EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CHINA NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Document: UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 15 September 2015
Document codes: WT/DS397/21
Complainant: China
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Japan, Norway, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, U.S.
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 6, 9, 5, 2, 3, 4  Anti-dumpingArt. I, X:3(a), VI:1  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL FASTENERS FROM CHINA
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY CHINA
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
 The following communication, dated 9 September 2015, from the Delegation of the
European Union, is being circulated to Members.

 Pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU the European Union hereby notifies to the Dispute
Settlement Body its decision to appeal to the Appe llate Body certain issues of law covered in the
Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute
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). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the European Union simultaneously files this Notice
of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the European
Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Panel, with respect to the following errors contained in the Panel Report:
1
(a) the Panel erred when finding that China's claims under Articles 6.5, 6.4, 6.2, 6.1.2, 2.4, 4.1
and 3.1 of the AD Agreement fell within its te rms of reference. The Panel erred with respect
to the correct legal interpretation and application of Article 21.5 of the DSU and failed to
comply with its functions as required by Article 11 of the DSU. As a result, the
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs
7.34, 7.80, 7,114, 7.115, 7.171, 7.291, as well as 8.1(i)-(iii) and (v) of its Report;
(b) the Panel incorrectly interpreted and applied Arti cle 6.5 of the AD Agreement to the facts of
the case, and also failed to comply with its functions as required by Article 11 of the DSU
when finding that the European Union violated Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement by treating
as confidential the information submitte d by Pooja Forge regarding the list and
characteristics of its products. As a result, the European Union requests the Appellate Body
to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.50, 7.51 and 8.1(i) of its report;
(c) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement when
finding that the Commission violated this provision by failing to provide the
Chinese producers with timely opportunities to see the information on the list and
characteristics of Pooja Forge's products, which information was not confidential within the
meaning of Article 6.5, and which was relevant to the presentation of the Chinese producers'

1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review this Notice of Appeal
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice
to the ability of the European Union to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its
appeal.

cases and used by the Commission. The European Union further submits that the Panel
erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement when finding
that the Commission violated this provision by not allowing the Chinese producers to see the
information on the file regarding the list and characteristics of Pooja Forge's products. In
view of those errors, the European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's
findings in paragraphs 7.92, 7.96 and 8.1(ii) of its Report;
(d) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement when
finding that the Commission violated this pr ovision by failing to provide the Chinese
producers with specific product data regarding the characteristics of Pooja Forge's products
that were used in determining normal values in the investigation at issue. As a result, the
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings of violation in
paragraphs 7.148, 7.149 and 8.1(iii) of the Panel Report;
(e) the Panel erred in the interpretation and app lication of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement
when finding that the Commission violated this provision by not taking into consideration, in
its dumping determinations, Chinese producers' exports of models that did not match any of
the models sold by the Indian analogue count ry producer Pooja Forge. As a result, the
European Union requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings in
paragraphs 7.276 and 8.1(iv) of its Report; and
(f) the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Articles 4.1 and 3.1 of the
AD Agreement when finding that, by defining the domestic industry on the basis of domestic
producers that came forward in response to a notice of initiation which stated that only
those producers willing to be included in the injury sample would be considered as
cooperating, the Commission acted inconsistently with Article 4.1 of the AD agreement and
consequently with Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement. As a result, the European Union requests
the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.299 and 8.1(v) of its
Report.