attribution analysis under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.162 While the assessments under both Article 3.2 and 3.5 are interlinked elements of
the single, overall injury analysis 163, the inquiry under each provision has a distinct focus. The
analysis under Article 3.2 focuses on the relationsh ip between dumped imports and domestic
prices.164 In contrast, the analysis under Article 3.5 focuses on the causal relationship between
dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry. 165 More specifically, the examination under
Article 3.5 encompass es "all relevant evidence " before the investigating authority, including the
volume of dumped imports and their price effects listed under Article 3.2, as well as all relevant
economic factors concerning the state of the domestic industry as listed in Article 3.4.166 The
examination under Article 3.5, by definition, covers a distinct and broader scope than the scope of
the elements considered in relation to price suppression under Article 3.2. 167 Therefore, while an
investigating authority is not required under Article 3.2 to conduct an "analysis of all known factors
that may cause injury to the domestic industry "168, as required by Article 3.5, the authority must
consider under Article 3.2 whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the occurrence of
significant suppression of domestic prices.169
5.2.1.4 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1
and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in connection with the financial crisis
5.55. In challenging the Panel's finding that the DIMD acted inconsis tently with Articles 3.1
and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to take into account the impact of the financial
crisis, Russia submits two main arguments. We examine each of them in turn below.
5.56. Russia first argues that focusing on certain particular factors in the price suppression
analysis – such as the financial crisis – would lead to a biased and non -objective analysis because
the rate of return can potentially be influenced by a number of factors. 170 The European Union
disagrees with Russ ia's contention that an investigating authority is not obliged to consider any
evidence that questions the rate of return used to construct the domestic target prices. 171 To the
European Union, if there is evidence before the investigating authority that the rate of return
selected is very high because of exceptional circumstances in the market, relying on this rate

159 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
160 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
161 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 152.
162 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 147.
163 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.141.
164 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 147.
165 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 147. Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
provides, in relevant part:
It must be demonstrated that the dumped imports are, through the effects of dumping, as set
forth in paragraphs 2 and 4, causing injury within the meaning of this Agreement. … The
authorities shall also examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the
same time are injuring the domestic industry, and the injuries caused by these other factors
must not be attributed to the dumped imports.
166 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 147.
167 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 147.
168 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 151. (emphasis original)
169 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
170 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 76 and 86.
171 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 105-106.

without considering whether these circumstances will likely continue to exist, and without making
any adjustments, leads to a biased price suppression analysis.172
5.57. The Panel found that an investigating authority would act inconsistently with Articles 3.1
and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement if the rate of return used in constructing a counterfactual
target domestic price is not one that the domestic industry could have expected to achieve in the
subsequent years under normal conditions of competition and in the absence of dumped imports.
To the Panel, if there is evidence before the investigating authority of market conditions during the
selected year that calls into question whether that rate of return could be achieved in subsequent
years under normal conditions of competition and in the absence of dumped imports, an
investigating authority may not ignore such evidence.173 The Panel noted that, as acknowledged by
the DIMD, Sollers' performance in 2009 was positively affected by the financial crisis. 174 The Panel
did not consider it reasonable for an investigating authority to base its analysis on facts relating to
a period in which extraordinary conditio ns prevailed without, at a minimum, explaining why the
extraordinary conditions are not relevant to its counterfactual analysis.175
5.58. As noted earlier, the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires
an investigating authority to con sider whether dumped imports prevent an increase in the price of
the domestic like product. When an investigating authority's determination rests upon
assumptions, these assumptions should be derived as reasonable inferences from a credible basis
of facts, and should be sufficiently explained so that their objectivity and credibility can be
verified.176 An investigating authority is required to consider whether dumped imports have
"explanatory force" for the occurrence of significant suppression of domestic p rices.177 In this
respect, an investigating authority may not disregard evidence that calls into question the
explanatory force of dumped imports for significant price suppression. We consider that the Panel
statements at issue are in line with our understan ding of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.59. In our view, the fact that several factors or elements could potentially influence the rate of
return used to construct the target domestic price does not allow an investigating authority to
disregard evidence regarding any particular factor or element that calls into question the
explanatory force of dumped imports for significant price suppression. 178 Thus, we do not believe
that the consideration of evidence regarding factors or elements – such as, in this dispute, the
financial crisis – that call into question the explanatory force of dumped imports for the existence
of price suppression would lead to a biased analysis simply because there could be other factors
that could also potentially affect the selected rate of return.
5.60. Russia also argues that the examination of " all known factors" is not required in the price
suppression analysis under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.179 Russia submits that
considering the impact of the financial crisis in the price suppression analysis would put an
additional burden on the investigating authority to conduct, under Article 3.2, an exhaustive
causation and non -attribution analysis analogous to the one require d under Article 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.180
5.61. In response, the European Union submits that factoring into the price suppression analysis
the exceptional circumstances surrounding the 2009 high rate of return does not involve a
consideration of wheth er other factors caused injury under Article 3.5 of the

172 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 109.
173 Panel Report, paras. 7.61 and 7.64.
174 Panel Report, para. 7.66 (referring to investigation report, Section 4.3).
175 Panel Report, para. 7.66.
176 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 204.
177 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
178 We note that Russia has not identified, before the Panel or on appeal, any other relevant factor that
should have influenced the rate of return used by the DIMD to construct the target domestic price.
179 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 77. (emphasis original)
180 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 78-81 and 83-85 (referring to Panel Reports,
EC ‒ Countervailing Measures on DRAM Chips, paras. 7.337-7.339; US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on
DRAMS, para. 7.351; China – GOES, para. 7.522; Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, paras. 142, 151, and
164).

Anti-Dumping Agreement.181 Rather, the European Union submits that an investigating authority's
inquiry under Article 3.2 is focused on the relationship between dumped imports and domestic
prices.182 While the investigating authority is not required to conduct an analysis of all known
factors that may cause injury, it cannot disregard evidence that calls into question the explanatory
force of the dumped imports for the significant price suppression.183
5.62. We d o not consider that the Panel's interpretation of Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement suggests that an investigating authori ty is required to conduct a
non-attribution analysis of all known factors that may be causing injury to the domestic industry in
the context of its price suppression analysis. Rather, the Panel considered that it was not
reasonable for an investigating authority to base its analysis on facts relating to a period where
extraordinary conditions prevailed without, at a minimum, expl aining why the extraordinary
conditions are not relevant to its price suppression analysis or making pertinent adjustments.184
5.63. As explained earlier, the inquiries under Article 3.5 and under Article 3.2 have distinct
focuses. The analysis under Article 3.5 focuses on the causal relationship between dumped imports
and injury to the domestic industry. In contr ast, the analysis under Article 3.2 focuses on the
relationship between dumped imports and domestic prices.185 Considering whether a factor such as
the financial crisis called into question the explanatory force of dumped imports for the existence
of price suppression would relate to the consideration of price effects under Article 3.2. Thus, such
examination would not implicate the injury causation or non -attribution analysis under
Article 3.5.186 Indeed, the consideration of price effects under Article 3.2 is not conclusive of the
determination of injury under Article 3.5. As far as Article 3.2 is concerned, an assessment of the
relationship between dumped imports and significant suppression of domestic prices relates only to
the impact on domestic prices . Such an assessment need not take into account factor s that may
be relevant to the analysis of injury causation and non-attribution under Articles 3.4 and 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.187 In addition, we agree with the United States that, while a panel need
not make a determination of injury causation in the context of Art icle 3.2, a panel may find it
necessary to consider some of the same facts in its analyses under Article 3.2 and under
Article 3.5.188
5.64. For the reasons above, we consider that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and
application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when finding that the DIMD
acted inconsistently with these provisions by failing to take into account the impact of the financial
crisis in its price suppression analysis.
5.2.2 Article 11 of the DSU
5.2.2.1 Introduction
5.65. The European Union challenges certain Panel findings concerning the explanatory force of
the dumped imports for price suppression and the degree of such price suppression. The
European Union claims that, in making these findings, the Panel acted inconsistently with
Article 11 of the DSU. This is because, to the European Union, the Panel's reasoning at issue is
inconsistent and incoherent with its earlier finding 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 when using the 2009 rate of return for constructing the target domestic price.189
The European Union requests us to reverse the Panel's findings at issue.190 In the event that we

181 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 113.
182 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 116.
183 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 116.
184 Panel Report, para. 7.66.
185 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 147.
186 An investigating authority may consider whether a financial crisis calls into question the explanatory
force of dumped imports for significant suppression of domestic prices, and whether the same financial crisis
calls into question the causal relationship between dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry.
187 See Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 151.
188 United States' third participant's submission, para. 39.
189 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 76 and 90.
190 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 100 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.77-
7.81 and fn 197 thereto, 7.104-7.107, 8.1.d.iii, and 8.1.d.iv).

dismiss the European Union's claims under Article 11 of the DSU, the European Union also claims
that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of A rticles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD's methodology explained that the effect of the
dumped imports was to supress domestic prices. 191 In this respect, the European Union requests
us to reverse the Panel's findings at issue, complete the analysis, and find that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by fai ling to consider
whether the dumped imports have explanatory force for the existence of significant price
suppression.192
5.66. Russia responds that the European Union has not demonstrated that the Panel's assessment
was not objective within the meaning of Article 11 of the DSU. 193 Russia thus seeks to have the
Panel's findings at issue upheld.194
5.67. Before examining the European Union's claim under Article 11 of the DSU, we summarize
the relevant Panel findings . Thereafter, we examine the merits of the European Union's claim on
appeal.
5.2.2.2 Panel's findings
5.68. Before the Panel, the European Union claimed that the price gap between higher priced
imports and domestic products calls into question the explanatory force of the dumped imports for
the alleged price suppression. T o the European Union, this is because the price gap may suggest
that other factors, unrelated to the dumped imports, were responsible for the alleged price
suppression.195 The European Union also argued that the long -term price trends of dumped
imports and the domestic like product did not support the conclusion of price suppression. 196 This
is because, according to the European Union, from 2008 to 2011, the increase in domestic prices
was higher than the increase in import prices. 197 To the European Union, this stands in contrast
with a price suppression situation, where the domestic prices should fail to increase or increase
less than would otherwise be the case, while import prices decrease. 198 Finally, the
European Union argued that the DIMD did not demonstrate that the alleged price suppression was
to a significant degree , because it failed to compare the target domestic prices and the actual
domestic prices, and to consider the gap between these prices.199
5.69. To the Panel, the fact that dumped import prices were hig her than domestic prices is not, in
itself, evidence that dumped imports do not have explanatory force for significant suppression of
domestic prices. 200 The Panel therefore found that the absence of price undercutting, or the
presence of a "price gap" betwe en import and domestic prices, does not necessarily preclude or
call into question the explanatory force of the dumped imports for price suppression. 201
Furthermore, the Panel indicated that, "where an investigating authority constructs a target
domestic pri ce that otherwise would have occurred in the absence of the dumped imports , the
methodology itself ensures that the failure of actual domestic prices to rise to the level of the
target domestic price is an effect of the dumped imports ."202 Thus, according to the Panel, in the
anti-dumping investigation at issue, " the DIMD's use of that methodology itself explained the

191 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 101-102.
192 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 132 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.77-
7.78 and 8.1.d.iii).
193 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 93, 95, and 99.
194 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 120.
195 Panel Report, para. 7.75.
196 Panel Report, para. 7.75.
197 Panel Report, para. 7.79.
198 Panel Report, para. 7.79.
199 Panel Report, para. 7.101.
200 Panel Report, para. 7.77. According to the Panel, higher dumped import prices can have a
suppressing effect on domestic prices, particularly in situations where imports command a price premium over
the domestically produced product. (Ibid.)
201 Panel Report, para. 7.77.
202 Panel Report, para. 7.78.

effect of the dumped imports to suppress domestic prices in the absence of price undercutting and
despite the price gap."203
5.70. Regarding the European Union's argument that the long -term price trends of dumped
imports and the domestic like product do not support the conclusion of price suppression, the
Panel noted that this argument was premised on a simple end -point-to-end-point (2 008-2011)
comparison of domestic and import prices. To the Panel, this could not be determinative of the
question of whether the effect of the dumped imports was to suppress domestic prices to a
significant degree. This is because, according to the Panel, this simple comparison ignored
intervening developments over the period considered.204
5.71. In addition, on the basis of the trends in domestic prices and dumped import prices during
the period under consideration, the Panel noted that dumped import prices increa sed from 2008 to
2009, but then decreased in 2010, and eventually converged with steadily increasing domestic
prices in 2011. The Panel found it significant that, after 2009, dumped import prices continued on
a deep downward trend, despite an additional 15% customs duty imposed after 2009.205 The Panel
noted that the DIMD relied on the downward pressure of dumped imports on domestic prices in
considering price suppression.206 The Panel considered that, by virtue of this downward pressure at
least since 2009, th e long -term price trends did not call into question the explanatory force of
dumped imports for price suppression, contrary to the European Union's argument. Rather, relying
on a graph depicting actual domestic prices, the target domestic price, and the du mped import
prices between 2008 and 2011, the Panel found that the long -term price trends corroborated the
DIMD's counterfactual analysis.207
5.72. Finally, regarding the significant degree of price suppression, the Panel noted that
Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement does not set out any methodological guidance on how
to consider price suppression, and thus nothing requires that a comparison be made between
target domestic prices in the absence of dumped imports and actual prices of the domestic like
product.208 Furthermore, in assessing the approach chosen by the DIMD in determining whether
price suppression was to a significant degree, the Panel noted that, while the DIMD did not
explicitly compare the actual dom estic prices and the constructed target domestic prices ,
Table 5.2.2 of the investigation report set out both actual and target domestic prices, and the
difference between these prices was "evident on the face of the table".209
5.73. The Panel found that the Europ ean Union had not demonstrated that the DIMD failed to
consider evidence that was self-evidently before it, or that its consideration of evidence was biased
or otherwise lacked objectivity. 210 The Panel then noted that the DIMD had compared the actual
domestic prices with the dumped import prices, and the target domestic prices with the dumped
import prices. The DIMD had also considered the difference between the total profit/loss actually
reported and the profit/loss that would have occurred in the absence o f dumped imports during
the period of investigation. 211 On this basis, the Panel concluded that the DIMD had, in fact,
considered whether the effect of dumped imports was significant price suppression, and in fact
ultimately concluded that this was the case.212
5.2.2.3 Whether the Panel findings are internally incoherent and inconsistent
5.74. The European Union claims that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU
because certain of its findings are internally incoherent and inconsistent with its earlier finding 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 when using the 2009 rate of return for the

203 Panel Report, para. 7.78.
204 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
205 Panel Report, para. 7.80.
206 Panel Report, para. 7.81 (referring to investigation report, Section 5.2).
207 Panel Report, para. 7.81.
208 Panel Report, para. 7.102.
209 Panel Report, para. 7.104 and Table 5 thereto.
210 Panel Report, para. 7.104.
211 Panel Report, para. 7.105.
212 Panel Report, para. 7.105.

construction of the target domestic price .213 In par ticular, the European Union claims that the
Panel's finding concerning the DIMD's "methodology itself" is problematic since "any application of
such methodology is necessarily affected by the illegal profit rate chosen to construct the target
domestic pric es."214 In addition, the European Union challenges the Panel's finding that the
long-term price trends corroborate the DIMD's counterfactual analysis , because, as the
European Union stresses, the target domestic prices were based on the 2009 rate of return.215
Finally, with respect to the significant degree of price suppression, the European Union notes that
the Panel found that the DIMD considered the difference between the total profit/loss actually
reported by the domestic industry and the profit/loss that w ould have occurred in the absence of
dumped imports. 216 The European Union contends that the target domestic prices and the
profit/loss used by the DIMD were calculated on the basis of the 2009 rate of return, which the
Panel found earlier to be inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.217
5.75. Russia responds that the Panel's findings regarding the DIMD's methodology concern the
interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and not the objectivity of
the Panel's a nalysis under Article 11 of the DSU. 218 In relation to the long-term price trends,
Russia contends that the European Union has not shown why the analysis of the Panel was not
objective.219 Finally, Russia contends that the European Union mischaracterizes the Panel's findings
concerning the significant degree of price suppression. 220 Russia recalls that the Panel found that
there is no requirement in the Anti -Dumping Agreement to compare target domestic prices and
actual prices of the domestic like product to asse ss the significance of price suppression. 221 In this
regard, Russia again argues that the Panel's findings concern the interpretation of Article 3.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement rather than the objectivity of the Panel's analysis under Article 11 of
the DSU.222
5.76. We recall that Article 11 of the DSU imposes upon panels a comprehensive obligation to
make an "objective assessment of the matter", an obligation that embraces all aspects of a panel's
examination of the "matter", both factual and legal. 223 In previous d isputes, the Appellate Body
has held that a panel does not comply with its obligations under Article 11 if its findings are
internally incoherent and inconsistent. For example, in US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil),
the Appellate Body considered th e panel's treatment of the competing evidence submitted by the
parties as internally inconsistent. That panel had dismissed the significance of certain re -estimates
data because they were projections subject to uncertainty. At the same time, the panel had
considered other estimates of central importance , despite the fact that they suffered from the
same uncertainty, given that they too were estimates.224
5.77. Another example is found in EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, where the
Appellate Body considered the panel's reasoning in relation to the United States' proposed project-
specific risk premium as internally inconsistent. The panel dismissed venture capital financing as a
source from which to derive the project risk o f the projects financed with launch aid /member
State financing because it considered venture capital financing to be more risky than launch aid
/member State financing . Notwithstanding these reservations, which question ed the
appropriateness of using the rates of return of venture capital financing as a proxy from which to
derive the risk premium of the projects financed by launch aid /member State financing, the panel
used a project-specific risk premium derived from the returns of venture capital financi ng in its
analysis of large civil aircraft projects. To the Appellate Body, this type of internally inconsistent

213 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 76 and 90.
214 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 94.
215 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 96 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.81). The
European Union also argues that the Panel referred to Figure 2 contained in paragraph 7.81 of its Report,
which included data pertaining to the target domestic prices calculated on the basis of the 2009 rate of return.
(Ibid.)
216 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 98 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.105).
217 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 99.
218 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 93.
219 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 94-95.
220 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 114.
221 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 114.
222 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 116.
223 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 54. See also Appellate Body Reports, Colombia –
224 Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton (Article 21.5 – Brazil), paras. 287-292.

reasoning could not be reconciled with the Panel's duty to make an objective assessment of the
facts under Article 11 of the DSU.225
5.78. We now turn to examine the three sets of Panel findings challenged by the European Union
under Article 11 of the DSU. In relation to the Panel's findings concerning the methodology itself,
the Panel found that, "where an investigating authority constructs a target dom estic price that
otherwise would have occurred in the absence of the dumped imports , the methodology itself
ensures that the failure of actual domestic prices to rise to the level of the target domestic price is
an effect of the dumped imports ."226 The Panel then recalled the manner in which the DIMD
applied its methodology in the anti-dumping investigation at issue. In particular, the Panel recalled
that the DIMD identified a benchmark rate of return in the year with the lowest dumped import
penetration. The Panel further recalled that the DIMD constructed, on the basis of the rate of
return in that year, the target domestic prices that would otherwise have occurred in the absence
of the dumped imports , and then compared those prices with the actual price during the period
considered.227 The Panel finally observed that it was because the actual prices were lower than the
target domestic prices that the DIMD ultimately concluded that the effect of the dumped imports
was to suppress domestic prices significantly. Given that the DIMD's methodology explained that
the effect of the dumped imports was to suppress domestic prices, the Panel considered that the
DIMD was not required to explain separately why, despite being higher priced, the effect of
dumped imports was to prevent domestic price increases.228
5.79. Therefore, it is evident that, when the Panel stated that the "methodology itself" ensures
that the failure of actual domestic prices to rise to the level of the target domestic price is an effect
of the dumped imports229, the Panel was referring to the manner in which the DIMD designed and
applied its methodology in the anti -dumping investigation at issue in order to consider whether
significant price suppression had occurred . This finding, however, is not coherent and consistent
with the Panel's earlier finding that the manner in which the DIMD used the 2009 rate of return to
determine the target domestic price was WTO -inconsistent. As explained above, the Panel found
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 rate of return to be
used in constructing the target domestic price.230 By later finding that the DIMD's application of its
methodology ensured that the failure of actual domestic prices to rise to the level of the target
domestic price was an effect of the dumped imports, the Panel appears to have ignored its earlier
finding that the DIMD's construction of the target domes tic price was WTO -inconsistent. Such an
internally incoherent reasoning cannot be reconciled with the Panel's duty to make an objective
assessment of the matter before it, and is therefore inconsistent with Article 11 of the DSU.
5.80. In relation to the Panel's findings concerning the long -term price trends, the Panel found
that, in light of the downward pressure exercised by dumped imports on domestic prices at least
since 2009, the long-term price trends do not call into question the "explanatory force" of dumped
imports for price suppression . The Panel considered that the long -term price trends, in fact,
corroborate the DIMD's counterfactual analysis.231 In making this finding, the Panel relied on
Figure 2 in paragraph 7.81 of the Panel Report. Figure 2 shows three lines, one of which
represents the trend in target domestic prices.
5.81. As explained above, in its counterfactual analysis, the DIMD used target d omestic prices
calculated on the basis of the 2009 rate of return. The Panel had found earlier that the DIMD's
construction of the target domestic price was WTO -inconsistent. The Panel's finding that the
long-term price trends corroborate the DIMD's counterfactual analysis232 is not coherent and
consistent with its earlier finding concerning the DIMD's construction of the target domestic price
on the basis of the 2009 rate of return. This is because the DIMD's counterfactual analysis relied

225 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, paras. 884, 886, and
894.
226 Panel Report, para. 7.78.
227 Panel Report, para. 7.78.
228 Panel Report, para. 7.78.
229 Panel Report, para 7.78.
230 We have upheld the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
concerning the 2009 rate of return. See paras. 5.55-5.64 above.
231 Panel Report, para. 7.81.
232 Panel Report, para. 7.81.

on the target dome stic price, and the Panel had found earlier that the manner in which the DIMD
used the 2009 rate of return to determine the target domestic price was WTO -inconsistent. Thus,
the Panel could not have later relied on the DIMD's counterfactual analysis as a basis for its finding
concerning the price trends.
5.82. For these reasons, we consider that the Panel's finding concerning the long-term price
trends is not coherent and consistent with its earlier finding that the manner in which the DIMD
used the 2009 rate of return to determine the target domestic price was WTO -inconsistent. Thus,
we find that, in this regard, the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU.
5.83. Finally, in relation to the Panel's finding concerning the significant degree of price
suppression, we recall that the Panel first observed that the DIMD did not explicitly compare the
actual domestic prices and the constructed target domestic prices .233 Nonetheless, the Panel noted
that Table 5.2.2 of the investigation report sets out both actual and target domestic prices, and
that the difference between these prices was "evident on the face of the table". 234 The Panel then
stated that there was no basis for it to conclude that, "having set out the relevant data in the
Investigation Report, the DIMD did not in fact consider it, including the self -evident fact that the
actual domestic prices were consistently below the target domestic prices, apart from 2009, the
benchmark year."235 The Panel also observed that the DIMD had compared the dumped imports
prices with: (i) the actual domestic prices and (ii) the target domestic prices, as well as considered
the difference between the total profit/loss actually reported and the profit/loss that would have
occurred in the absence of dumped imports. On this basis, the Panel concluded that it was "beyond
question that the DIMD did, in fact, consider whether the effect of dumped imports [was]
significant price suppression, and in fact ultimately concluded that this was the case".236
5.84. We consider that the Panel's reasoning at issue is not consistent with its earlier finding
concerning the 2009 rate of return. The Panel could not have relied on the target domestic price,
in particular on the difference between the actual domestic prices and the target domestic prices,
in its assessment of the DIMD's consideration of the degree of price suppression, given that it had
found earlier that the DIMD's construction of the target domestic price was WTO-inconsistent.
Thus, we consider that the Pan el's findings concerning the significant degree of price suppression
are not coherent and consistent with its earlier finding concerning the 2009 rate of return. As a
result, the Panel's reasoning is internally incoherent and contrary to the requirements o f Article 11
of the DSU.
5.85. We recall that the European Union claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and
application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD's
methodology explained that the effect of the dumpe d imports was to supress domestic prices. 237
The European Union requests us to reverse the Panel's findings at issue, complete the analysis,
and find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement by failing to con sider whether the dumped imports have explanatory force for the
existence of significant price suppression.238 The European Union conditions this aspect of its other
appeal to the dismissal of its claims under Article 11 of the DSU in connection with price
suppression.239 Given that we have found that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the
DSU, we do not examine that aspect of the European Union's appeal.

233 Panel Report, para. 7.104.
234 Panel Report, para. 7.104 and Table 5 thereto.
235 Panel Report, para. 7.104.
236 Panel Report, para. 7.105.
237 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 101-102 (referring to Panel Report,
para. 7.78).
238 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 132 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.77-
7.78 and 8.1.d.iii).
239 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 100-101.

5.2.3 The ability of the market to absorb further price increases
5.2.3.1 Introduction
5.86. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding that the evidence on the investigation
record did not require the DIMD to examine whether the market could absorb further price
increases. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement because, to the European Union, where there
is evidence on the record of significant price and production cost increases, an investigating
authority must consider whether the market would absorb further pri ce increases. 240 The
European Union requests us to reverse the Panel's finding at issue. 241 The European Union also
requests us to complete the analysis and find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1
and 3.2 by failing to examine whether the mar ket would accept additional domestic price
increases.242 Russia responds that there is no explicit requirement in Articles 3.1 and 3.2 to
consider whether the market would accept pri ce increases and that an investigating authority has
to examine this issue o nly if it is faced with evidence that calls into question the ability of the
market to absorb price increases.243 Russia seeks to have the Panel's findings upheld.244
5.87. We begin by summarizing the relevant Panel findings. Thereafter, we examine the merits of
the European Union's claim on appeal.
5.2.3.2 Panel's findings
5.88. Before the Panel, the European Union contended that the DIMD failed to examine the
reasons for the increase in the domestic industry's costs, and the likelihood that the market would
accept additional domestic price increas es.245 The Panel noted that the parties did not disagree
that, where there is evidence before an investigating authority that calls into question the ability of
the market to absorb price increases, the authority should consider this question.246 To the Panel,
if the market would not accept price increases in the absence of dumped imports, it seems unlikely
that price increases "otherwise would have occurred" within the meaning of Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.247
5.89. The Panel then observed that the record did not indicate that the interested parties
questioned the ability of the market to absorb additional price increases, made arguments, or
presented evidence in this regard before the DIMD. 248 The Panel also noted that the investigat ion
report does not contain any indication that the DIMD considered whether the market would accept
additional price increases by the domestic industry. 249 The Panel nonetheless proceeded to
examine whether, in the absence of any clearly raised argument s concerning the ability of the
market to accept additional price increase s, the evidence before the DIMD was such that an
objective and unbiased investigating authority should nonetheless have considered this issue.250
5.90. First, the Panel addressed the European Union's argument that domestic prices increased
between 2008 and 2009 and again between 2010 and 2011 .251 To the Panel, the fact that
domestic prices increased during the period of investigation cannot in itself call into qu estion the
market's ability to absorb additional price increases . The Panel explained that there must be
evidence that the price increases have resulted in prices having reached a level where the market

240 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 135.
241 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 159 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.87-
7.91 and 8.1.d.iii).
242 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 159.
243 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 159.
244 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 168.
245 Panel Report, para. 7.83 (referring to European Union's first written submission to the Panel, paras.
153-154; second written submission to the Panel, para. 113; response to Panel question No. 30, para. 99).
246 Panel Report, para. 7.86.
247 Panel Report, para. 7.86.
248 Panel Report, para. 7.87.
249 Panel Report, para. 7.85.
250 Panel Report, para. 7.87.
251 Panel Report, para. 7.83.

will not accept any further increases. 252 Second, the P anel turned to the European Union's
argument that there were "quality issues" with Sollers' LCVs that raised doubts about whether
consumers would be willing to pay high prices for those LCVs. T he Panel considered that the
evidence on the investigation record did not suffice to demonstrate the existence of quality
problems of a degree that would support the conclusion that the DIMD acted unreasonably by
failing to consider whether such problems affected the likelihood that the market would accept
further pri ce increases .253 Finally, regarding the European Union's argument that there was a
significant increase in the domestic industry's costs of production due to the increasing cost s of
raw materials, the Panel found that there was no evidence on the record to indicate that the rising
costs of production could not have been passed on to consumers.254
5.91. The Panel therefore concluded that the evidence on the investigation record was not
sufficient to require an objective and unbiased investigating authority to conside r whether the
market would absorb price increases beyond those that actually took place in the context of its
consideration of price suppression.255
5.2.3.3 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and
3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in connection with further price increases
5.92. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the evidence on the
investigation record did not require the DIMD to examine whether the market could absorb further
price increases. 256 The European Union argues that there is no requirement in these provisions
that the interested parties must have explicitly questioned the ability of the market to absorb
additional price increases. 257 The European Union submits that an investigating authority making
an injury determination is required to base its determination on all relevant reasoning and facts
before it, and not merely the specific arguments raised by the p articipants in the investigation. 258
The European Union also argues that the DIMD was faced with compelling evidence that
questioned the market's ability to absorb further price increases. 259 To the European Union, the
DIMD should have examined this question. The European Union points to evidence on the DIMD's
investigation record relating to the increase in market prices and in Sollers' production cost s
between 2008 and 2011, as well as the alleged quality issues with the Fiat Ducato assembled
domestically by Sollers.260
5.93. Russia responds that there is no explicit requirement in Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement to consider whether the market would accept price increases and that an
investigating authority must examine this issue only if it is face d with evidence that calls into
question the ability of the market to absorb price increases. 261 Russia submits that the Panel did
not limit the scope of its analysis to the arguments raised by the interested parties. 262 Rather, the
Panel considered the evidence on the DIMD's investigation record and concluded that it was not
sufficient to require an objective and unbiased investigating authority to consider whether the
market would absorb price increases. 263 Russia thus argues that there is no error in the Panel's
interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.264
5.94. The Panel stated that the term "which otherwise would have occurred" in Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement suggests that an investigating authority should at least consider whether
the market would accept price increases in the absence of dumped imports, when faced with
relevant evidence suggesting it would not. To the Panel, if the market would not accept price

252 Panel Report, para. 7.88.
253 Panel Report, para. 7.89.
254 Panel Report, para. 7.90.
255 Panel Report, para. 7.91.
256 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 135 and 158-159.
257 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 135.
258 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 153.
259 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 154-155.
260 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 140-142, 144, and 146-147.
261 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 159.
262 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 164.
263 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 164 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.87).
264 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 165 and 167.

increases in the absence of dumped imports, it seems unlikely that price increases "otherwise
would have occurred" within the meaning of Article 3.2.265
5.95. We agree with these Panel statements to the extent that any assumptions relied on by the
investigating authority are derived as reasonable inferences from a credible basis of facts, and are
sufficiently explained. As explained above, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, an investigating authority shall consider whether the effect of dumped
imports is to prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant
degree. Although an investigating authority enjoys a certain degree of discretion in adopting a
methodology to guide its price suppression analysis, the authority must nonetheless compl y with
the requirements of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Accordingly, when an
investigating authority's determination rests upon assumptions, these assumptions should be
derived as reasonable inferences from a credible basis of facts, and should be sufficiently explained
so that their objectivity and credibility can be verified. 266 Moreover, an investigating authority is
required, under the second sentence of Article 3.2, to consider whether dumped imports are
preventing domestic price i ncreases "which otherwise would have occurred" to a significant
degree. Therefore, an authority must ensure that its methodology assesses price increases "which
otherwise would have occurred" in the absence of dumped imports. Were an investigating
authority to rely on a methodology that concern ed price increases that would not have occurred in
the absence of dumped imports, it would not be able to consider objectively, pursuant to
Article 3.2, whether the effect of dumped imports was to suppress significantly domestic prices.
5.96. In addition, by asking the question "whether the effect of" the dumped imports is significant
price suppression, the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement specifically
instructs an investigating authority to consider whether certain price effects are the consequences
of dumped imports.267 As explained earlier, an investigating authority is thus required to consider
whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the occurrence of significant suppression of
domestic prices. 268 In this respect, an investigating authority may not disregard evidence
regarding elements that call into question the explanatory force of dumped imports for significant
price suppression. Where there is evidence on the investigating authority's record concerning
elements other than dumped imports that may explain the significant suppression of domestic
prices, the investigating authority must consider relevant evidence pertaining to such elements for
purposes of understanding whether dumped imports indeed have a suppressive effect on domestic
prices.269
5.97. We note the European Union's contention that the Panel's interpretation of Articles 3.1 and
3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement included a requirement that interested parties must have
explicitly questioned the ability of the market to absorb additional price increases for an
investigating authority to consider this question. 270 We do not read the Panel, however, to have
added such a requirement. Indeed, although it noted that the investigation record does not
indicate that interested parties questioned the ability of the market to absorb additional price
increases271, the Panel went on to examine whether " the evidence before the DIMD was such that
an objective and unbiased investigating authori ty should nonetheless have considered this
issue."272 This indicates that the Panel did not consider that interested parties must have explicitly
questioned the ability of the market to absorb additional price increases for an investigating
authority to consider this question. Thus, in this respect, we do not find that the Panel erred as far
as its interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is concerned.
5.98. Having examined the Panel's interpretation of A rticles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, we now turn to the Panel's application of these provisions in its review
of the anti -dumping determination at issue. W e examine whether the Panel erred in finding that

265 Panel Report, para. 7.86.
266 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 204. An assumption is not
properly substantiated when the investigating authority does not explain why it would be appropriate to use it
267 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
268 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
269 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 152.
270 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 135.
271 Panel Report, paras. 7.85 and 7.87.
272 Panel Report, para. 7.87.

the evidence on the investigation record did not require the DIMD to examine whether the market
could absorb further price increases.
5.99. As noted above, the European Union argues that the DIMD was faced with compelling
evidence that questioned the market's ability to absorb further price increases. 273 The evidence in
question on the DIMD's investigation record relates to the increase in market prices and in Sollers'
production costs between 2008 and 2011, as well as the alleged quality issues with the FIAT
Ducato assembled domestically by Sollers. 274 The Panel noted that the in vestigation report does
not contain any indication that the DIMD considered whether the market would accept additional
price increases by the domestic industry. 275 The Panel nonetheless proceeded to examine this
evidence itself276, and concluded that it was no t sufficient to require an objective and unbiased
investigating authority to consider whether the market would absorb additional price increases. 277
We now turn to examining whether the Panel erred in making this conclusion.
5.100. We consider that the question be fore the Panel was whether the DIMD properly
considered, in light of the circumstances of the underlying anti-dumping investigation, relevant
evidence in relation to whether the market could absorb additional price increases. As noted
above, however, the DIMD's investigation report does not contain such an explanation. We note in
this respect that there is evidence on the DIMD's investigation record relating to increases in
domestic prices and cost of production as well as alleged quality issues with the do mestic
product.278 In our view, this evidence is relevant to an assessment of whether the domestic market
at issue in the anti-dumping investigation could absorb additional price increases. We consider that
the DIMD should have explained in its investigation report, at a minimum, why this evidence does
not show that the target domestic price relied on by the DIMD was a price that would not have
occurred in the absence of dumped imports . This is because, were the DIMD to rely on a
constructed target domestic price that could not have been absorbed by the domestic market, the
target domestic price would not correspond to one "which otherwise would have occurred" in the
absence of dumped imports within the meaning of Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The
failure of the actual domestic price to meet the constructed target domestic price may be due to
the unrealistic construction of that target domestic price, rather than to the effect of the dumped
imports on domestic prices.
5.101. As explained above, in its assessment reflected in the investigation report, the DIMD could
not have disregarded evidence that calls into question the explanatory force of dumped imports for
significant price suppression. In addition, to the extent that the DIMD's determination rested upon
assumptions, these assumptions should have been derived as reasonable inferences from a
credible basis of facts, and should have been sufficiently explained in the report so that their
objectivity and credibility could be verified. In light of the above, given that there is no indication
in the investigation report that the DIMD considered evidence that call ed into question the
explanatory force of dumped imports for the occurrence of significant price suppression, we
consider that the Panel did not have a basis to find that the DIMD did not act inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.102. In addition, in light of the standard of review under the Anti -Dumping Agreement, we
recall that it is not for a panel to conduct a de novo review of the facts of the case or substitute its
judgement for that of the investigating authorit y.279 Rather, a panel must examine "whether, in
the light of the evidence on the record, the conclusions reached by the investigating autho rity are
reasoned and adequate". 280 In this respect, a panel must ascertain whether the investigating
authority has evaluated all of the relevant evidence in an objective and unbiased manner ,
including by taking sufficient account of conflicting evidence and responding to competing plausible

273 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 154-155.
274 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 140-142, 144, and 146-147.
275 Panel Report, para. 7.85.
276 Panel Report, paras. 7.88-7.90.
277 Panel Report, para. 7.91.
278 Panel Report, paras. 7.87-7.90.
279 Appellate Body Reports, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258; US – Steel Safeguards, para. 299;
Argentina – Footwear (EC), para. 121; US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), para. 379.
280 Appellate Body Report, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
US ‒ Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 93).

explanations of that evidence .281 Thus, the Panel in this dispute could not have reached a
conclusion about whether the DIMD should have examined certain evidence on the basis of the
Panel's own appreciation of this evidenc e. The fact that the Panel itself undertook the assessment
of the evidence on the investigation record does not change the fact that the DIMD failed to make
such an assessment. The conclusion of whether the evidence effectively undermines or confirms
the investigating authority's price suppression analysis under Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement can only be reached on the basis of the authority's review of the
evidence within the particular circumstances of each investigation as reflected in the inv estigation
report.
5.103. For the reasons above, we find that the Panel erred in its application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the evidence on the investigation record did not
require the DIMD to examine whether the market could absorb further price increases .
Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.87 -7.91 and 8.1.d.iii of the Panel
Report.
5.104. Having reversed the Panel's finding at issue , we turn to the European Union's request for
us to complete the analysis and find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to examine evidence relevant to whether the market would
accept additional domestic price increases. The European Union submits that we can complete the
analysis on the basis of the evidence on the Panel record cited by the European Union.282
5.105. The Appellate Body has generally decided to complete the analysis where it was necessary
to do so in order to facilitate the prompt settlement and effe ctive resolution of the dispute.283
Further, completion of the analysis is possible where factual findings in the panel report,
undisputed facts on the record, and admitted facts provide the Appellate Body with a sufficient
basis for doing so. 284 Finally, wher e the complexity of the issues raised, the absence of full
exploration of the issues before the panel, and considerations pertaining to the parties' due
process rights do not warrant completing the analysis, or where doing so is not required to resolve
the dispute, the Appellate Body has declined to complete the analysis.285
5.106. In this dispute, there is evidence on the investigation record relating to the increase in
market prices and in Sollers' production cost s between 2008 and 2011, as well as the alleged
quality issues with the FIAT Ducato assembled domestically by Sollers. 286 In their comments of
11 April 2013 on the DIMD's draft investigation report287, Daimler AG and ZAO Mercedes-Benz RUS
stated that the report fails to provide any assessment of other factors that could have caused the
absence of increases in domestic prices. In particular, they stated that Sollers " faced serious
problems with regard to the quality of the manufactured goods ".288 Daimler AG and ZAO
Mercedes-Benz RUS conclude d that " the inability to introduce further increases in prices, which
had already risen significantly prior to the period under investigation, was a consequence of
[Sollers'] own behaviour and the business solutions adopted by [Sollers]."289 We also note that,

281 Appellate Body Reports, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258; US – Softwood Lumber VI
(Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 97; US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), para. 443.
282 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 159.
283 Appellate Body Reports, US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.146; EC and certain
member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1178; US ‒ Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 1351;
EC ‒ Asbestos, para. 78.
284 Appellate Body Reports, US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.146; Australia – Salmon,
paras. 209, 241, and 255; Korea – Dairy, paras. 91 and 102; US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint),
285 Appellate Body Reports, US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.146; Canada –
Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program, para. 5.224; EC ‒ Seal Products, paras. 5.63 and 5.69;
US – Steel Safeguards, para. 431.
286 Panel Report, paras. 7.87-7.90.
287 Eurasian Economic Commission, Report on the findings of the anti-dumping investigation on imports
of light commercial vehicles from Germany, Italy, Poland, and Turkey (Non-confidential version)
(draft investigation report, 28 March 2013) (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and RUS-10).
288 Daimler's and Mercedes' comments of 11 April 2013 on the draft investigation report (Panel Exhibit
EU-19), Section 2.2.
289 Daimler's and Mercedes' comments of 11 April 2013 on the draft investigation report of (Panel
Exhibit EU-19), Section 2.2. See also Daimler's and Mercedes' comments of 16 March 2012 on the public
hearing (Panel Exhibit EU-8).

Peugeot Citroën Automobiles SA (PCA) and Peugeot Citroën Russia (PCR) stated in their comments
of 11 April 2013 on the draft investigation report, that the report "shows that the [Customs Union]
industry increased both its costs of production and its prices fro m 2008 to the [investigation
period]."290 In its comments of 11 February 2012, the Association of Turkish exporters from the
automotive industry stated that the increase in Sollers' costs was related to "the increase in the
production costs, which was based on the increase of the prices of the main raw materials
(coal, iron ore), and also the increase in the tariffs of the natural monopolies ."291 In our view, the
evidence above is relevant to the question of whether the market could absorb further price
increases, and thus whether the dumped imports had explanatory force for the occurrence of price
suppression. The DIMD's investigation report, however, does not contain any indication that the
DIMD considered such evidence in the context of whether the market would accept additional price
increases by the domestic industry. Indeed, we observe the Panel's statement that "[t]he notion
that there was a margin for domestic prices to increase is not a part of the analysis set out by the
DIMD in the Investigation Report ."292 Thus, we consider that the DIMD did not examine evidence
relevant to whether the market would accept additional domestic price increases.
5.107. As noted above , an investigating authority is required under the second sentence of
Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement to consider whether dumped imports are preventing
domestic price increases "which otherwise would have occurred" to a significant degree. Therefore,
an authority must ensure that its methodology assesses price increases "which otherwise would
have occurred" in the absence of dumped imports. In addition, an investigating authority is
required, under Article 3.2, to consider whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the
occurrence of significant suppression of domestic prices. 293 In this r espect, an investigating
authority may not disregard evidence regarding elements that calls into question the explanatory
force of dumped imports for significant price suppression. Where there is evidence on the
investigating authority's record concerning elements other than subject imports that may explain
the significant suppression of domestic prices, the investigating authority must consider relevant
evidence pertaining to such elements for purposes of understanding whether dumped imports
indeed have a suppressive effect on domestic prices.294
5.108. By failing to consider relevant evidence on the investigation record, the DIMD effectively
disregarded evidence that called into question the explanatory force of the dumped imports for the
occurrence of significant price suppression. Thus, we find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to examine evidence relevant to
whether the market would accept additional domestic price increases.295
5.2.4 Conclusions
5.109. In relation to Russia's appeal under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement,
the fact that several factors or elements could potentially influence the rate of return used to
construct the target domestic price does not allow an investigating authority to disregard evidence
regarding any particular factor or element that calls into question the explanatory force of dumped
imports for significant price suppression under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. We
thus disagree with Russia's argumen t that the consideration of evidence regarding factors or
elements – such as, in this dispute, the financial crisis – that call into question the explanatory
force of dumped imports for the existence of price suppression would lead to a biased analysis
simply because there could be other factors that could also potentially affect the selected rate of
return. In addition, we do not consider that the Panel's interpretation of Article 3.2 suggests that
an investigating authority is required to conduct a non-attribution analysis of all known factors that
may be causing injury to the domestic industry in the context of its price suppression analysis. The
inquiries under Article 3.5 and under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement have distinct

290 PCA's and PCR's comments of 11 April 2013 on the draft investigation report (Panel Exhibit EU-20),
p. 4.
291 Comments of the Association of Turkish exporters from the automotive industry of 11 February 2012
(Panel Exhibit EU-31), p. 33.
292 Panel Report, para. 7.85.
293 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.
294 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 152.
295 In reaching this conclusion, we take no position on whether or not, in the circumstances of the
anti-dumping investigation at issue, the market could have absorbed additional price increases in the absence
of dumped imports.

focuses. The analysis under Article 3.5 focuses on the causal relationship between dumped imports
and injury to the domestic industry. In contr ast, the analysis under Article 3.2 focuses on the
relationship between dumped imports and domestic prices.
5.110. We therefore find that the Panel did not err in its interpreta tion and application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD acted inconsistently
with these provisions because it failed to take into account the impact of the financial cris is in
determining the rate of return used to construct the target domestic price for its price suppression
analysis. Consequently, we uphold the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.64-7.67 and 8.1.d.i of the
Panel Report.296
5.111. In relation to the European Union's claims under Article 11 of the DSU, we consider that
the Panel's findings concerning the DIMD's methodology, the long -term price trends, and the
degree of price suppression are not coherent and consistent with the Panel's earlier finding that
the manner in which the DIMD used the 2009 rate of return to determine the target domestic price
was WTO-inconsistent. We therefore find that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Article 11 of the DSU. Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.77-
7.81, 7.104-7.107, 8.1.d.iii, and 8.1.d.iv of the Panel Report.
5.112. Having found that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11 of the
DSU, we do not examine the European Union's conditional claim that the Panel er red in its
interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding
that the DIMD's methodology explained that the effect of the dumped imports was to supress
domestic prices.297 We also do not examine the European Unio n's request for us to complete the
analysis and find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 by failing to consider
whether the dumped imports have explanatory force for the existence of significant price
suppression.298
5.113. In relation to t he European Union's claim under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning whether the domestic market could absorb further price
increases, we consider that an investigating authority must ensure that its price suppression
methodology under Article 3.2 assesses price increases "which otherwise would have occurred" in
the absence of dumped imports. In addition, an investigating authority is required to consider
whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the occurrence of significant suppression of
domestic prices. Contrary to the European Union's contention, we do not read the Panel to have
added a requirement to Articles 3.1 and 3.2 that interested parties must have explicitly questioned
the ability of the market to absorb additi onal price increases for an investigating authority to be
required to consider this question. Thus, in this respect, we do not find that the Panel erred in its
interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3. 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. We fault the Panel,
however, for having itself undertaken the assessment of relevant evidence on the DIMD's
investigation record. For these reasons, we find that the Panel erred in its application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the evidence on the
investigation record did not require the DIMD to examine whether the market could absorb further
price increases. Consequently, we reverse the Pane l's findings in paragraphs 7.87 -7.91 and
8.1.d.iii of the Panel Report.
5.114. Having reversed the Panel's finding at issue , we complete the analysis and find that the
DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to
examine evidence relevant to whether the market would accept additional domestic price
increases.

296 Having upheld these Panel findings, we do not examine Russia's conditional request concerning
paragraphs 7.181-7.182 and 8.1.f.i of the Panel Report regarding the consequential inconsistency with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
297 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 101-102 (referring to Panel Report,
para. 7.78).
298 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 132.

5.3 Confidential investigation report
5.3.1 Introduction
5.115. The European Union takes issue with the Panel's reliance on the confidential investigation
report of the DIMD299 in its assessment of the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the domestic industry's return on investments,
actual and potential effects on cash flow, and the ability to raise capital or investments .
The European Union claims that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter
before it pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU and failed to determine whether the DIMD's
establishment of the facts was proper and whether its evaluation of those facts was unbiased and
objective within the meaning of Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by basing its
evaluation of the European Union's claims on the confidential investigation report without
assessing whether that document formed part of the investigation record at the time the
determination to impose the anti-dumping measure was made.300 In the event that we reverse the
Panel's findings, the European Union requests us to complete the analysis and find, on the basis of
the non -confidential investigation report 301, that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1
and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to evaluate the three injury factors at issue.302
5.116. We begin by recalling the Panel's findings concerning the DIMD's evaluation of the three
injury factors at issue before turning to address the European Union's claims under Arti cle 11 of
the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.3.2 Panel's findings
5.117. Before the Panel, the European Union argued that the DIMD acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it failed to examine, in the
non-confidential investigation report, the domestic industry's return on investments, actual and
potential effects on cash flow, and the ability to raise capital or investments. 303 The
European Union contended that the Panel should not base its assessment und er Articles 3.1 and
3.4 on the confidential investigation report to the extent that the same inform ation did not appear
in the non-confidential investigation report.304
5.118. The Panel noted that the evaluation of the Article 3.4 factors at issue was absent, in its
entirety, from the non -confidential investigation report and that there was no indication in that
report that the confidential information at issue had been redacted from it. The Panel further noted
that this could give rise to a concern as to whether the non-confidential investigation report was
consistent with Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel recalled the
European Union's argument that "total silence on a factor may call into question whether the DIMD
actually examined it." 305 The Panel noted, however, that the European Union had not presented
any evidence suggesting that the confidential investigation report was not "genuine".306 Moreover,
the Panel recalled that, although the European Union had raised a claim under Article 12 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in its panel request307, it did not pursue this claim. 308 At the same time,
the Panel observed that Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement "does not imply that the
determination must be based only on reasoning or facts that were disclos ed to, or discernible by,
the parties to an anti-dumping investigation".309 Therefore, the Panel saw no basis for the

299 Panel Exhibit RUS-14 (BCI).
300 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal, pp. 1-2; other appellant's submission, para. 32.
301 Panel Exhibits EU-21 and RUS-12.
302 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal, pp. 1-2; other appellant's submission, paras. 72 and 74.
303 Panel Report, para. 7.163.
304 Panel Report, para. 7.164; European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 144.
305 Panel Report, fn 300 to para. 7.165 (referring to European Union's second written submission to the
307 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Union, WT/DS479/2, para. 9.
309 Panel Report, para. 7.165 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 111).

European Union's argument that the Panel could not base its assessment on the confidential
investigation report.310
5.119. Having examined Section 4.2.7 of the confidential investigation report, the Panel concluded
that the DIMD had evaluated the following three injury factors: (i) return on investments of the
domestic industry; (ii) the actual and potential negative effects on cash flow of the domesti c
industry; and (iii) the industry's ability to raise capital or investments.311 The Panel thus found that
the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and
3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.312
5.3.3 Whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.120. The European Union claims that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the
matter before it pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU , and failed to determin e whether the DIMD's
establishment of the facts was proper and whether its evaluation of those facts was unbiased and
objective within the meaning of Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, by basing its
assessment of the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement concerning three injury factors on the confidential investigation report. 313 The
European Union submits that the Panel erred by simply accepting that the entire content of the
confidential investigation repo rt "that emerged for the first time during WTO proceedings actually
formed part of the investigation record", instead of "assess[ing] whether that was indeed the
case".314 In the European Union's view, the Panel should have made such an assessment and
required Russia to show, by providing relevant explanations or evidence, that the confidential
content of the report actually formed part of the investigation record. 315 The European Union
considers that, by failing to do so, the Panel "made no attempt to 'objecti vely assess' or 'properly
establish' the facts pertinent to deciding whether or not the [confidential investigation report]
formed part of the investigation record". 316 In the European Union's view, while investigating
authorities may base their injury deter mination partly on confidential facts that were not disclosed
to interested parties, "a panel's assessment can only be based on facts and reasoning that formed
part of the investigation record ."317 Moreover, the European Union recalls that, in EC – Tube or
Pipe Fittings, the Appellate Body "made clear that panels cannot accept a document submitted by
a respondent without question, and that they cannot simply rely on the presumption of good
faith."318
5.121. Russia responds that the European Union "misrepresents" the arguments it made before
the Panel. 319 Specifically, Russia points out that the issue before the Panel was whether the
absence of indications in the non -confidential investigation report could preclude the Panel from
considering certain parts of the confiden tial investigation report in its analysis of the
European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.320 In Russia's
view, the European Union attempts to show on appeal that it did explain to the Panel why it was
"doubtful whethe r the DIMD had actually examined the three injury factors at issue during the
investigation".321 Russia argues that the " European Union's attempt to explain why it considered
that the DIMD actually might have not examined the three injury factors at issue du ring the

310 Panel Report, para. 7.165.
311 Panel Report, paras. 7.166-7.169.
312 Panel Report, para. 7.172.
313 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal, pp. 1-2; other appellant's submission, para. 32. We recall
that, before the Panel, the European Union argued that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it had failed to examine the domestic industry's return on
investments, actual and potential effects on cash flow, and the ability to raise capital or investments.
(Panel Report, para. 7.163)
314 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 51.
315 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 51.
316 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 60.
317 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 63 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
Thailand – H-Beams, paras. 117-118). (emphasis original)
318 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 64 (referring to Appellate Body Report,
EC ‒ Tube or Pipe Fittings, paras. 124-127 and fn 143 thereto).
319 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 45.
320 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 37 and 40.
321 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 43.

investigation was never made before the Panel. "322 Russia also contends that the European Union,
as the complaining party, "carried the burden of proof which it failed to meet" 323, and that the
Panel was correct to state that the European Union had no t presented any evidence suggesting
that the confidential investigation report "was not genuine". 324 Moreover, Russia considers that, in
light of the arguments put forward by the parties and the discussion that took place during the
Panel proceedings, there was no need for the Panel to seek clarifications from Russia.325
5.122. The participants disagree on whether the European Union argued before the Panel that the
analysis of the three injury factors at issue did not form part of the investigation record.
We therefore start by addressing Russia's assertion that the European Union did not raise before
the Panel the issue of whether the relevant parts of the confidential investigation report formed
part of the investigation record.
5.123. We recall that the confidential invest igation report 326 was submitted by Russia together
with Russia's first written submission to the Panel. Accordingly, the European Union could not have
been aware of the contents of the confidential investigation report before the receipt of Russia's
first written submission to the Panel. The European Union originally based its claim s under
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 on the non -confidential investigation report tha t was available to it. 327 In its
second written submission to the Panel, after having received the confidential investigation report,
the European Union elaborated that the Panel should not base its assessment under Articles 3.1
and 3.4 on the confidential investigation report to the extent that the same information was not
apparent from the non-confidential investigation report.328
5.124. The Panel posed several questions to the European Union regarding its claim s under
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the three injury factors. In
particular, in Panel question No. 50, the Panel asked the European Union to explain the nature of
its claim concerning the DIMD's failure to set out the evaluation of the three injury factors at issue
in the non-confidential investigation report. In response, the European Union stated that there was
"no trace of the missing factors in the evaluation of the injury factors or in the conclusion as
regards material injury ", which " may [have] call[ed] into question whether the DIMD actually
examined those factors ".329 For the European Union, the fact that the three injury factors were
treated by the DIMD as confidential, without even indicating in the non -confidential investigation
report that these factors were assessed, "strongly indicates ex post rationalisation for the purposes
of WTO proceedings ".330 In the European Union's view, " at the very least the DIMD should have
alerted the interested parties that an analysis had been carried out also with respe ct to those
factors."331
5.125. In Panel question No. 70, the Panel asked the European Union to explain the basis for its
request that the Panel not consider the confidential investigation report in its analysis .
In response, the European Union stated that "the Panel can base its judgement on the confidential
version of the Report to the extent that the Panel is reassured that the elements in the confidential
version of the Report have always been there. "332 For the European Union, "conclusions that rely
entirely on evidence that was kept confidential until well into the proceedings of a dispute should

322 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 44.
323 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 50.
324 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 48.
325 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 64. Specifically, Russia points that it was evidenced by the
public record that the DIMD requested information on the financial state of the domestic industry and received
it in confidential form. Moreover, Russia notes that it expressed willingness to answer any questions regarding
the confidential investigation report. (Ibid., para. 65)
326 Exhibit RUS-14 (BCI).
327 In its first written submission to the Panel, the European Union asserted that the DIMD had failed to
examine the three factors at issue because there was nothing in the non-confidential investigation report or on
the investigation record showing that these factors had been evaluated. (European Union's first written
328 European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 144. In the European Union's view,
the absence of any trace of the relevant injury factors analysis in the non-confidential investigation report
"may [have] call[ed] into question whether the DIMD actually examined those factors". (Ibid., para. 146)
329 European Union's response to Panel question No. 50, para. 156.
330 European Union's response to Panel question No. 50, para. 158.
331 European Union's response to Panel question No. 50, para. 161.
332 European Union's response to Panel question No. 70, para. 22.

be avoided " because this " risks opening the door for WTO Members to be able to adjust the
confidential version of the report in light of the arguments made by the compla ining party in the
dispute".333
5.126. In our view, these statements by the European Union indicate that, before the Panel, the
European Union expressed its concern as to whether certain parts of the confidential investigation
report in which the DIMD allegedly examined the three injury factors at issue formed part of the
investigation record. Notably, the Panel itself recognized the European Union's concern by stating
that "the European Union has not presented any evidence suggesting that the confidential …
Investigation Report is not genuine." 334 We consider that the essence of the European Union's
argument before the Panel and on appeal has remained the same: before the Panel the
European Union questioned whether certain parts of the confidential investigation re port formed
part of the investigation record; while on appeal it faults the Panel for not having engaged with its
argument. We thus disagree with Russia that, on appeal, the European Union "misrepresents" the
arguments that it made before the Panel.335
5.127. We now proceed to address the European Union's claim that the Panel acted inconsistently
with Article 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by basing its
assessment of the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement on the confidential investigation report "without assessing whether that document was
indeed part of the investigation record".336
5.128. Article 11 of the DSU imposes upon panels a comprehensive obligation to make an
"objective assessment of the matter", which embraces "all aspects of a panel's examination of the
'matter', both factual and legal". 337 In conducting an assessment of the WTO -consistency of a
determination by an investigating authority , a panel must examine "whether, in the light of the
evidence on the record, the conclusions reached by the investigating authority are reasoned and
adequate".338 First, a panel must ascertain whether the investigating authority has evaluated all of
the relevant evidence in an objective and unbiased manner, in cluding by taking sufficient account
of conflicting evidence and responding to competing plausible explanations of that evidence. 339
Second, the panel must test the relationship between the evidence on which the authority relied in
drawing specific inference s, and the coherence of its reasoning. 340 Finally, the adequacy of an
investigating authority's explanations is also a function of the substantive provisions of the specific
covered agreements that are at issue in the dispute. 341 Under Article 17.6(i) of the A nti-Dumping
Agreement, the task of panels is to review the investigating authorities' "establishment" and
"evaluation" of the facts. To that end, Article 17.6(i) provides that, "in its assessment of the facts
of the matter, the panel shall determine whethe r the authorities ' establishment of the facts was
proper and whether their evaluation of those facts was unbiased and objective."342
5.129. We recall that t he Panel considered that it could base its assessment of the
European Union's claim s under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on the
confidential investigation report and , in reaching this conclusion, it referred to the Appellate Body
report in Thailand – H-Beams.343 In Thailand – H-Beams, the Appellate Body explained that "the
requirement in Article 3.1 [of the Anti-Dumping Agreement] that an injury determination be based
on 'positive' evidence and involve an 'objective' examination of the required elements of injury

333 European Union's response to Panel question No. 70, para. 23.
335 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 45.
336 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 62.
337 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 54.
338 Appellate Body Report, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
US ‒ Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada), para. 93).
339 Appellate Body Reports, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258; US – Softwood Lumber VI
(Article 21.5 ‒ Canada), para. 97.
340 Appellate Body Reports, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258; US – Softwood Lumber VI
(Article 21.5 ‒ Canada), para. 97.
341 Appellate Body Reports, US – Washing Machines, para. 5.258; US – Softwood Lumber VI
(Article 21.5 ‒ Canada), para. 95.
342 In US – Hot-Rolled Steel, the Appellate Body stated that "it is inconceivable that Article 17.6(i)
should require anything other than that panels make an objective 'assessment of the facts of the matter'."
(Appellate Body Report, US – Hot Rolled Steel, para. 55 (emphasis original))
343 Panel Report, para. 7.165 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 111).

does not imply that the determination must be based only o n reasoning or facts that were
disclosed to, or discernible by, the parties to an anti -dumping investigation." 344 Moreover,
according to the Appellate Body, Articles 17.5 and 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement "do not
prevent a panel from examining facts that were not disclosed to, or discernible by, the interested
parties at the time of the final determination".345
5.130. In the present dispute, the participants agree that, in principle, a panel could rely on parts
of a confidential version of an investigation report in its examination of claims under Articles 3.1
and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. 346 We note that the absen ce of any indication in the
non-confidential investigation report that the three injury factors a t issue were analysed may raise
issues of due process. However, the issue of whether an investigating authority can conduct its
analysis of the mandatory injury factors in a confidential version of an investigation report, without
referring to it in a public version of the investigation report, is not before us in this appeal. Rather,
as noted, the issue before us is whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU
and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by basing its assessment of the European Union's
claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement on the confidential investigation
report without assessing whether or not it formed part of the investigation record at the time the
determination was made.
5.131. We recall that the confidential investigation report was in Russia's exclusive possession
until it was submitted to the Panel together with Russia's first written submission. In this respect,
we note the difficulty faced by the European Union in challenging the validity of certain parts of the
confidential investigation report first submitted in the course of WTO dispute settlement
proceedings, in particular in obtaining and providing evidence to the Panel in support of its
contention that the relevant parts of the confid ential investigation report may not have formed
part of the investigation record . In US – Continued Zeroing, the Appellate Body emphasized that
"the nature and scope of the evidence that might be reasonably expected by an adjudicator in
order to establish a fact or claim in a particular case will depend on a range of factors, including
the type of evidence that is made available by a Member's regulating authority. "347 The
Appellate Body further explained that, " in a specific case, a panel may have a sufficien t basis to
reach an affirmative finding regarding a particular fact or claim on the basis of inferences that can
be reasonably drawn from circumstantial rather than direct evidence. "348 Moreover, in US – Large
Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), the Appellate Body observed that it could " conceive of circumstances
in which a party [could not] reasonably be expected to meet [the] burden [of adducing evidence in
support of its claims or defences] by adducing all relevant evidence required to make out its case,
most notably when that information is in the exclusive possession of the opposing or a third
party."349 In such circumstances, a panel may have to seek out that information in order to make
an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU.350
5.132. In this dispute, t he European Union submitted circumstantial evidence in support of its
claim that the confidential investigation report may not have formed part of the investigation
record. In particular, the European Union argued that the absence of a summary or any trace of

344 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 111. (emphasis original) The issue before the
Appellate Body in that dispute was:
whether the terms 'positive evidence' and 'objective examination' in Article 3.1 [of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement] require that 'the reasoning supporting the determination be 'formally
or explicitly stated' in documents in the record of the investigation to which interested parties
(and/or their legal counsel) have access at least from the time of the final determination', and,
further, that 'the factual basis relied upon by the authorities must be discernible from those
documents'.
(Ibid., para. 107)
345 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 118.
346 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 63; responses to questioning at the oral
hearing; Russia's appellee's submission, para. 40; responses to questioning at the oral hearing.
347 Appellate Body Report, US – Continued Zeroing, para. 357.
348 Appellate Body Report, US – Continued Zeroing, para. 357.
349 Appellate Body Report, US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 1139.
350 Appellate Body Report, US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 1139. The Appellate Body
noted that, "[i]n such circumstances, a panel may be unable to make an objective assessment of the matter
without exercising its authority under Article 13 of the DSU to seek out that information, in particular if the
party that needs this evidence can show that it has diligently exhausted all means to acquire it, to the extent
such means exist." (Ibid.)

the examination of the three injury factors at issue in the non -confidential investigation report
suggested that they were not evaluated by the DIMD, and that the confidential investigation report
may have been adjusted for pur poses of WTO dispute settlement proceedings. 351 In light of the
circumstances of this case, we do not consider that it was incumbent upon the European Union to
prove conclusively that the relevant parts of the confidential investigation report did not form part
of the investigation record at the time the determination was made. To r equest the
European Union to do so would require submission of information to which the European Union did
not have access when it filed its panel request and its first written submission. Rather, it appears
to us that the Panel should have requested from Russia evidence demonstrating that the
confidential investigation report formed part of the investigation record at the time the
determination was made, given that Russia was best placed to provide such evidence.
5.133. We recall that, i n EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, the Appellate Body addressed the issue of
whether the panel's assessment of the fac ts was proper, under Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, when it found that a certain document f ormed part of the record in the anti -dumping
investigation in that dispute .352 The Appellate Body rejected Brazil's contention that the panel
based its conclusion "exclusively on a mere unsubstantiated assertion from the EC which was
accepted by the [p]anel on the basis of a presumption of good faith". 353 The Appellate Body
referred to the questions tha t the panel had posed to the European Communities concerning the
document at issue and to the European Communities' responses to those questions. 354 In the
Appellate Body's view, this demonstrated that the panel "took into account the
European Communities' responses to its questions before reaching its finding" and did not rely
exclusively on the presumption of good faith.355 In the Appellate Body's view, the panel had
"conducted an overall inquiry into the genuineness of [the document], including whether it formed
part of the record of the anti -dumping investigation, and arrived at an overall finding on the basis
of the results of that inquiry."356 The Appellate Body was thus satisfied that the panel took steps to
assure itself of the validity of the document at issue.
5.134. We consider that, w hen faced with a claim that a report, or parts of it , on the basis of
which an anti-dumping measure was imposed did not form part of the investigation record at the
time the determination was made , a panel has to take certain step s to assess objectively and
assure itself of the report's validity and whether or not it formed part of the contemporaneous
written record of the investigation. The panel may do so, for example, by posing specific questions
to the respondent party submitting the investigation report about its origin and the point in time
when it was incorporated into the record of the investigation. The manner in which a panel can
assure itself of whether an investigation report , or parts of it , formed part of the investiga tion
record will depend on the facts of the particular case and may include, in addition to posing
questions to the submitting party, examining additional evidence demonstrating that the contested
report, or parts of it, formed part of the investigation record.357

351 European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 146; responses to Panel questions
No. 50 and No. 70.
352 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 124. In that case, Brazil had expressed
doubts before the panel as to "whether Exhibit EC-12 formed part of the record of the underlying anti-dumping
investigation". (Ibid., para. 120)
353 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, paras. 122 and 127.
354 The Appellate Body referred to the following excerpt from the panel report in that dispute:
We asked the European Communities to indicate in the record of the investigation the sources of
information and the methodology on which the statements and information in Exhibit EC-12 are
based. The European Communities gave an account of the methodology and the sources of
information on the basis of which the statements in Exhibit EC-12 were made. We further asked
the European Communities to confirm and substantiate to us that Exhibit EC-12 was written
within the time period of the investigation. The European Communities confirmed that this was
the case. Given the EC responses, we find no basis to question whether Exhibit EC-12 forms part
of the record of the underlying investigation and we must consequently take its contents into
account in our examination of the relevant substantive claims made by Brazil.
(Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 126 (quoting Panel Report, EC – Tube or Pipe
Fittings, para. 7.46) (fns omitted))
355 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 127.
356 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, fn 143 to para. 127.
357 We recall that, pursuant to Article 13 of the DSU, a panel has the right to seek information from any
individual or body which it deems appropriate.

5.135. In the present dispute, the Panel did not pose pertinent questions to Russia or seek
otherwise to assure itself that the relevant parts of the confidential investigation report formed
part of the investigation re cord at the time the determination was made .358 We note that Russia
commented on the European Union's responses to Panel questions Nos . 70 and 71, and noted, in
particular, that it had "not 'adjust[ed] the confidential version of the report'" .359 In our view , the
Panel should have engaged with Russia in this respect and taken steps to assure itself that the
relevant parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the investigation record at the
time the determination was made.
5.136. The Panel, however, did not assure itself that the relevant parts of the confidential
investigation report formed part of the investigation record. Instead, the Panel rejected the
European Union's contention on the ground that it was not substantiated with evidence , and
proceeded with its analysis of the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement on the basis of the confidential investigation report as if it had been
established that it formed part of the investigation record at the time the determination was
made.360 In our view, by doing so, the Panel failed to conduct an objective assessment of the
facts, as required under Article 11 of the DSU, and to assess the facts of the matter pursuant to
Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.137. On the basis of the above, we find that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the
DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by relying, in its examination of the
European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, on the
confidential investigation report without assuring itself of whether the relevant parts of it formed
part of the investigation record at the time the determination to impose the anti-dumping measure
was made. Accordingly, we reverse the Panel's intermediate finding, in paragraphs 7.165 and
7.166 of the Panel Report, that it could base its analysis of the European Union's claims under
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on the confidential investigation report. We
also reverse the Panel's subsequent analysis, contained in paragraphs 7.166 to 7.171 of the
Panel Report, and the Panel's ultimate finding, in paragraphs 7.172, 7.17 3.i, and 8.1 .e.x of the
Panel Report, that the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD acted inconsistently
with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to examine the three injury
factors at issue.
5.138. Having reversed the Panel's intermediate finding that it could base its analysis on th e
confidential investigation report, we turn to consider whether we can complete the analysis. The
European Union requests us to complete the analysis and find, on the basis of the non-confidential
investigation report, that the DIMD acted inconsistently w ith Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to evaluate the three injury factors at issue, namely: (i) the
domestic industry's return on investments ; (ii) the actual and potential effects on cash flow ; and
(iii) the ability to raise capital or investments.
5.139. We consider that we would be in the position to address the European Union's request for
completion on the basis of the non -confidential investigation report only if we were first to
determine for ourselves that we cannot rely on the confidential investigation report. We, therefore,
first turn to consider whether we can determine for ourselves whether certain parts of the
confidential investigation report formed part of the investigation record at the time the
determination was made and whether, accordingly, we can rely on the confidential investigation
report in the assessment of the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.140. In previous disputes, the Appellate Body has completed the analysis with a view to
facilitating the prompt settlement and effective resolution of the dispute.361 The Appellate Body

358 By contrast, as we noted above, the Panel posed a number of questions to the European Union
seeking to clarify its request that the Panel should not rely on the confidential investigation report in examining
the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
359 Russia's comments on the European Union's response to Panel question No. 70, para. 36.
360 Panel Report, para. 7.165 and fn 300 thereto, and para. 7.166. We recall that the European Union
could not have been aware of the contents of the confidential investigation report before the receipt of Russia's
first written submission to the Panel.
361 See Appellate Body Reports, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1178;

has completed the analysis where the factual findings in the panel report, undisputed facts on the
panel record, and admitted facts provided it w ith a sufficient basis for conducting its own
analysis.362 The Appellate Body has declined to complete the analysis in light of the complexity of
issues, the absence of full exploration of the issues before the panel, and considerations pertaining
to the parties' due process rights.363
5.141. We recall that the Panel did not pose pertinent questions to Russia or seek otherwise to
assure itself that the relevant parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the
investigation record. As noted, the Appellate Body has refrained from completing the analysis in
the absence of a full exploration of the issues before the panel that might have given rise to
concerns about the parties' due process rights. 364 In light of the absence on the record of this
dispute of a discernible attempt by the Panel to assure itself of whether the confidential
investigation report formed part of the investigation record and, in particular, the absence of
questions being posed to Russia concerning the confidential investigation report, we cannot now
on appeal decide afresh whether the parts of the confidential investigation report relating to the
three injury factors at issue formed part of the investigation record at the time the determination
to impose the anti -dumping measure was made. Accordingly, we cannot determine for ourselves
whether we can rely on the analysis contained in the confidential investigation report for purposes
of the assessment of the European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement. In these circumstances, we cannot complete the analysis with respect to the
European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 concerning the three injury factors at issue.
Consequently, we cannot reach a conclusion as to whether the DIMD acted inc onsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to examine the three injury factors
at issue, as the European Union alleges.
5.3.4 Conclusions
5.142. In relation to Russia's contention that, on appeal, the European Union misrepresents the
arguments it made before the Panel, we consider that , before the Panel, the European Union
raised the issue of whether certain parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the
investigation record at the time the final determination to impose the anti -dumping measure was
made. On appeal , the European Union faults the Panel for not having engaged with that same
argument.
5.143. We recall that the confidential investigation report was submitted by Russia together with
its first written submission to the Panel and that the European Union could not have been aware of
the contents of the confidential investigation report before the receipt of Russia's first written
submission. We note the difficulty the European Union had in the present case in o btaining and
providing evidence to the Panel in support of its contention that the relevant parts of the
confidential investigation report may not have formed part of the investigation record. In our view,
when faced with a claim that a report, or parts of it, on the basis of which an anti -dumping
measure was imposed did not form part of the investigation record, a panel has to take certain
steps to assess objectively and assure itself of the validity of such report, or its parts, and whether
or not it form ed part of the contemporaneous written record of the investigation. In the present
dispute, the Panel did not seek to assure itself that the relevant parts of the confidential
investigation report formed part of the investigation record at the time the det ermination to
impose the anti-dumping measure was made.
5.144. On the basis of the above, we find that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the
DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by relying, in its examination of the
European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, on the

362 See Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, paras. 241 and 255; Korea – Dairy, para. 102;
US ‒ Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 653; US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, para. 343;
EC ‒ Asbestos, para. 78; China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.135; US ‒ Anti-Dumping
Methodologies (China), para. 5.164.
363 See Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program,
para. 5.224; EC ‒ Seal Products, paras. 5.63 and 5.69; US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para.
5.178.
364 See Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program,
para. 5.224; EC ‒ Seal Products, paras. 5.63 and 5.69; US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para.
5.178.

confidential investigation report without properly assuring itself of its validity, that is to say, of
whether the relevant parts of it formed part of the investigation record at th e time the
determination to impose the anti -dumping measure was made . Consequently, we reverse the
Panel's intermediate finding, in paragraphs 7.165 and 7.166 of the Panel Report, that it could base
its analysis of the European Union's claims concerning the three injury factors under Articles 3.1
and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on the confid ential investigation report. We also reverse
the Panel's subsequent analysis, contained in paragr aphs 7.166 to 7.171, and the Panel's ultimate
finding, in paragrap hs 7.172, 7.17 3.i, and 8.1 .e.x of the Panel Report, that the European Union
had failed to establish that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to examine the three injury factors at issue , namely: (i) the
domestic industry's return on investments ; (ii) the actual and potential effects on cash flow ; and
(iii) the ability to raise capital or investments.
5.145. In relation to the European Union's request for completion of the analysis, in light of the
absence on the Panel record of a discernible attempt by the Panel to assure itself of whether
certain parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the investigation record at the
time the determination to impose the anti-dumping measure was made, we are not in a position to
decide whether these parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the investigation
record at the time the determination was made. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether we can
rely on the confidential inves tigation report in the assessment of the European Union's claims
under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.365 In these circumstances, we cannot
complete the analysis on the basis of the non-confidential investigation report as requested by the
European Union.
5.4 Related dealer
5.4.1 Introduction
5.146. The European Union appeals the Panel's finding that Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement does not generally require an investigating authority to consider the inventories of a
dealer related to a domestic producer, but not itself part of the domestic industry. 366 To the
European Union, the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD was not required to evaluate the inventory
information of Turin Auto in examining injury to the domestic industry .367 The European Union
requests us to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.122 and 7.123 and declare moot and of
no legal effect the Panel's conclusions in paragraphs 7.173 .c and 8.1.e.ii of the Panel Report.368 In
response, Russia requests us to uphold the Panel's findings at issue.369
5.147. Before examining the European Union's claim of error on appeal, we summarize the Panel's
findings with respect to Article s 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We then set out our
understanding of the relevant aspects of Articles 3.1 and 3.4. Thereafter, we turn to examine the
merits of the European Union's claim of error on appeal.
5.4.2 Panel's findings
5.148. Before the Panel, the European Union claimed that Russia acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by, inter alia , only partially evaluating the
domestic industry's inventories in its examination of the impact of the dump ed imports.

365 We note the European Union's contention that we should complete the analysis with respect to the
European Union's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on the basis of the
evidence contained in the non-confidential investigation report. (European Union's other appellant's
submission, para. 71) We are of the view, however, that we cannot do so without having determined first
whether the confidential version of the investigation report formed part of the investigation record and whether
we can rely on it in our analysis.
366 Panel Report, para. 7.122; European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 160.
367 European Union's Notice of Other Appeal, para. 5 (referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.122, 7.123,
7.173.b, and 8.1.e.ii). See also European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 31.
368 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 161 and 179.
369 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 181.

The European Union contended that the DIMD's evaluation of inventories should have included the
inventory information of Turin Auto, an LCV dealer related to Sollers.370
5.149. The Panel first noted that Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement provid es that the
injury examination "shall" include an evaluation of all relevant economic fact ors, including each of
the 15 factors listed in this provision.371 The Panel recalled that the evidence to be considered and
evaluated in relation to Article 3.4 must be evidence pertaining to the domestic industry as defined
in the investigation. To the Panel, Article 3.4 does not suggest that an investigating authority is
generally required to consider the inventories of a dealer related to a domestic producer, but not
itself a producer of the like product and thus not part of the domestic industry. 372 Having made
that statement, the Panel also recognized that, in certain circumstances, the information of a
related dealer may constitute evidence pertaining to a relevant e conomic factor having a bearing
on the state of the industry such that an investigating authority is required to evaluate it. 373 The
Panel noted, however, that "the relevance of such evidence would have to be demonstrated to the
investigating authority, on t he basis of the facts of the particular investigation, in order that the
investigating authority can be satisfied that it relates to the domestic industry and is therefore to
be considered."374
5.150. Turning to the anti -dumping investigation at issue, the Panel r ecalled that the DIMD had
defined the domestic industry as the LCV producer Sollers.375 To the Panel, the DIMD was required
to examine, for purposes of Article 3.4, "the state of Sollers, including its inventories".376 The Panel
found that the European Union had not identified evidence before the DIMD that would support the
conclusion that the inventory information of Turin Auto was a relevant economic factor having a
bearing on the state of the domestic industry producing LCVs. On this ground, the Panel found that
the European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and
3.4 by not considering the inventory data of Turin Auto in its investigation report.377
5.4.3 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.151. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in finding that nothing in Article 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement suggests that "an investigating authori ty is generally required to
consider the inventories of a dealer related to a domestic producer, but not itself a producer of the
like product and therefore … not part of the domestic industry." 378 To the European Union, "the
Panel found that investigating authorities can disregard the data of economic entities related to the
domestic producer"379 and "meet the requirements under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 just by gathering
and examining data from the 'domestic producer' in the narrow sense". 380 The European Union
asserts that the Panel "adopted a very narrow interpretation of th e meaning of the term
'domestic industry' in Article 3.4" by excluding information relating to companies that belong to a
"single economic entity".381 The European Union submits that, if a domesti c producer is composed
of several legal entities, the relevant data cannot relate to only the legal entity that brings the
product into existence. Instead, the European Union argues that, in order to make an objective
assessment based on positive evidence of the state of the domestic industry , as prescribed under

370 Panel Report, paras. 7.109, 7.118.b, and 7.122; European Union's second written submission to the
Panel, para. 130; response to Panel question No. 45, paras. 141-143.
371 Panel Report, paras. 7.111 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 125) and
para. 7.122.
372 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
373 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
374 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
375 Panel Report, para. 7.123.
376 Panel Report, para. 7.123 (referring to Panel Report, Egypt – Steel Rebar, para. 7.60).
377 Panel Report, para. 7.123.
378 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 160. See also paras. 165, 172, and 179
(referring to Panel Report, paras. 7.122-7.123).
379 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 165.
380 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 172.
381 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 19. Before the Panel, and in its other
appellant's submission, the European Union has referred to different terms, including "related trader", "single
economic entity", "same economic group", "group of related entities", and "domestic producer … composed of
several legal entities". In response to questioning at the hearing, the European Union confirmed that it has
used these terms interchangeably.

Article 3.1, the assessment of the relevant factors listed in Article 3.4 must relate to the
"entire single economic entity".382
5.152. Russia responds that the Panel correctly stated that the focus of an i njury determination
must be on the state of the "domestic industry" 383, and that the evidence to be considered must
pertain to the domestic industry as defined in the investigation. 384 Russia submits that the text of
Article 3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement does not support a proposition that an investigating
authority is generally required to analyse the data of entities that do not "bring into existence the
like product" and that, consequently, are not part of the domestic industry. 385 Russia also notes
that the Panel's interpretation does not exclude the possibility that, in certain circumstances,
evidence pertaining to a related dealer that is not part of the domestic industry may constitute
evidence pertaining to a relevant economic factor having a bearing on the state of the industry
such that an investigating authority is required to evaluate it.386
5.153. At the outset, we note that the European Union's appeal is focused on the Panel's
statement that " nothing in Article 3.4 [of the Anti -Dumping Agreement] … sugges ts … that an
investigating authority is generally required to consider the inventories of a dealer related to a
domestic producer, but not itself a producer of the like product". 387 The European Union contends
that the Panel found that an investigating autho rity is not required to examine the inventory data
of a related dealer. 388 In our view, the Panel's finding is more nuanced than the understanding
advanced by the European Union. We note that, in making the statement at issue, the Panel was
addressing and rejecting the European Union's argument that, "by not considering the inventories
of Sollers' related dealer Turin Auto, the DIMD relied on a partial picture of inventories, and
consequently, that it failed to objectively examine positive evidence of the dom estic industry's
inventories."389 In so doing, the Panel emphasized that Article 3 is concerned with the
determination of injury to the "domestic industry". 390 The Panel also recalled that Article 3.4
requires an evaluation of economic factors and indices havi ng a bearing on the state of the
domestic industry.391 On this basis, the Panel considered that, "[a]s a rule, the evidence to be
considered and evaluated for this purpose must be evidence pertaining to the domestic industry as
defined in the investigation." 392 The Panel observed, however, that it could not preclude the
possibility that, in certain circumstances, an investigating authority may also be required to
evaluate evidence pertaining to a related dealer if that evidence concerns a relevant economic
factor having a bearing on the state of the industry.393
5.154. The European Union also submits that, if a domestic producer and a dealer are part of a
"single economic entity", the evaluation of "inventories" under Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement must extend beyond "the formal boundaries of the inventories of the producer at its
premise"394 and " must relate to the entire single economic entity ".395 We understand the
European Union to argue that, to the extent tha t a domestic producer and a dealer are found to

382 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 173. The European Union argues that, if the
Panel's interpretation of the term "inventories" in Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement were accepted,
this term "would be limited to the formal boundaries of the inventories of the producer at its premise and
consequently could not extend to the inventories of the entire economic entity of which the producer forms a
part together with other entities also holding stocks of the relevant products." (Ibid., para. 177)
383 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 173.
384 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 172.
385 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 176. Russia argues that domestic industry refers only to
"domestic producers of the like product" that "bring into existence the like product". (Ibid., paras. 174-176
(referring to Panel Reports, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.108, and Mexico ‒ Olive Oil, para. 7.192))
386 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 178 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.122).
387 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
388 European Union Union's other appellant's submission, para. 161.
389 Panel Report, para. 7.122. (fn omitted) As we understand it, the European Union argued before the
Panel that an investigating authority is always required to consider the inventory data of a related dealer, as
failing to do so would, as in this case, necessarily "provide[] only a partial picture of the state of the
inventories of Sollers". (European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 130)
390 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
391 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
392 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
393 Panel Report, para. 7.122.
394 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 177.
395 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 173.

comprise a single economic entity, an investigating authority is required to undertake a broader
evaluation of "inventories" under Article 3.4 , even though the related dealer may not be a
producer of the like product.
5.155. Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement provides that the examination under that
provision "shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing
on the state of the industry". In our view, the clause "havin g a bearing on the state of the
industry" focuses the evaluation on the factors and indices relevant to the state of the domestic
industry. The dictionary definition of the term "bearing" includes "[p]ractical relation or effect
(up)on; influence , relevanc e".396 This definition suggests to us that Article 3.4 calls for an
evaluation of the economic factors and indices that influence the state of the domestic industry. 397
In addition, the reference to "all" relevant economic factors and indices does not imply a narrow
scope of evaluation. These factors and indices include those expressly listed in Article 3.4, as well
as additional ones if they are relevant to the assessment of the state of the domestic industry.
Thus, in our view, evidence on the record concerning all relevant economic factors and indices that
influence the state of the domestic industry falls within the scope of an investigating authority's
evaluation under Article 3.4.
5.156. In this respect, evidence pertaining to inventories of a related dealer that does not produce
the like product and is not formally part of the domestic industry may be pertinent, in a particular
case, to the evaluation of a relevant economic factor or index having a bearing on the state of the
domestic industry. We agree with the Panel that whether an evaluation under Article 3.4 requires a
consideration of such evidence can be assessed only on a case-by-case basis.
5.157. We do not consider the degree of proximity in the relationship between different entities to
be dispositive, without more, of whether evidence relating to the inventory of a related dealer is
pertinent to the evaluation of the injury factor "inventories" under Article 3.4. As explained above,
the focus of the evaluation under this provision is not on the nature of the r elationship between
companies such as producers and dealers; it centres instead on the relevant economic factors and
indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. Thus, regardless of whether a
domestic producer included in the domestic industry and a dealer are independent from one
another, related to each other, or part of the same economic entity, an investigating authority is
required to assess whether the evidence on record concern s a relevant economic factor or index
having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. To the extent that this includes evidence
relating to a dealer, an investigating authority is required to examine it under Article 3.4.
5.158. We observe that the Panel stated that the relevance of evidence from a dealer related to a
domestic producer "would have to be demonstrated to the investigating authority, on the basis of
the facts of the particular investigation, in order that the investigating authority can be satisfied
that it relates to the domestic industry and is therefore to be considered." 398 While this statement
by the Panel is not devoid of ambiguity, we understand the Panel to have used the verb
"demonstrate" to suggest that interested parties sho uld show to the investigating authority the
possible relevance of evidence on the record to the examination of the state of the
domestic industry. To us, evidence concerning all relevant economic factors and indices having a
bearing on the state of the dom estic industry falls within the scope of an investigating authority's
evaluation under Article 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. That said, where it is not plainly
discernible that evidence on the record is pertinent to the evaluation of economic factors or indices
having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, interested parties must provide an
explanation or reasons as to why they deem the evidence to be pertinent to the assessment of the
state of the industry under Article 3.4. In such circumstances, once interested parties have shown
that evidence on the record may be pertinent to the assessme nt of the state of the

396 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stephenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),
Vol. 1, p. 205.
397 The factors and indices listed in Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including "inventories",
are deemed to be relevant and must be evaluated in every investigation. (Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-
Rolled Steel, para. 194)
398 Panel Report, para. 7.122. We note that the European Union does not directly challenge on appeal
the Panel statement at issue. The European Union refers to this statement twice in its other appellant's
submission, without addressing it directly, as part of its description of the Panel's interpretation of Articles 3.1
and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 176-177)

domestic industry, an investigating authority is tasked with objectively examining such evidence ,
including its significance to particular injury factors and the injury determination overall.
5.159. We do not understand the Panel statement at issue to imply that investigating authorities
are excused from examining pertinent evidence on the record merely because interested parties
have not conclusively "demonstrated" the relevance of such evidence to the assessment of the
state of the domestic industry . In this respect, w e recall that Article 3.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that a n investigating authority's determination of injury be
based on positive evidence and invol ve an objective examination. Article 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, in turn, requires an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and
indices having a bearing on the state of the industry. Investigating authorities must determine,
objectively, and on the basis of positive evidence, the importance and weight to be attached to
each potentially relevant factor.399 In our view, in light of the requirements under Articles 3.1 and
3.4, an investigating authority cannot disregard evidence on the record relating to an injury factor
or index concerning the state of the domes tic industry merely because that authority is not
satisfied that interested parties have conclusively "demonstrated" the relevance of that evidence to
the state of the domestic industry.
5.160. For the reasons set out above, we do not consider that the European Union's argument
accurately describes the Panel's understanding of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement. As we see it , the Panel's findin g, when read together with the remaining statements
made by the Panel, comports with the text of Article s 3.1 and 3.4 specifying that the injury
analysis concerns all relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the "domestic
industry".400 In our view, as the Panel found, evidence concerning inventories of a related dealer
that sells but does not produce the like product and is thus not formally part of the domestic
industry may nevertheless be pertinent, in a particular case, to the evaluation of a relevant
economic factor or index having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. This is because
evidence concerning all relevant economic factors and indices that have a bearing on the state of
the domestic industry falls within the scop e of the evaluation provided for under Articles 3.1 and
3.4. Consequently, we find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation of Article s 3.1 and 3.4 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement in relation to the evaluation of inventories under Article 3.4.
5.4.4 Whether the Panel erred in its application of Article s 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.161. We now turn to the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in its application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to the investigation at issue "by simply stating
that the DIMD did not [act inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement] because the DIMD was only required to look into Sollers' [inventories] figures".401
5.162. The Panel noted that the European Union had not pointed to any evidence before the DIMD
that would support the conclusion that Turin Auto's inventories were a relevant economic factor
having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry producing LCVs.402 In particular, the Panel
considered that, apart from focusing its claim on the nature of the relationship between Sollers
and Turin Auto, the European Union had not presented any evidence or argument in support of its
proposition that the inventories of Turin Auto should have been taken into account by the D IMD in
its evaluation of the state of the domestic industry .403 On this basis, the Panel concluded that the
European Union had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4
by not considering the inventories data of Sollers' related dealer in the investigation report.404
5.163. We first note that the European Union's challenge to the Panel's application of Articles 3.1
and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement hinges upon its claim of error regarding the Panel's

399 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 197.
400 See Appellate Body Reports, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 413; China – GOES, para. 149.
401 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 174.
402 Panel Report, para. 7.123.
404 Panel Report, para. 7.123.

interpretation of these provisions. 405 We have found above that the Panel did not err in its
interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 in relation to the scope of evidence to be evaluated by an
investigating authority pertaining to a relevant injury factor or index havi ng a bearing on the state
of the domestic industry and, more particularly, to the evaluation of inventories. As explained
above, we do not consider the nature of the relationship between a domestic producer and its
dealer to be dispositive, without more, of whether evidence relating to the inventory of a related
dealer is pertinent to the evaluation of "inventories" for purposes of the injury analysis under
Article 3.4. In our view, the thrust of the European Union's argument concerns the nature of the
relationship between Sollers and Turin Auto. The European Union has not sought to argue, on the
basis of the particular evidence before the DIMD, how the inventory information of Turin Auto was
specifically pertinent to the evaluation of "inventories" in relation to the state of Sollers.
5.164. In any event, we note that certain elements as to whether Turin Auto's inventories may be
pertinent to the evaluation of the injury factor "inventories" having a bearing on the state of
Sollers were not explored before the DIMD or in the WTO panel proceedings. For instance, we note
that the data on purchases and sales of LCV s, reported by Sollers and Turin Auto in their
respective questionnaire responses, correspond to each other. 406 The European Union has not
explained why the fact that the inventories data from both Sollers and Turin Auto correspond to
each other could suggest that Turin Auto's inventories provide additional relevant information that
would have assisted the DIMD in evaluating Sollers' inventories. Rather than addressing the extent
to which Turin Auto's inventories were pertinent to the evaluation of the injury factor "inventories"
and the extent to which they had a bearing on the state of Sollers, the European Union merely
contended that the DIMD should have evaluated the "inventories" of Turin Auto because
Turin Auto and Sollers allegedly constitute a single economic entity.
5.165. We have found above that an investigating authority's assessment of the state of the
domestic industry does not focus on the nature of the relationship between related companies, but
centres instead on whether the relevant economic factors and indices have a bearing on the state
of the domestic industry. We therefore see no error in the Panel's finding that the European Union
had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by not considering the inventories data of Turin Auto in the investigation
report.407
5.4.5 Conclusions
5.166. In sum, we consider that t he Panel's interpretation, which is more nuanced than the
European Union's arguments on appeal suggest, comports with the text of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement specifying that the injury analysis concerns all relevant factors and
indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. In our view, evidence concerning a
related dealer that does not produce the like product and is thus not included in the "domestic
industry" may be pertinent, in a particular case, to the evaluation of a relevant economic factor or
index having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry. We agree with the Panel that
whether an evaluation under Article 3.4 requires a consideration of such evidence can be assessed
only on a case -by-case basis. W e do not consider the degree of proximity in the relationship
between different entities to be dispositive, without more, of whether evidenc e relating to the
inventory of a related dealer is pertinent to the evaluation of "inventories" for purposes of the
injury analysis under Article 3.4. With respect to the application of A rticles 3.1 and 3.4 to the
anti-dumping investigation at issue, we find that the European Union does not have a separate and
independent basis for its claim that the Panel erred in applying these provisions when analysing
the injury factor "inventories" in its assessment of the state of Sollers . We agree with the
Panel's finding that the European Union ha d not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently
with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 by not considering the inventories data of Turin Auto in the investigation
report.

405 In response to questioning at the oral hearing, the European Union indicated that, if we did not find
error in the Panel's interpretation of these provisions, no specific errors could be identified in the Panel's
application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
406 Sollers' updated questionnaire response of 31 January 2013 (Panel Exhibit EU-4), Section 6; Turin's
updated questionnaire response of 31 January 2013 (Panel Exhibit EU-6), Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
407 Panel Report, para. 7.123.

5.167. We therefore find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Consequently, we uphold the Panel's finding,
in paragraphs 7.122, 7.123, 7.173 .b, and 8.1 .e.ii of the Panel Report, that the European Union
had not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with these provisions in its injury analysis
by not examining inventory information of a dealer related to a domestic producer of the like
product, but not itself part of the domestic industry.
5.5 Essential facts
5.5.1 Introduction
5.168. The participants appeal different aspects of the Panel's interpretation and application of
Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement . Russia claims that, in reaching its conclusions, the
Panel erred by interpreting and applying A rticle 6.9 in a way that suggests that, with respect to
essential facts treated as confidential, a finding of inconsistency with Article 6.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement will "automatically entail" an inconsistency with Article 6.9. 408 Russia
also raises cl aims of error under Articles 7 and 15.2 of the DSU with respect to an allegedly new
finding concerning information originating from the electronic customs database of national
authorities of the Customs Union ( electronic customs database) that the Panel added to its Report
at the interim review stage.409
5.169. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of
Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by concluding that the source of information cannot be
an "essential fact" and thus finding that the source of information concerning import volumes and
values in the DIMD's investigation report does not constitute "essential facts" under Article 6.9.410
In the European Union's view, this error stems from two earlier interpretative errors made by the
Panel in finding that: (i) a methodology is not an essential fact; and (ii) not every essential fact is
required to be disclosed, but rather only those essential facts that are additionally shown to be
"under consideration".411 In the event that we reverse the Panel's findings under Article 6.9 in
response to the participants' appeals, the European Union requests us to complete the analysis
and find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by
failing to disclose the essential facts at issue.412
5.170. We begin by recalling the relevant Panel findings. Thereafter, we set out the legal standard
under Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. We then examine the claims and arguments
raised by the participants on appeal.
5.5.2 Panel's findings
5.171. Before the Panel, the European Union raised claims under Article 6.5 and Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Regarding the European Union's claim s under Article 6.5, the Panel
found that, with respect to all the information at issue treated as confidential by the DIMD, the
DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.5 because "the submitters of that information did not
show good cause for confidential treatment ."413 Having made that finding, the Panel considered
that it did not need to address the European Union's claims under Article 6.5.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.414
5.172. The Panel then addressed the European Union's claim of inconsistency under Article 6.9 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the DIMD's alleged failure to inform Volkswagen AG
and Daimler AG of the essential facts under consideration concerning the existence of dumping
and the determination of material injury. The Panel observed that there ar e three cumulative
elements as to the type of information that must be disclosed. First, the Panel noted that

408 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 95.
409 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 99-103.
410 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 195 and 203.
411 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 192-193 and 195.
412 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 204; appellee's submission, para. 172.
413 Panel Report, para. 7.247. The Panel summarized the specific information to which this conclusion
applies in Table 11 of the Panel Report. (Ibid., para. 7.247)
414 Panel Report, para. 7.249.

"Article 6.9 requires the disclosure of facts: the information underlying a decision rather [than] the
reasoning, calculation or methodology that led to a determination."415 Second, the Panel observed
that "[a] fact is essential where it is 'extremely important and necessary ', 'indispensable' or
'significant, important or salient' in the process of reaching a decision as to whether or not to apply
definitive measures."416 Third, the Panel noted that "[n]ot every 'essential fact' is required to be
disclosed"417; rather, "Article 6.9 requires the disclosure of ' essential facts under consideration':
the 'facts on the record that may be taken into account by an authority in reaching a decision as to
whether or not to apply definitive anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties'."418
5.173. The Panel further found that the European Union had not demonstrated that certain
alleged essential facts met the above -mentioned requirements. In particular, the Panel took the
view that the sources of certain information – i.e. import volumes, volumes of dumped imports,
and import values used by the DIMD – were not essential facts. The Panel explained that, "[i]n
itself, the source of data is not an essential fact under consideration"419 and that "[k]nowledge of
the sources of data might be useful to establish the credibility of information used by investigating
authorities, but the sources of data are not themselves essential facts under consideration."420
5.174. The Panel then turned to address the European Union's claim that, to the extent that
certain information was treated as confidential, it was not properly disclosed under Article 6.9.421
The Panel noted that Article 6.9 does not require the disclosure of essential facts that benefit from
confidential treatment under Article 6.5. 422 It further observed that "Article 6.5 is not a carve -out
to Article 6.9" and that "confidentiality of informat ion is neither an absolute bar to disclosure nor a
defence to the failure to disclose as required under Article 6.9." 423 Rather, a Member has
"dual obligations" with respect to these provisions whereby, pertaining to the essential facts that
"are properly treated as confidential, 'the investigating authority could meet its obligations under
Article 6.9 through the use of non -confidential summaries of the 'essential' but confidential
facts'".424 Referring to its previous finding of inconsistency under Article 6. 5, the Panel concluded
that, "to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information that was not properly treated as
confidential …, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9."425
5.175. The Panel further recalled that, with respect to information originating from the electronic
customs database, Russia had argued that this information was submitted on a confidential basis
to the DIMD and, accordingly, was treated as confidential by the DIMD. 426 The Panel noted that
there was no showing of "good cause" on the reco rd with respect to such information. For this
reason, the Panel concluded that this information was not properly treated as confidential. The
Panel then found that, to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose such information, it acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.427

415 Panel Report, para. 7.256.a (referring to Panel Report, China – Broiler Products, para. 7.90).
(emphasis original)
416 Panel Report, para. 7.256.b (quoting, respectively, Merriam-Webster dictionary online, definition of
"essential", http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essential; Oxford English dictionary online, definition
of "essential", http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/64503?redirectedFrom=essential#eid; Appellate Body Report,
417 Panel Report, para. 7.256.c.
418 Panel Report, para. 7.256.c (quoting Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240).(emphasis
added by the Panel)
419 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a. (emphasis original)
420 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a.
421 The Panel observed that, while the European Union initially argued that the failure to disclose certain
actual figures (whether or not confidential) amounted to acting inconsistently with Article 6.9, later the
European Union appeared to argue that, to the extent that information was confidential, it was not properly
disclosed. (Panel Report, para. 7.265)
422 Panel Report, para. 7.268.
423 Panel Report, para. 7.268.
424 Panel Report, para. 7.268 (emphasis original) (quoting Panel Report, China – GOES, para. 7.410).
425 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
426 We note that, at the interim review, Russia requested the Panel to "reflect the reason why essential
facts, which were determined on the basis of electronic customs database submitted to the DIMD by the
national customs authorities of the Member States of the Customs Union on a confidential basis, did not meet
the requirements of Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement." (Russia's comments on the Interim Report,
para. 40)
427 Panel Report, para. 7.270.

5.5.3 Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
5.176. The first sentence of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement provides that "[t]he
authorities shall, before a final determination is made, inform all interested parties of the essential
facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive
measures." The second sentence of Article 6.9 further provides that "[s]uch disclosure should take
place in sufficient time for the parties to defend their interests."
5.177. Unlike Article 12.2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, which governs the disclosure of
matters of fact and law and reasons at the conclusion of anti -dumping investigations428, Article 6.9
concerns the disclosure of "facts" in the c ourse of such investigations "before a final determination
is made".429 With respect to what kind of facts are "essential", the Appellate Body in China – GOES
explained that Article 6.9 does "not require the disclosure of all the facts that are before an
authority but, instead, those that are 'essential'; a word that carries a connotation of significant,
important, or salient".430 Essential facts are those that "form the basis for the decision whether to
apply definitive measures" and those that ensure the abil ity of interested parties to defend their
interests. Thus, the term "essential facts" refers to those facts that are significant in the process of
reaching a decision whether to apply definitive measures . Such facts are those that are salient for
a decision to apply definitive measures as well as those that are salient for a contrary outcome. An
authority must disclose such facts, in a coherent way, so as to permit an interested party to
understand the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive meas ures. Disclosing the
essential facts under consideration pursuant to Article 6.9 is paramount for ensuring the ability of
the parties concerned to defend their interests. 431 Article 6.9 "require[s] in all cases that the
investigating authority disclose those facts in such a manner that an interested party can
understand clearly what data the investigating authority has used, and how those data were used
to determine the margin of dumping".432
5.178. In order to apply a definitive anti-dumping measure, an investigating authority must
establish the existence of dumping, injury to the domestic industry, and a causal link between the
dumping and the injury. Whether a particular fact is essential or "significant in the process of
reaching a decision" therefore depends on the nature and scope of the particular substantive
obligations, the content of the particular findings needed to satisfy the substantive obligations at
issue, as well as the factual circumstances of each case, including the arguments and evidenc e
submitted by the interested parties.433 For example, with respect to the determination of dumping,
the Appellate Body in China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU) explained that an
investigating authority is expected "to disclose, inter alia, the home market and export sales being
used, the adjustments made thereto, and the calculation methodology applied by the investigating
authority to determine the margin of dumping."434
5.179. We now turn to the relationship between Article 6.5 and Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. In particular, we examine whether a fail ure to disclose essential facts
that were not properly treated as confidential under Article 6.5 would lead to an inconsistency with
Article 6.9.

428 Article 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides:
A public notice of conclusion or suspension of an investigation in the case of an affirmative
determination providing for the imposition of a definitive duty or the acceptance of a price
undertaking shall contain, or otherwise make available through a separate report, all relevant
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final
measures or the acceptance of a price undertaking, due regard being paid to the requirement for
the protection of confidential information. In particular, the notice or report shall contain the
information described in subparagraph 2.1, as well as the reasons for the acceptance or rejection
of relevant arguments or claims made by the exporters and importers, and the basis for any
decision made under subparagraph 10.2 of Article 6.
429 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
430 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240. (emphasis original)
431 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
432 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.131. (fn omitted)
433 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.130. (fn omitted)
434 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.131
(quoting Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 241).

5.180. Articles 6.5 and 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement are part of Article 6 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, entitled "Evidence". Article 6 contains 14 paragraphs setting out specific
rules relating to the treatment of evidence in an anti -dumping investigation. In EC – Tube or Pipe
Fittings, the Appel late Body explained that the obligations set out in Article 6 establish a
"framework of procedural and due process obligations". 435 Particularly, the provisions of Article 6
"set out evidentiary rules that apply throughout the course of the anti -dumping investigation, and
provide also for due process rights that are enjoyed by 'interested parties' throughout such an
investigation".436
5.181. Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement requires investigating authorities to treat as
confidential any information which is by nature confidential, or which is provided on a confidential
basis by parties to an investigation upon "good cause" being shown. The "good cause" alleged
must constitute a reason sufficient to justify the withholding of information from both the public
and the other parties interested in the investigation. 437 The existence of a "good cause" alleged by
a party must be examined by a panel on the basis of the investigating authority's published report
and its related supporting documents, and in light of the nature of the information at issue and the
reasons given by the submitting party for its request for confidential treatment. 438 In turn,
Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement "serves to balance the goal of ensuring that the
availability of confidential treatment does not undermine the transparency of the investigative
process."439 It does so by requiring that a non -confidential summary of the information be
furnished by interested parties and that such summary contains "sufficient detail to permit a
reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence". 440
Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 thus:
accommodate the concerns of confidentiality, transparency, and due process by
protecting information that is by nature confidential or is submitt ed on a confidential
basis and upon 'good cause' shown, but establishing an alternative method for
communicating its content so as to satisfy the right of other parties to the
investigation to obtain a reasonable understanding of the substance of the confidential
information, and to defend their interests.441
5.182. Articles 6.5 and 6.9 strike a balance between the duty imposed on the investigating
authority to protect information as confidential upon a "good cause" shown, on the one hand, and
the duty to discl ose the essential facts under consideration in order to ensure transparency and
due process rights, on the other hand. The text of these provisions does not suggest that a finding
of inconsistency under Article 6.5 would automatically lead to a finding of inconsistency under
Article 6.9. In particular, there is no indication in Article 6.9 of whether essential facts may or may
not include information treated as confidential under Article 6.5 with or without a showing of
"good cause". This suggests to us tha t essential facts may comprise information properly treated
as confidential under Article 6.9 and information that does not qualify for such treatment . While
the notions of essential facts under Article 6.9 and confidential information within the meaning o f
Article 6.5 may overlap, they are not co -extensive. Thus, not every piece of information that is
treated as confidential under Article 6.5, with or without showing "good cause", may constitute
essential facts under Article 6.9 . The question of what is "s alient" for the decision of whether or
not to impose a measure is different from the question of what qualifies as "good cause" for
confidential treatment of certain information. Indeed, the content and scope of the obligations
under Article 6.5 and Article 6.9 are different. An assessment under Article 6.5 focuses on whether
confidential treatment was conferred to information on the investigation record upon a proper
showing of "good cause". By contrast, an assessment under Article 6.9 concerns whether all

435 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 138 (quoting Appellate Body Report,
Thailand – H-Beams, para. 109).
436 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 138. (emphasis original) See also
Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.73.
437 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 537.
438 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.97 (referring to
Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), paras. 536 and 538).
439 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 542 (quoting Panel Report, EC – Fasteners
(China), para. 7.515).
440 Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
441 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 542. See also Appellate Body Report,
EC ‒ Fasteners (China) (Article 21.5 – China), para. 5.36.

essential facts have been disclosed in a timely manner so as to ensure the ability of interested
parties to defend their interests. Accordingly, an inquiry under Article 6.9 is separate and distinct
from an assessment under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.183. The treatment of information as confidential under Article 6.5 does not absolve the
investigating authority from its obligation to disclose essential facts as required under Article 6.9.
When information treated as confidential under Article 6.5 constitutes essential facts within the
meaning of Article 6.9 , "the disclosure obligations under these provisions should be met by
disclosing non-confidential summaries of those facts."442 Given the relationship between Article 6.5
and Article 6.9, regardless of whether or not the essential facts at issue were properly treated as
confidential under Article 6.5 – i.e. with or without showing "good cause" - a panel must examine
whether any disclosure made – including that made through non-confidential summaries pursuant
to Article 6.5.1 – meets the legal standard under Article 6.9.443 Thus, an inconsistency with
Article 6.5 in relation to information that constitutes essential facts may not be presumed to result
in an inconsistency with Article 6.9.
5.5.4 Whether the Panel erred in allegedly finding that an inconsistency with Article 6.5
automatically entails an inconsistency with Article 6.9
5.184. Russia takes issue with several findings made by the Panel under Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. 444 First, Russia claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and
application of Article 6.9 by finding that, to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information
that was not properly treated as confidential, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9. 445 According
to Russia, the Panel's approach suggests that a failure to disclose information, including essential
facts that were not properly treated as confidential under Article 6.5, would automatically lead to
an inconsistency with Article 6.9.446 In Russia's view, this is incorrect, because the issue of
treatment of information as confidential – which may include essential facts – "is a distinct legal
question" from the disclosure of essential facts under Article 6.9.447 According to Russia, the Panel
erred by not examining the non-confidential summaries of redacted actual figures provided by the
DIMD in its draft investigation report.448
5.185. The European Union responds that the Panel interpreted Articles 6.5 and 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement "harmoniously, witho ut creating any 'automatic' link between them in
the abstract, and without stating that any breach of Article 6.5 will necessarily entail a breach of
Article 6.9". 449 To the European Union, the Panel's reasoning suggests that, if confidential
treatment cannot properly be extended to an essential fact, that essential fact must be disclosed
by the investigating authority.450 The European Union argues that there was no need for the Panel
to examine the summaries of redacted actual figures provided by the DIMD, bec ause the absence
of a showing of "good cause" meant that there was no legal basis to treat those figures as
confidential and that they should have been disclosed.451
5.186. As noted, in Russia's view, the Panel 's interpretation of Article 6.9 suggests that, where
essential facts are not properly treated as confidential under Article 6.5, this will "automatically"
entail a finding of inconsistency with Article 6.9, even if some essential facts were disclosed by
means of a non -confidential summary .452 We r ecall that, with respect to the European Union's
claim under Article 6.9, Russia had argued before the Panel that certain essential facts in this case

442 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 247.
443 We note that the scenario reflected in the third sentence of Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement (i.e. when information is not susceptible of summary) is not before us in this appeal.
444 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 98, 103, and 109.
446 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 94-95.
447 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 95.
448 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 96.
449 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 145.
450 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 151. The European Union recalls the Panel's finding
that there are "dual obligations" resulting from Articles 6.5 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which
means that, with respect to essential facts, investigating authorities must comply with both provisions.
(Ibid., para. 154)
451 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 162.
452 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 95.

constituted confidential information and that therefore the DIMD had no opportunity to disclose the
actual figures. 453 In its analysis, the Panel first expressed its understanding of the relationship
between Article 6.5 and Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel explained:
Nothing in Article 6.9 requires a complaining party to demonstrate that an
investigating authority had "an opportunity" to make the required disclosure. Under
Article 6.9, a complaining party presents a prima facie case where it demonstrates
that essential facts have not been disclosed to the interested parties as required.
Article 6.9 does not require the disclosure of essential facts that benefit from
confidential treatment under Article 6.5. Indeed, the Russian Federation also argues
that a Member is under "dual obligations"[*] in respect of essential facts that are
treated as confidential by an investigating authority. But Article 6.5 is not a carve -out
to Article 6.9; confidentiality of information is neither an absolute bar to disclosure nor
a defence to the failure to disclose as required under Article 6.9. Rather, a harmonious
interpretation of the "dual obligation" is that where essential facts are properly treated
as confidential, "the investigating authority could meet its obligations under Article 6.9
through the use of non -confidential summaries of the 'essential' but confidential
facts".454
[*fn original] 479 The obligation to disclose under Article 6.9 and the obligation to protect
confidential information under Article 6.5. Both provisions apply in respect of confidential
information.
5.187. The Panel accepted that the disclosure of essential but confidential facts could be done
through non -confidential summaries within the meaning of Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement. The Panel, however, emphasized that the "dual obligation" in Articles 6.5 and 6.9 of
the Anti -Dumping Agreement could be met through the use of non -confidential summaries
"where essential facts are properly treated as confidential". 455 The Panel further stated that " the
condition precedent for treatment as confidential of such information by the investigating
authority, a showing of good cause, was not met and therefore that information, including the
essential facts at issue, was not properly treated as confidential in the investigation ."456 In its
subsequent analysis, the Panel referred to its previous finding of inconsistency with Article 6.5 and
found that, "to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information that was not properly
treated as confidential …, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9." 457 Read together, these
statements of the Panel suggest to us that the Panel considered that the requirements of
Article 6.9 could be met by disclosing essential facts through non-confidential summaries only
where no inconsistency with Article 6.5 had been established.
5.188. As we see it , the Panel's emphasis on the word s "properly treated"458 and the
"condition precedent"459 for confidential treatment support the conclusion that the Panel
understood that, if confidential treatment was granted to information that constitutes essential
facts without complying with the requirements of Article 6.5 , the obligations under Article 6.9 may
not be met through the disclosure of non-confidential summaries within the meaning of
Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Accordingly, the Panel did not consider it necessary
to examine the alleged disclosure of essential facts made through the non -confidential summaries
of confidential information in the draft investigation report . Instead, the Panel merely referred to
its previous finding of inconsistency with Article 6.5 to establish an inconsistency with Article 6.9.
5.189. We disagree with the Panel's statement , in paragraph 7.268 of the Panel Report, that,
"where essential facts are properly treated as confidential, 'the investigating authority could meet
its obligations under Article 6.9 through the use of non -confidential summaries of the 'essential'
but confidential facts'"460, as read in light of the Panel's further statements in paragraph 7.269 of
the Panel Report. We understand these statements to reflect the Panel's erroneous understanding

453 Panel Report, para. 7.266.
454 Panel Report, para. 7.268. (emphasis original; fn omitted)
457 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
460 Panel Report, para. 7.268 (quoting Panel Report, China – GOES, para. 7.410 (emphasis original)).

that, where essential facts are not properly treated as confidential in accordance wit h Article 6.5,
this would automatically lead to an inconsistency with Article 6.9. As explained above, regardless
of whether or not the essential facts at issue were treated as confidential consistently with the
requirements of Article 6.5, a panel must ex amine whether any disclosure made – including that
made through non -confidential summaries under Article 6.5.1 – meets the requirements of
Article 6.9.
5.190. As noted above, i n its assessment of the European Union's claim under Article 6.9, the
Panel referred t o its previous finding of inconsistency with Article 6.5. The Panel then concluded
that, to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose essential facts because they constituted
information that was not properly treated as confidential, the DIMD acted incon sistently with
Article 6.9.461 In our view, the Panel's analysis does not comport with the legal standard under
Article 6.9, in particular in light of the relationship between Article 6.5 and Article 6.9 explained
above. We consider that, having made a findi ng of inconsistency with Article 6.5, the Panel could
not simply conclude, on that basis alone, that the DIMD had failed to comply with the
requirements of Article 6.9. Rather, the Panel should have examined whether or not the alleged
disclosure made through the non-confidential summaries met the requirements of Article 6.9.
5.191. For the above reasons, we find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by considering that, where essential facts are not properly treated as
confidential in accordance with Article 6.5, this automatically lead s to an inconsistency with
Article 6.9. The Panel also erred in finding, in paragraph 7.269 of the Panel Report, that , "to the
extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information that was not properly treated as confidential …,
it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9."462 We therefore reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraph
7.268, as read in light of paragraph 7.269 , and in paragraphs 7.269 and 7.278, Table 12, as well
as the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.1 .h.ii of the Panel Report, that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to inform all interested
parties of the information listed in items (d) to (o) of Table 12. Having reversed the Panel's
findings, we examine whether we can complete the analysis and determine whether the DIMD
acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement below in section 5.5.6 of this
Report.
5.5.5 Whether the Panel erred in its finding relating to the customs electronic database
5.192. Russia claims that the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7 and 15.2 of the DSU by
adding, in its Final Report, paragraph 7.270, which had not appeared in the Panel's Interim
Report.463 According to Russi a, the Panel exceeded its terms of reference when it found that the
data from the electronic customs database and the data on the volumes of LCVs produced by GAZ
did not meet the requirements of Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Moreover, Russia
considers that "an entirely new finding" cannot be made at the interim review stage.464 Russia also
claims that 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." 465 In this regard, Russia submits that those figures constitute sensitive
business information for some interested parties and that , under the Russian and C ustoms Union
law, the data from the electronic customs database is treated as confidential.466
5.193. The European Union responds that the Panel did not exceed its terms of reference because
the failure to disclose information originating from the electronic customs databases was covered
by the European Union's panel request and mentioned in its written submissions. 467
The European Union further notes that paragraph 7.270 of the Panel Report was "added at the
specific request of Russia" 468, and that Article 15.2 of the DSU "does not prevent a panel f rom

461 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
462 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
463 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 99, 101-102.
464 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 102 (referring to Panel Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 7.3).
465 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 19 and 108.
466 Russia's appellant's submission, para. 97.
467 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 181. (fns omitted)
468 European Union's appellee's submission, paras. 182 and 187. The European Union referred to the
explanation provided by the Panel in paragraph 6.38 of its Report. (Ibid., para. 176 (referring to Panel Report,
para. 6.38))

modifying certain aspects of its reasoning or of its findings when requested to do so by a party". 469
With respect to Russia's claim concerning the actual import volumes and prices of LCVs produced
by Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG, the European Union submits that Russia did not specify any
provision in the covered agreements that the Panel is alleged to have erred in interpreting o r
applying.470
5.194. We recall that, before the Panel, the European Union argued that Russia had failed to
inform interested parties of the essential facts, including the essential facts underlying the
determinations of the existence of dumping and, in particular, the determination of normal value
and the export price. 471 With respect to the determination of normal value, the European Union
argued that, because the total number of LCVs imported by Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG into
the Customs Union was treated as confidential, the interested parties were unable to verify the
numbers used by the DIMD regarding volumes of imported LCVs, and to defend their interests.472
With respect to the DIMD's calculation of the export price, the European Union contended that the
DIMD had failed to disclose the weighted -average export prices and export volumes of LCVs
produced by Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG and imported into the Customs Union.473
5.195. Russia explained before the Panel that the source of certain information used by the DIMD
to calculate the dumping margin for the German exporting producers was the electronic customs
database on imports of goods into the Customs Union. Russia submitted that the information from
that database was provided by the national customs authorities of the member States of the
Customs Union on a confidential basis. 474 According to Russia, the DIMD could not disclose
aggregated dat a concerning the volume and value of LCVs produced by Volkswagen AG and
Daimler AG and imported into the Customs Union in disclosure documents. 475 In Russia's view,
information that is expressly protected from unauthorized disclosure by domestic legislation does
not fall within the scope of Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.476
5.196. In both the Interim and Final Reports, the Panel found that the DIMD had acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by not disclosing certain essential
facts, including the actual volumes of LCVs imported into the Customs Union by Volkswagen AG
and Daimler AG that were used for calculating the normal value and the export price , and the
weighted-average export prices of LCVs produced by Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG .477
Section 7.8.2.2 of the Interim Report ended with paragraph 7.267, which corresponds to
paragraph 7.269 of the Final Report.
5.197. In its comments on the Interim Report, Russia requested, with regard to paragraph 7.267,
that the Panel "reflect the re ason why essential facts, which were determined on the basis of
electronic customs database submitted to the DIMD by the national customs authorities of the

469 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 187.
470 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 196.
471 European Union's first written submission to the Panel, para. 423; second written submission to the
Panel, para. 278.
472 European Union's first written submission to the Panel, para. 425; second written submission to the
Panel, para. 278.
473 European Union's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 428-429; second written submission to
the Panel, para. 278.
474 Russia's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 371 and 381; response to Panel question
No. 69, para. 43 (referring to non-confidential investigation report (Panel Exhibit RUS-12), p. 16). In
particular, according to Russia, the information from the electronic customs database was used by the DIMD to
determine the total volume and value of LCVs produced by Volkswagen AG and Daimler AG and imported into
the Customs Union (Russia's second written submission to the Panel, para. 405) In this respect, Russia also
argued that, if the investigating authority uses facts available that are submitted not by interested parties but
by national authorities on a confidential basis, the investigating authority is not obliged to disclose such data.
(Ibid., para. 352)
475 Russia's second written submission to the Panel, para. 371. In the same vein, Russia noted that
"export prices of LCVs were determined on the basis of electronic customs database submitted by the national
customs authorities of the Member States of the Customs Union." (Ibid., para. 381)
476 Russia's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 346-365; appellant's submission,
paras. 105-106.

Member States of the Customs Union on a confidential basis, did not meet the requirements of
Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement."478
5.198. The Panel added paragraph 7.270 to its Final Report in response to Russia's comment .
It reads:
In respect of information originating from electronic customs database of national
customs authorities of the CU, the Russ ian Federation argues that this information
was submitted on a confidential basis to the DIMD and, accordingly, was treated as
confidential by the DIMD. We note that there is no showing of good cause on the
record in respect of such information. This does not mean that the information at
issue was not confidential, or could not have been properly treated as confidential.
Rather, the condition precedent for treatment as confidential of such information by
the investigating authority, a showing of good cause, is nowhere on the record. For
this reason, consistent with our finding in paragraph 7.269, this information, including
the essential facts at issue, was not properly treated as confidential in the
investigation. To the extent that the DIMD failed to discl ose information that was not
properly treated as confidential, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9.479
5.199. As we see it, in its comments , Russia requested a clarification on the Interim Report
because the information from the electronic customs database was not covered by the Panel's
earlier findings under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.480 In other words, given Russia's
view that the Panel automatic ally found an inconsistency with Article 6.9 on the basis of a finding
of inconsistency with Article 6.5, we understand Russia to have requested an explanation from the
Panel as to why it referred to the treatment of confidential information under Article 6.5 in relation
to information from the electronic customs database when no finding under Article 6.5 had been
made with respect to that information.
5.200. In addressing Russia's interim review request, the Panel explained that the information
from the electronic customs database was not properly treated as confidential by the DIMD due to
the absence of a showing of "good cause" on the record. 481 Therefore, the Panel considered that,
to the extent that the relevant information ha d not been disclosed, the DIMD acted inconsistently
with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. 482 Russia takes issue with the Pane l adding
paragraph 7.270 to the Final Report. In particular, Russia submits that, in so doing, the Panel
made a finding under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement that was not within the Panel's
terms of reference.483
5.201. As we see it, in adding the finding in paragraph 7.270 of the Panel Report, the Panel
incorporated an element of analysis under Article 6.5 into its assessment under Article 6.9. This
approach appears to stem from the Panel's erroneous understanding of the relationship between
Article 6.5 a nd Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, which we have addressed above. In
particular, it seems to us that the finding at issue was premised on the Panel's understanding that,
in circumstances where information that constitutes essential facts under A rticle 6.9 was
improperly treated as confidential under Article 6.5, the requirements that apply under Article 6.9
to essential facts could not be met by means of the disclosure of non -confidential summaries
within the meaning of Article 6.5.1. We thus do not consider that paragraph 7.270 of the
Panel Report contains a separate finding of inconsistency with Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement. Rather, we see it as an error in application that stems from the Panel's erroneous
interpretation of Article 6.9. As we have noted above, we disagree with this interpretation because
we consider the inquiry under Article 6.9 to be separate and distinct from the inquiry under
Article 6.5. Accordingly, we also disagree with the Panel's analysis in paragraph 7.270 o f the
Panel Report.

478 Russia's comments on the Interim Report, para. 40.
480 See Panel Report, para. 7.247 and Table 11.
481 Panel Report, para. 7.270.
482 Panel Report, para. 7.270.
483 Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 100, 103, and 109(a).

5.202. As we have found above, the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by considering that, where essential facts are not properly treated as
confidential in accordance with Article 6.5, this automatically lead s to an inconsistency with
Article 6.9. The Panel also erred in finding, in paragraph 7.269 of the Panel Report, that "to the
extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information that was not properly treated as confidential …,
it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9."484 We find that, as a result if its erroneous interpretation of
Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the Panel also erred in finding, in paragraph 7.270 of
the Panel Report , that, "[t]o the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information that was not
properly treated as confidential, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9" of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement.485 We therefore reverse the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.270, and the Panel's
conclusions, in paragraphs 7.278 , Table 12, and 8.1.h.ii of the Panel Report, as they relate to the
information originating from the electronic customs database. In light of this reversal , we do not
address the remainder of Russia's claims regarding the Panel's finding in paragraph 7.270 of the
Panel Report, including its claims of error under Articles 7 and 15.2 of the DSU.486
5.5.6 Completion of the analysis
5.203. Having reversed the relevant Panel findings, we turn to the European Union's request for
completion of the analysis. We recall that, in the e vent we were to agree with Russia that the
Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the
European Union requests that we complete the analysis and find that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 by failing to disclose the essential facts listed in paragraphs 7.250
and 7.278, Table 12, of the Panel Report.487
5.204. In previous disputes, the Appellate Body has completed the analysis with a view to
facilitating the prompt settlement and effective resolu tion of the dispute.488 The Appellate Body
has done so where the factual findings in the panel report, undisputed facts on the panel record,
and admitted facts provided it with a sufficient basis for conducting its own analysis. 489
The Appellate Body has decli ned to complete the analysis when the complexity of the issues
raised, the absence of full exploration of the issues before the panel, and considerations pertaining
to the parties' due process rights prevented it from doing so.490
5.205. The Panel found that the information concerning the return on investments, the actual and
potential negative effects on cash flow, and the ability to raise capital or investments constitute
essential facts subject to the disclosure requirements of Article 6.9.491 This finding of the Panel has
not been challenged on appeal. The Panel also found that the parties " d[id] not disagree as to
whether the other facts at issue are ' essential facts under consideration' within the meaning of
Article 6.9"492 and that "the parties d[id] not disagree that the essential facts in question were not
disclosed in their entiret y to the two interested parties". 493 Furthermore, the Panel found that the
draft investigation report constitutes Russia's disclosure under Article 6.9. 494 These findings of the

484 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
485 Panel Report, para. 7.270.
486 In particular, we do not need to address Russia's claim that, by adding paragraph 7.270 in the Final
Report, the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7 and 15.2 of the DSU. We also do not need to address
Russia's claim that the Panel erroneously found 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." (Russia's appellant's submission, paras. 99, 101-102, and 108)
487 European Union's appellee's submission, para. 172.
488 See Appellate Body Reports, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1178;
489 See Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, paras. 209, 241, and 255; Korea – Dairy, paras. 91
and 102; US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 653; US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, para. 343;
EC – Asbestos, paras. 78-79; China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.135;
US ‒ Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.164.
490 See Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program, para.
5.224; EC ‒ Seal Products, paras. 5.63 and 5.69; US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.184.
491 Panel Report, para. 7.263.
492 Panel Report, para. 7.265.
493 Panel Report, para. 7.265. The Panel noted that, instead, Russia considered that the information
allegedly not disclosed was subject to confidentiality requirements. (Ibid.)
494 Panel Report, para. 7.260.

Panel are not challenged on appeal. We will therefore examine the draft investigation report to
determine whether we can complete the analysis, as requested by the European Union.
5.206. We note that, in certain instances, the relevant information is marked as confidential and
is not disclosed at all in the draft investigation report . In particular, these instances concern
information with respect to: (i) the actual volumes of subject products imported into the
Customs Union by Volkswagen AG and Daimle r AG that were used for the purpose of calculating
the normal value and the export price 495; and (ii) the weighted -average export price for subject
products exported by Volkswagen AG and by Daimler AG into the Customs Union.496 In some other
instances, the draft investigation report does not disclose the relevant actual figures and instead
provides either information on a change in relation to the preceding period in percentage terms or
another uninformative summary. In particular, this concerns the following essential facts: (i) the
actual figures that show the domestic consumption, production and sales volumes, and the
evolution of the profits and profitability rate of Sollers in 2011497; (ii) the profit/loss of Sollers from
the sale of LCVs in the Customs Union in 2011 498; and (iii) the profitability rate of Sollers from the
sale of LCVs in the Customs Union.499 Finally, certain essential facts were entirely omitted from the
draft investigation r eport. These are the following: (i) the return on investments, actual and
potential negative effects on cash flow , and the ability to raise capital or investments 500;
(ii) information on the relati on of the volume of export s to the total volume of production 501;
(iii) the figures for the production capacity of the domestic industry 502; (iv) the figures for the
structure of the costs of production of the domestic industry 503; and (v) the figures for the
numbers and salaries of staff. 504 Therefore, having reviewed the draft investigation report, we
conclude that the DIMD did not disclose the relevant essential facts , listed in items (d) and (f) to
(o) of Table 12 in paragraph 7.278 of the Panel Report, underlying its final determination that
would permit the interested parties to understand what data ha d been used by the DIMD and to
defend their interests.
5.207. We also note that, in response to questioning at the hearing, Russia indicated that the
information concerning the weighted average export prices of LCVs produced by Daimler AG and
Volkswagen AG505 was disclosed in the additional disclosure letter.506 The Panel did not refer to the
additional disclosure letter in its analysis under Article 6.9. We do not con sider that there are
sufficient factual findings by the Panel and uncontested evidence on the Panel record that would
allow us to complete the analysis and rule on whether Russia disclosed the information concerning
the weighted average export prices of LCVs produced by Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG.
5.208. On the basis of the above, we find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to disclose the essential facts contained in items (d) and
(f) to (o) of Table 12 in paragraph 7.278 of the Panel Report.507

495 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (d); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), pp. 38-39.
496 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (j); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), p. 39.
497 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, items (f) and (i); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-
16 and RUS-10), Tables 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, and 4.2.5.
498 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (g); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Table 4.2.5.
499 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (h); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Table 4.2.5.
500 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (k); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Section 4.2.7.
501 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (l); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Section 4.1.2.
502 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (m); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Table 4.2.3.
503 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (n); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Section 4.2.4.
504 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (o); draft investigation report (Panel Exhibits EU-16 and
RUS-10), Section 4.2.6.
505 Panel Report, para. 7.278, Table 12, item (e).
506 EEC Letter No. 14-176 (Panel Exhibit RUS-18).
507 Panel Report, para. 7.278.

5.5.7 Whether the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement in relation to sources of information
5.209. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of
Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that a source of data cannot constitute an
"essential fact under consideration " and that the source of data on import volumes and values in
the context of the DIMD's dumping and injury analyses is not an essential fact under consideration
in this dispute. 508 The European Union notes that, without knowing the source of data, in certain
cases, it may be "impossible to properly understand the overall 'factual basis' of the findings, or to
put the raw data in its proper context". 509 Thus, the source of data may very well be an essential
fact under consideration depending on the circumstances of a case, and the disclosure of the data
may be necessary for the interested p arties to defend their interests. 510 The European Union
submits that the Panel 's error flows from two earlier interpretative errors that it committed. First,
the European Union argues that "the Panel incorrectly interpreted Article 6.9 by finding, in general
terms, that a 'methodology' is not a fact, or an essential fact."511 According to the European Union,
this interpretation contradicts the Appellate Body's findings in China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China –
HP-SSST (EU) that certain methodologies, such as an inve stigating authority's methodology for
calculating the dumping margin, constitute essential facts. 512 Second, the European Union argues
that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 when it found that only "essential facts
which are additionally s hown to be 'under consideration'" need to be disclosed. 513 In the
European Union's view, this would suggest that "essential facts' and 'facts under consideration' are
two wholly separate and cumulative criteria for the application of Article 6.9" 514, an interpretation
that would contradict the Appellate Body's findings in China – GOES.515
5.210. In response, Russia requests us to reject the entirety of the European Union's claims.
Russia argues that the Panel correctly interpreted and applied Article 6.9 in accordance w ith the
Appellate Body's findings in China – GOES, when it found that "[k]nowledge of the sources of data
might be useful to establish the credibility of information", but that the sources are not themselves
essential facts under consideration. 516 Russia draws a distinction between, on the one hand, the
facts that are simply "useful" and that need not be disclosed under Article 6.9 and, on the other
hand, the facts that would "form the basis for the decision to apply [a] definitive measure", be
"salient for a contrary outcome", and "ensure the ability of interested parties to defend their
interest", the disclosure of which is mandated by Article 6.9. 517 Moreover, with respect to the
European Union's argument regarding methodologies constituting essential facts, Russia submits
that not all methodologies used by the investigating authority to reach its final determination
should constitute "essential facts under consideration" under Article 6.9. According to Russia,
"methodologies applied by the investigating autho rity in its determinations of dumping, injury and
causality" would constitute "essential facts under consideration", while "methodologies of
presenting facts used by the investigating authority in preparing the disclosure document" would
not.518
5.211. We note that the European Union essentially takes issue with three aspec ts of the Panel's
analysis: (i) the Panel's statement that Article 6.9 does not require the disclosure of methodologies
because they do not constitute "facts" or "essential facts" 519; (ii) the Panel 's statement that
Article 6.9 does not require the disclosure of "every 'essential fact'", but of those that are "under

508 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 191-203.
509 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 201.
510 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 198.
511 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 192 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.256).
512 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 192 (referring to Appellate Body Reports,
China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.131; Panel Reports, China – HP-SSST
(Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 7.238).
513 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 193 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.256).
514 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 193.
515 According to the European Union, the Appellate Body report in China – GOES rather indicates that
the term "essential facts under consideration" must be read in a holistic manner, so that "essential facts" are a
subset of "facts under consideration". (European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 193-194
(referring to Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240))
516 Russia's appellee's submission, paras. 199-201 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.257).
517 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 201.
518 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 210.
519 Panel Report, para. 7.256.a.

consideration"520; and (iii) the Panel's finding that the source of information in itself and the source
of information with respect to import volumes and values used by the DIMD in this case do not
constitute essential facts.521
5.212. Above, we have set out our understanding of the legal standard under Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. In particular, we recall that the scope of Article 6.9 "cover[s] 'facts
under consideration', that is, those facts on the record that may be taken into account by an
authority in reaching a decision as to whether or not to apply definitive anti -dumping … duties".522
Whether a particular fact is essential depend s on the nature and scope of the particular
substantive obligations, the content of the particular findings needed to satisfy the substantive
obligations at issue, and the factual circumstances of each case. 523 For example, with respect to
the determination of dumping, an investigating authority is expected "to disclose, inter alia, the
home market and export sales being used, the adjustments made thereto, as well as the
calculation methodology applied by the investigating authority to determine the margin of
dumping."524 The purpose of the disclosure of essential facts is to enable the interested parties to
defend their interests.525
5.213. We first examine whether, as the European Union contends, the Panel found that "[n]ot
every 'essential fact' is required to be dis closed", but only those essential facts that are
additionally shown to be "under consideration". 526 We recall that the relevant part of paragraph
7.256.c of the Panel Report reads as follows:
Not every "essential fact" is required to be disclosed. Article 6.9 requires the
disclosure of "essential facts under consideration": the "facts on the record that may
be taken into account by an authority in reaching a decision as to whether or not to
apply definitive anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties."[*]527
[*fn original]461 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
5.214. In this statement, the Panel appears to have summarized its understanding of the relevant
Appellate Body's statements in China – GOES which read as follows:
At the heart of Article [] 6.9 … is t he requirement to disclose, before a final
determination is made, the essential facts under consideration which form the basis
for the decision whether or not to apply definitive measures. … [Article 6.9 does] not
require the disclosure of all the facts that are before an authority but, instead, those
that are "essential"; a word that carries a connotation of significant, important, or
salient.528
5.215. The Appellate Body explained that Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement does "not
require the disclosure of all the facts that are before an authority but, instead, those that are
'essential'".529 The Appellate Body understood the essential facts to be those that are "under
consideration" and form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures. Th e
Appellate Body thus read the terms "essential facts under consideration" and "which form the basis
for the decision whether to apply definitive measures " together. Subsequently, the Appellate Body
has used the term "essential facts" as a shorthand in spe cifying that it understood this term to
refer to "those facts that are significant in the process of reaching a decision as to whether or not
to apply definitive measures."530

520 Panel Report, para. 7.256.c.
521 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a and b.
522 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
523 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.130.
524 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.131.
525 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
526 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 193 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.256.c).
527 Panel Report, para. 7.256.c. (emphasis original)
528 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240. (emphasis original)
529 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240. (emphasis original)
530 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.

5.216. In making the statement challenged by the European Union, the Panel sought to reflect the
Appellate Body's understanding that Article 6.9 does "not require the disclosure of all the facts that
are before an authority but, instead, those that are 'essential'". 531 In rephrasing the
Appellate Body's statement in China – GOES, the Panel may have cursorily stated that "[n]ot every
'essential fact' is required to be disclosed"532, instead of saying that not every fact is required to be
disclosed, but only those that are under consideration and form the basis for the decision whether
to apply defi nitive measures. We further note that, in paragraph 7.256 of the Panel Report, the
Panel correctly reflected the legal standard under Article 6.9 by stating that it " requires the
disclosure of 'the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision whether
to apply definitive measures." 533 Accordingly, we have reservations with the Panel statement at
issue to the extent that the Panel may be read as having distinguished between two categories of
information: (i) essential facts (some of which are not required to be disclosed); and
(ii) essential facts under consideration (that are required to be disclosed). Nevertheless, given that
the Panel correctly expressed its understanding of this aspect of the legal standa rd under
Article 6.9 else where in its Report, we do not consider that the Panel's rephrasing of the
Appellate Body's statement in China – GOES, in itself, amounts to a reversible error of law.
5.217. In addition, the European Union contends that the Panel erred in finding that a
methodology does not constitute an "essential fact ".534 Specifically, the European Union takes
issue with the Panel's statement that "Article 6.9 requires the disclosure of facts: the information
underlying a decision rather than the reasoning, calculation or methodology that led to a
determination."535 In this statement, the Panel juxtaposed facts, which may be subject to the
disclosure requirements under Article 6.9, with the reasoning, calculation, and methodology, which
are not, in the Panel's view, "facts" and thus cannot be subject to Article 6.9 requirements.
5.218. As we have noted, in China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), the
Appellate Body stated that, with respect to the determination of dumping, an investigating
authority is expected " to disclose, inter alia, the home market and export sales being used, the
adjustments made thereto, and the calculation methodology applied by the investigating authority
to determine the margin of dumping." 536 The Appellate Body thus found that, in that dispute, the
calculation methodology used by the investigating authority to determine the margin of dumping
constituted an essential fact within the meaning of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. We
note, in this respect, that disclosure of the data underlying a dum ping determination alone may
not enable an interested party to defend its interests, unless that interested party was also
informed of the methodology applied by the investigating authority to determine the margin of
dumping. At the same time, not all meth odologies used by an investigating authority may
constitute essential facts within the meaning of Article 6. Rather, only those methodologies the
knowledge of which is necessary for the participants to understand the basis of the investigating
authority's decision and to defend their interests would be essential facts under Article 6.9. An
assessment of whether a particular methodology constitutes an essential fact should therefore be
made on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, we disagree with the Panel's statement to the extent
that the Panel considered that a methodology cannot constitute an "essential fact " under
Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.219. We next turn to the European Union's argument that the Panel erred in its interpretation
and application of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by finding that the source of
information, in general, and the source data concerning import volumes and values in the present
case are not essential f acts.537 We recall that the Panel stated in this respect that, "[i]n itself, the
source of data is not an essential fact under consideration."538 The Panel further observed that
"[k]nowledge of the sources of data might be useful to establish the credibility o f information used

531 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240. (emphasis original)
532 Panel Report, para. 7.256.c.
534 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 192 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.256.a).
535 Panel Report, para. 7.256.a (referring to Panel Report, China – Broiler Products, para. 7.90).
(emphasis original)
536 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.131.
537 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 195.
538 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a. (emphasis original)

by investigating authorities, but the sources of data are not themselves essential facts under
consideration."539
5.220. We recall that the scope of Article 6.9 " cover[s] 'facts under consideration', that is, those
facts on the record that may b e taken into account by an authority in reaching a decision as to
whether or not to apply definitive anti -dumping … duties." 540 An assessment of whether a
particular fact is essential will depend on the nature and scope of the particular substantive
obligations, the content of the particular findings needed to satisfy the substantive obligations at
issue, and the factual circumstances of each case. 541 The Appellate Body has previously
emphasized that the disclosure of essential facts should "permit an interested party to understand
the basis for the decision whether or not to apply definitive measures" and enable an interested
party to defend itself. 542 In certain circumstances, knowledge of the data itself may not be
sufficient to enable an interested par ty to properly defend itself, unless that party is also informed
of the source of such data and how it was used by the investigating authority. Thus, knowing the
source of data may be pivotal to the ability of an interested party to defend itself. In parti cular,
knowing the source of information may enable the party to comment on the accuracy or reliability
of the relevant information and allow it to propose alternative sources for that information. This
may be particularly important in the circumstances wh ere the investigating authority uses data
that was not submitted by an interested party, but obtained from other sources ( e.g. from a
customs or statistical database).
5.221. On the basis of the above, we disagree with the Panel's general statement that sources of
data are not essential facts within the meaning of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.543
We note that the Panel relied on this interpretation as the reason for finding, in paragraph 7.257.a
and b of the Panel Report, that the European Union had failed to demonstrate that the source of
information concerning import volumes and values, and volumes of dumped imports used by the
DIMD in the context of its dumping and injury determinations, constitute s an essential fact under
Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. 544 Accordingly, we also disagree with the Panel's
conclusion with respect to the source of information concerning import volumes and values, and
volumes of dumped imports used by the DIMD.
5.222. For all these reasons, we find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement as to whether methodologies and sources of information may qualify as
"essential facts " under Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, as set out in paragraphs
7.256.a and 7.257.a of the Panel Report. The Panel also erred in the subsequent application of its
general understanding that sources of information do not constitute essential facts to the facts of
this case, as set out in paragraph 7.257.a and b of the Panel Report. 545 We therefore reverse the
Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.256 .a and 7.257.a and b, and the Panel's conclusions, in
paragraphs 7.278, Table 12, items (a) and (b), and 8.1 .h.i of the Panel Report, as they relate to
items (a) and (b) of Table 12.
5.5.8 Completion of the analysis
5.223. In the event that we reverse the Panel's findings, the European Union requests us to
complete the analysis and find that, "by failing to disclose the source of information concerning
import volumes and values in the context of its dumping and injury analyses, the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9" of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.546
5.224. As noted above, the Appellate Body has completed the analysis with a view to facilitating
the prompt settlement and effective resolution of the dispute.547 The Appellate Body has done so
where the factual findings in the panel report, undisputed facts on the panel record, and admitted

539 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a.
540 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
541 Appellate Body Reports, China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.130.
542 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 240.
543 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a.
544 Panel Report, para. 7.257.b.
545 Panel Report, para. 7.257.b.
546 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 204.
547 See Appellate Body Reports, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1178;

facts provided it with a sufficient basis for conducting its own analysis. 548 The Appellate Body has
declined to complete the an alysis when the complexity of the issues raised, the absence of full
exploration of the issues before the panel, and considerations pertaining to the parties' due
process rights did not permit it to do so.549
5.225. Turning to the case before us, we recall that, be fore the Panel, the European Union argued
that the DIMD's draft investigation report did not provide the source of the information concerning
the volume and value of LCV imports, which formed the basis for the DIMD's decision to apply
definitive measures, with respect to the dumping determination.550 Having considered that sources
of information in general do not constitute essential facts, the Panel found that the source of the
information concerning the import volumes and values used by the DIMD in its dump ing
determination was not an essential fact. 551 The Panel did not engage further with the
European Union's and Russia's arguments and did not examine the contents of the draft
investigation r eport. Consequently, the Panel proceedings were conducted without t he Panel
sufficiently exploring with the parties the issue of whether the sources of information of import
volumes and values used by the DIMD in its dumping determination constituted essential facts and
were actually disclosed in this case , and we thus la ck the benefit of sufficient elaboration of this
issue in the Panel Report.552
5.226. On appeal, the participants agree that the DIMD disclosed essential facts to Volkswagen
AG and Daimler AG by means of the draft investigation report.553 Moreover, in its appellee's
submission and in resp onse to questioning at the oral hearing, Russia referred to a letter dated
11 April 2013 sent by the DIMD to ZAO Mercedes-Benz RUS and Volkswagen Group RUS as an
additional source of disclosure of essential facts. 554 The European Union did not refer to the
additional disclosure letter in its submissions. In response to questioning at the oral hearing, the
European Union indicated that it accepted that it was a letter sent by the DIMD to one of the
investigated companies.555 As a result, it is not clear whether the participants agree on whether
the additional letter is a disclosure document.
5.227. As noted, the Panel's inquiry into the issue of whether the DIMD had to disclose the source
of information concerning the import vo lumes and values of LCVs was limited . Having considered
that sources of information in general do not constitute essential facts, the Panel did not engage
further with the European Union's arguments. In these circumstances, we do not consider that
there ar e sufficient factual findings by the Panel and uncontested evid ence on the Panel record
that would allow us to complete the analysis and rule on whether the DIMD had to, and in fact did,
disclose the source of information concerning import volumes and valu es that it used in its
dumping and injury determinations.
5.5.9 Conclusions
5.228. In relation to Russia's appeal, we note that an inconsistency under Article 6.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the confidential treatment of information that constitutes
essential facts may not be presumed to result in an inconsistency with the requirements that apply
to essential facts under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The inquiry under Article 6.9 is
separate and distinct from the assessment under Article 6 .5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.

548 See Appellate Body Reports, Australia – Salmon, paras. 209, 241, and 255; Korea – Dairy, paras. 91
and 102; US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 653; US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, para. 343;
EC – Asbestos, paras. 78-79; China – HP-SSST (Japan) / China – HP-SSST (EU), para. 5.135;
US ‒ Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.164.
549 See Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program, para.
5.224; EC ‒ Seal Products, paras. 5.63 and 5.69; US – Anti-Dumping Methodologies (China), para. 5.184;
EC ‒ Export Subsidies on Sugar, para. 339.
550 European Union's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 430-431 (referring to Tables 3.2, 3.3,
and 3.4 of the draft investigation report).
551 Panel Report, para. 7.257.a and b.
552 In its other appellant's submission, the European Union indicated that it "has explained, and the
Panel has largely ignored, why the source of the data pertaining to import volumes and values used by the
DIMD was an essential fact under consideration". (European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 199)
553 Russia's and European Union's responses to questioning at the oral hearing.
554 Russia's appellee's submission, para. 186 (referring to EEC Letter No. 14-176 (Panel Exhibit
RUS-18)), response to questioning at the oral hearing.
555 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing.

Regardless of whether or not the essential facts at issue were properly treated as confidential
under Article 6.5, a panel must examine whether any disclosure made – including those made
through non-confidential summaries under Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement – meets
the legal standard under Article 6.9. We find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by considering that, where essential facts are not properly treated
as confidential in accordance with Article 6.5, this automatically lead s to an inconsistency with
Article 6.9. We also find that the Panel erred in finding, in paragraph 7.269 of the Panel Report,
that, "to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose i nformation that was not properly treated as
confidential …, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9."556 In addition, with respect to the
information from the electronic customs database, we find that the Panel erred in finding, in
paragraph 7.270 of the Panel Report , that, "[t]o the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose
information that was not properly treated as confidential, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9" of
the Anti -Dumping Agree ment.557 Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraph
7.268, as read in light of paragraph 7.269 , and in paragraphs 7.269, 7.270, and 7.278 , Table 12,
as well as the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.1 .h.ii of the Panel Report, that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to inform all interested
parties of the information listed in items (d) to (o) of Table 12.
5.229. In relation to the European Union's request that we complete the analysis and find that the
DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping, having examined the draft
investigation r eport, we find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 by failing to
disclose the essential facts contained in items (d) and (f) to (o) of Table 12 in paragraph 7.278 of
the Panel Report.
5.230. In relation to the European Union's appeal, we consider that not all methodologies used by
an investigating authority in a particular investigation can constitute essential facts within the
meaning o f Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Rather, only those methodologies the
knowledge of which is necessary for the participants to understand the basis of the investigating
authority's decision and to defend their interests may be essential facts un der Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. An assessment of whether a particular methodology constitutes an
essential fact should therefore be made on a case -by-case basis. Moreover, in certain
circumstances, knowledge of the data itself may not be sufficient to enable an interested party to
properly defend itself, unless that party is also informed of the source of such data and how it was
used by the investigating authority. In particular, knowing the source of informati on may enable a
party to comment on the accuracy or reliability of the relevant information and allow it to propose
alternative sources of that information . This may be particularly important in the circumstances
where the investigating authority uses data that was not submitted by an interested party, but
obtained from other sources ( e.g. from a customs or statistical database). Thus, in certain
circumstances, the source of the data may be an essential fact under Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
5.231. We therefore find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning whether methodologies and sources of information may
qualify as essential facts , as set out in paragraphs 7.256.a and 7.257 .a of the Panel Report. We
also find that the Panel erred in the subsequent application of its general understanding that
sources of information do not constitute essential facts to the specifics of this case, as set out in
paragraph 7.257.a and b of the Panel Report. Con sequently, we reverse the Panel's findings, in
paragraphs 7.256 .a and 7.257.a and b, and the Panel's conclusions, in paragraph s 7.278,
Table 12, items (a) and (b), and 8.1.h.i of the Panel Report, as they relate to items (a) and (b) of
Table 12.
5.232. In relation to the European Union's request that we complete the analysis and find that, by
failing to disclose the source of information concerning import volumes and values, the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, we do not consider that there are
sufficient factual findings by the Panel and uncontested evidence on the Panel record that would
allow us to complete the analysis.

556 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
557 Panel Report, para. 7.270.

6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1. For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body makes the f ollowing findings and
conclusions.
6.1 Definition of domestic industry
6.2. Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that the "domestic industry" is composed
of domestic producers of the like product. I f an investigating authority were permitted to leave
out, from the definition of domestic industry, domestic producers of the like product that provided,
in the authority's view, allegedly deficient information, a material risk of distortion would arise in
the injury analysis. This is because the non-inclusion of those producers could make the definition
of the domestic industry no longer representative of total domestic production. We do not consider
that Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement allows investigating authorities to leave domestic
producers of the like product out of the definition of domestic industry because of alleged
deficiencies in the information submitted by those producers. The Anti -Dumping Agreement, in
particular Article 6, sets out tools to address the inaccuracy and incompleteness of information.
Thus, in our view, the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.1 does not create a conflict between the
obligations in Article 3.1 and Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We also do not read the
Panel's interpretation of A rticle 4.1 as having reduced the term "major proportion" to inutility.
Moreover, we do not consider that Articles 3.1 and 4.1 prevent an investigating authority from
initially examining the information submitted by domestic producers before defini ng the do mestic
industry to the extent that the information collected is pertinent to defining the domestic industry.
We do not consider that the Panel reached its finding solely on the basis of the fact that the DIMD
reviewed the information submitted by Sollers a nd GAZ before defining the domestic industry. In
light of the specific circumstances of this case, we find no reversible error in the Panel's
interpretation and application of Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
a. We therefore find that the P anel did not err in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 4.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with these provisions in its definition of "domestic industry".
b. Consequently, we uphold the Panel's findings in paragraphs 8.1.a and 8.1.b of the Panel
Report.
6.2 Price suppression
6.3. In relation to Russia's appeal under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, the
fact that several factors or elements could potentially influence the rate of return used to construct
the target domestic price does not allow an investigating authority to disregard evidence regarding
any particular factor or element that calls into question the explanatory force of dumped imports
for significant price suppression under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. We thus
disagree with Russia's argument that the consideration of evidence regarding factors or elements –
such as , in this dispute, the financial crisis – that call into question the explanatory force of
dumped i mports for the existence of price suppression would lead to a biased analysis simply
because there could be other factors that could also potentially affect the selected rate of return.
In addition, we do not consider that the Panel's interpretation of Art icle 3.2 suggests that an
investigating authority is required to conduct a non -attribution analysis of all known factors that
may be causing injury to the domestic industry in the context of its price suppression analysis. The
inquiries under Article 3.5 and under Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement have distinct
focuses. The analysis under Article 3.5 focuses on the causal relationship between dumped imports
and injury to the domestic industry. In contr ast, the analysis under Article 3.2 focuses on the
relationship between dumped imports and domestic prices.
a. We therefore find that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by finding that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with these p rovisions because it failed to take into account the impact of
the financial crisis in determining the rate of return used to construct the target domestic
price for its price suppression analysis.

b. Consequently, we uphold the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.64-7.67 and 8.1.d.i of the
Panel Report.558
6.4. In relation to the European Union's claims under Article 11 of the DSU, we consider that the
Panel's findings concerning the DIMD's methodology, the long-term price trends, and the degree of
price suppression are not coherent and consistent with the Panel's earlier finding that the manner
in which the DIMD used the 2009 rate of return to determine the target domestic price was
WTO-inconsistent.
a. We therefore find that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11
of the DSU.
b. Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.77 -7.81, 7.104-7.107,
8.1.d.iii, and 8.1.d.iv of the Panel Report.
6.5. Having found that the Panel acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11 of the
DSU, we do not examine the European Union's conditional claim that the Panel erred in its
interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in finding
that the DIMD's methodology ex plained that the effect of the dumped imports was to supress
domestic prices. We also do not examine the European Union's request for us to complete the
analysis and find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 by failing to consider
whether the dumped imports have explanatory force for the existence of significant price
suppression.
6.6. In relation to the European Union's claim under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning whether the domestic market could absorb furt her price
increases, we consider that an investigating authority must ensure that its price suppression
methodology under Article 3.2 assesses price increases "which otherwise would have occurred" in
the absence of dumped imports. In addition, an investiga ting authority is required to consider
whether dumped imports have "explanatory force" for the occurrence of significant suppression of
domestic prices. Contrary to the European Union's contention, we do not read the Panel to have
added a requirement to Articles 3.1 and 3.2 that interested parties must have explicitly questioned
the ability of the market to absorb additional price increases for an investigating authority to be
required to consider this question. Thus, in this respect, we do not find that th e Panel erred in its
interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3. 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. We fault the Panel,
however, for having itself undertaken the assessment of relevant evidence on the DIMD's
investigation record.
a. For these reasons, we find that the Panel erred in its application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the evidence on the investigation record
did not require the DIMD to examine whether the market could absorb further price
increases.
b. Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.87 -7.91 and 8.1.d.iii of
the Panel Report.
c. Having reversed the Panel's finding at issue , we complete the analysis and find that the
DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to examine evidence relevant to whether the market would accept additional
domestic price increases.
6.3 Confidential investigation report
6.7. In relation to Russia's contention that, on appeal, the European Union misrepresents the
arguments it made before the Panel, we consider that , before the Panel, the European Union
raised the issue of whether certain parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the

558 Having upheld these Panel findings, we do not examine Russia's conditional request concerning
paragraphs 7.181-7.182 and 8.1.f.i of the Panel Report regarding the consequential inconsistency with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

investigation record at the time the final determination to impose the anti -dumping measure was
made. On appeal , the European Union faults the Panel for not having engaged with that same
argument.
6.8. We recall that the confidential investigation report was submitted by Russia together with its
first written submission to the Panel and that the European Union could not have been aware of
the contents of the confidential investigation report before the receipt of Russia's first written
submission. We note the difficulty the European Union had in the present case in obtaining and
providing ev idence to the Panel in support of its contention that the relevant parts of the
confidential investigation report may not have formed part of the investigation record. In our view,
when faced with a claim that a report, or parts of it , on the basis of which an anti -dumping
measure was imposed did not form part of the investigation record, a panel has to take certain
steps to assess objectively and assure itself of the validity of such report, or its parts, and whether
or not it formed p art of the contemporaneous written record of the investigation. In the present
dispute, the Panel did not seek to assure itself that the relevant parts of the confidential
investigation report formed part of the investigation record at the time the determi nation to
impose the anti-dumping measure was made.
a. On the basis of the above, we find that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of
the DSU and Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by relying, in its examination
of the European Union's clai ms under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, on the confidential investigation report without properly assuring itself of its
validity, that is to say, of whether the relevant parts of it formed part of the
investigation record at the time the determination to impose the anti -dumping measure
was made.
b. Consequently, we reverse the Panel's intermediate finding, in paragraphs 7.165 and
7.166 of the Panel Report, that it could base its analysis of the European Union's claims
concerning the three injury factors under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement on the confidential investigation report.
c. We also reverse the Panel's subsequent analysis, contained in paragraphs 7.166 to
7.171, and the Panel's ultimate finding, in paragraph s 7.172, 7.173.i, and 8.1.e.x of the
Panel Report, that the European Union had failed to establish that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to
examine the three injury factors at issue, namely: (i) the domestic industry's return on
investments; (ii) the actual and potential effects on cash flow ; and (iii) the ability to
raise capital or investments.
6.9. In relation to the European Union's request for completion of the analysis, in light of the
absence on the Panel record of a discernible attempt by the Panel to assure itself of whether
certain parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the investigati on record at the
time the determination to impose the anti-dumping measure was made, we are not in a position to
decide whether these parts of the confidential investigation report formed part of the investigation
record at the time the determination was made. Accordingly, we cannot determine whether we can
rely on the confidential investigation report in the assessment of the European Union's claims
under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. I n these circumstances, we cannot
complete the analysis on the basis of the non-confidential investigation report as requested by the
European Union.
6.4 Related dealer
6.10. In relation to the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in its interpretation and
application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the A nti-Dumping Agreement by finding that the DIMD was
not required to evaluate the inventory information of Turin Auto in examining injury to the
domestic industry, we consider that t he Panel's interpretation, which is more nuanced than the
European Union's arguments on appeal suggest, comports with the text of Articles 3.1 and 3.4
specifying that the injury analysis concerns all relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the
state of the domestic industry . In our view, evidence concerning a related dealer that does not
produce the like product and is thus not included in the "domestic industry" may be pertinent, in a
particular case, to the evaluation of a relevant economic factor or index having a bearing on the

state of the domestic industry. We ag ree with the Panel that whether an evaluation under
Article 3.4 requires a consideration of such evidence can be assessed only on a case-by-case basis.
We do not consider the degree of proximity in the relationship between different entities to be
dispositive, without more, of whether evidence relating to the inventory of a related dealer is
pertinent to the evaluation of "inventories" for purposes of the injury analysis under Article 3.4.
With respect to the application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 to the anti -dumping investigation at issue,
we find that the European Union does not have a separate and independent basis for its claim that
the Panel erred in applying these provisions when analysing the injury factor "inventories" in its
assessment of the state of Sollers. We agree with the Panel's finding that the European Union had
not established that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 by not considering the
inventories data of Turin Auto in the investigation report.
a. We therefore find that th e Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
b. Consequently, we uphold the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.122, 7.123, 7.173 .b, and
8.1.e.ii of the Panel Report, that the European Union had not established that the DIMD
acted inconsistently with these provisions in its injury analysis by not examining
inventory information of a dealer related to a domestic producer of the like product , but
not itself part of the domestic industry.
6.5 Essential facts
6.11. In relation to Russia's appeal, we note that an inconsistency under Article 6.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the confidential treatment of information that constitutes
essential facts may not be presumed to result in an inconsistency with the requirements that apply
to essential facts under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The inquiry under Article 6.9 is
separate and distinct from the assessment under Article 6.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.
Regardless of whether or not the essential facts at issue were properly treated as confidential
under Article 6.5, a panel must examine whether any disclosure made – including those made
through non-confidential summaries under Article 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement – meets
the legal standard under Article 6.9.
a. We find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by considering that, where essential facts are not properly treated as
confidential in accordance with Article 6.5, this automatically leads to an inconsistency
with Article 6.9. We also find that the Panel erred in finding, in paragraph 7.269 of the
Panel Report, that , "to the extent that the DIMD failed to disclose information that was
not properly treated as confidential …, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9."559 In
addition, with respect to the information from the electronic customs database, we find
that the Panel erred in finding, in paragraph 7.270 of the Panel Report , that, "[t]o the
extent that the DIMD failed t o disclose information that was not properly treated as
confidential, it acted inconsistently with Article 6.9" of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.560
b. Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraph 7.268, as read in light of
paragraph 7.269, and in paragraphs 7.269, 7.270, and 7.278 , Table 12, as well as the
Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 8.1 .h.ii of the Panel Report, that the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to inform all
interested parties of the information listed in items (d) to (o) of Table 12.
6.12. In relation to the European Union's request that we complete the analysis and find that the
DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, having examined the
draft investigation report, we find that the DIMD acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 by failing to
disclose the essential facts contained in items (d) and (f) to (o) of Table 12 in paragraph 7.278 of
the Panel Report.
6.13. In relation to the European Union's appeal, we consider that not all methodologies used by
an investigating authority in a particular investigation can constitute essential facts within the

559 Panel Report, para. 7.269.
560 Panel Report, para. 7.270.

meaning of Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. Rather, only those methodologies the
knowledge of which is nece ssary for the participants to understand the basis of the investigating
authority's decision and to defend their interests may be essential facts under Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. An assessment of whether a particular methodology constitutes an
essential fact should therefore be made on a case -by-case basis. Moreover, in certain
circumstances, knowledge of the data itself may not be sufficient to enable an interested party to
properly defend itself, unless that party is also informed of the source of such data and how it was
used by the investigating authority. In particular, knowing the source of informatio n may enable a
party to comment on the accuracy or reliability of the relevant information and allow it to propose
alternative sources of that information . This may be particularly important in the circumstances
where the investigating authority uses data that was not submitted by an interested party, but
obtained from other sources ( e.g. from a customs or statistical database). Thus, in certain
circumstances, the source of the data may be an essential fact under Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
a. We therefore find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 6.9 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement concerning whether methodologies and sources of information
may qualify as essential facts , as set out in paragraphs 7.256 .a and 7.257 .a of the
Panel Report. We also find that the Panel erred in the subsequent application of its
general understanding that sources of information do not constitute essential facts to the
specifics of this case, as set out in paragraph 7.257.a and b of the Panel Report.
b. Consequently, we reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.256.a and 7.257.a and b,
and the Panel's conclusions, in paragraph s 7.278, Table 12 , items (a) and (b), and
8.1.h.i of the Panel Report, as they relate to items (a) and (b) of Table 12.
6.14. In relation to the European Union's request that we complete the analysis and find that , by
failing to disclose the source of information concerning import volumes and values, the DIMD acted
inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, we do not consider that there are
sufficient factual findings by the Panel and uncontested evidence on the Panel record that would
allow us to complete the analysis.
6.6 Recommendation
6.15. The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB request Russia to bring its measures found in
this Report, and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994 into conformity with those Agreements.