MEXICO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BEEF AND RICE
Document: Complaint with Respect to Rice Notification of an Appeal by Mexico under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20.1 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 20 July 2005
Document codes: WT/DS295/6
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Mexico
Third parties: China, EU, Turkey
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 12.5, 12.7, 19.3, 11.9, 21.1, 21.2, 32.1, 12.1.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.1, 12.1, 12.2, 11.9, 18.1, 19.3, 21.1, 21.2, 32.1  Anti-dumping

MEXICO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
ON BEEF AND RICE

Complaint with Respect to Rice

Notification of an Appeal by Mexico under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20.1 of
the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification dated 20 July 2005 fro m the delegation of Mexico is circulated to
Members.

 Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understa nding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Mexico
wishes to notify its decision to appeal certain points of law covered in the final report of the Panel that
examined the case () and
the corresponding legal interpretations, as outlined below.

1. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that the request for
establishment of a panel presented by the United States was not inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the
DSU. This finding is based on points of law and err oneous legal interpretations, such as extension of
the legal basis of the complaint
1 through acceptance that the pane l request should include 13 legal
provisions that did not appear in the request for consultations.
2. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions that
Mexico's Ministry of the Economy acted inconsistent ly with Article 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(AD Agreement) in issuing its determination of inju ry in the anti-dumping investigation on imports of
long-grain white rice from the United States. Mexico holds that these findings and conclusions, as set
forth below, lie outside the context established by the terms of reference applicable to this dispute, are
in error and are based on misinterpretations of the cited Articles of the AD Agreement and of various
Appellate Body reports (some of wh ich were not considered at all although Mexico cited them in its
written submissions):
 (a) The findings in paragraphs 7.50 to 7. 65 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.1(a) of the report, in which the Panel erred in determining
that Mexico acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the
AD Agreement by basing its injury determin ation on a period of investigation which
had ended more than 15 months before the initiation of the investigation.

1 See paras. 7.38 to 7.45 and 7.49 of the Panel's report.

 (b) The findings in paragraphs 7.66 to 7. 88 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.1(b) of the report, in which the Panel erred in determining
that Mexico acted inconsistently with Ar ticle 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement by
limiting its injury analysis to six months of the years 1997, 1998, and 1999.

 (c) The findings in paragraphs 7.89 and 7. 117 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.1(c) of the report, in which the Panel erred in determining
that Mexico acted inconsistently with Ar ticle 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement by
failing to conduct an objective examinati on based on positive evidence of the price
effects and volume of dumped imports as part of its injury analysis.

3. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions that
Mexico's Ministry of the Economy acted inconsistently with Articles 5.8, 6.1, 6.8, 6.10 and 12.1, and
paragraphs 1 and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement in issuing its determination of the margin of
dumping in the anti-dumping investigation on imports of long-grain white rice from the United States.
Mexico holds that these findings and conclusion s, as set forth below, lie outside the context
established by the terms of reference applicable to th is dispute, are in error and are based on incorrect
interpretations of the aforementioned Articles and Annex of the AD Agreement and of various
Appellate Body reports (some of wh ich were not considered at all although Mexico cited them in its
written submissions):
 (a) The findings in paragraphs 7.133 to 7. 145 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.3(a) of the report, in which the Panel erred in determining
that Mexico acted inconsistently with Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement by not
terminating the investigation on the United States exporters which, as the Panel notes,
had exported at undumped prices, and by not excluding those exporters from
application of the definitive anti-dumping measure.

 (b) The findings in paragraphs 7.146 to 7. 168 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.3(b) of the report, in which the Panel erred in determining
that Mexico acted inconsistently with Artic le 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II of the
AD Agreement in its application of a fact s available-based dumping margin to the
exporter Producers Rice.

 (c) The findings in paragraphs 7.169 to 7. 202 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.3(c) of the report, in which the Panel erred in determining
that Mexico acted inconsistently with Articles 6.1, 6.8, 6.10 and 12.1 and paragraph 1
of Annex II of the AD Agreement in its application of a facts available-based
dumping margin to United States producers a nd exporters that it allegedly did not
investigate.

4. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions that
Mexico's Foreign Trade Act (FTA) is inconsistent with Articles 5.8, 6.1.1, 6.8, 9.3, 9.5, 11.2 and 18.1,
paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Annex II of the AD Ag reement, and Articles 11.9, 12.1.1, 12.7, 19.3, 21.2
and 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Count ervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). Mexico
holds that these findings and conclusions, as set fort h below, are in error and are based on incorrect
interpretations of the aforementioned Articles of the AD and SCM Agreements and of various
Appellate Body reports (some of wh ich were not considered at all although Mexico cited them in its
written submissions):
 (a) The findings in paragraphs 7.213 and 7. 225 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.5(a) of the repor t, in which the Panel determined that
Article 53 of the FTA is inconsistent as su ch with Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement

and Article 12.1.1 of the SCM Agreement. The reason being that the Panel erred in
determining that Article 53 of the FTA is mandatory and misconstrued Articles 6.1.1
and 5.10 of the AD Agreement and Articles 12.1.1 and 11.11 of the SCM Agreement.

 (b) The findings in paragraphs 7.226 to 7. 242 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.5(b) of the repor t, in which the Panel determined that
Article 64 of the FTA is inconsistent as such with Article 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 3, 5
and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement a nd Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement.
The reason being that the Panel erred in de termining that Article 64 of the FTA is
mandatory and misconstrued Article 6.8 and pa ragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Annex II of
the AD Agreement and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, these
findings are based on an erroneous interpretati on of Article 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 3, 5
and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement.

 (c) The findings in paragraphs 7.243 to 7. 260 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.5(c) of the repor t, in which the Panel determined that
Article 68 of the FTA is inconsistent as su ch with Articles 5.8, 9.3 and 11.2 of the
AD Agreement and Articles 11.9 and 21.2 of the SCM Agreement. The reason being
that the Panel erred in determining that Article 68 of the FTA is mandatory and
misconstrued Articles 5.8, 9.3 and 11.2 of the AD Agreement and Articles 11.9 and
21.2 of the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, these findings are based on an erroneous
legal interpretation of Articles 5.8, 9.3 and 11.2 of the AD Agreement and
Articles 11.9 and 21.2 of the SCM Agreement.

 (d) The findings in paragraphs 7.261 to 7. 269 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.5(d) of the repor t, in which the Panel determined that
Article 89D of the FTA is inconsistent as such with Article 9.5 of the AD Agreement
and Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement. The reason being that the Panel erred in
determining that Article 89D of the FTA is mandatory and misconstrued Article 9.5
of the AD Agreement and Article 19.3 of th e SCM Agreement. Furthermore, these
findings are based on an erroneous legal interpretation of Article 9.5 of the
AD Agreement and Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement.

 (e) The findings in paragraphs 7.270 to 7. 280 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.5(e) of the repor t, in which the Panel determined that
Article 93V of the FTA is inconsiste nt as such with Article 18.1 of the
AD Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. The reason being that the
Panel erred in determining that Artic le 93V of the FTA is mandatory and
misconstrued Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 32.1 of the
SCM Agreement.

 (f) The findings in paragraphs 7.281 to 7.299 of the final report of the Panel and the
conclusion in paragraph 8.5(f) of the repor t, in which the Panel determined that
Articles 68 and 97 of the FTA are inconsistent as such with Articles 9.3 and 11.2 of
the AD Agreement and Article 21.2 of the SCM Agreement. The reason being that
the Panel erred in determining that Articl es 68 and 97 of the FTA are mandatory and
misconstrued Articles 9.3 and 11.2 of th e AD Agreement and Article 21.2 of the
SCM Agreement.

5. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findi ngs and conclusions
concerning paragraphs 7.270 to 7.280 of the fi nal report of the Panel and the conclusion in
paragraph 8.5(e) of the report, in which the Pa nel determined that Article 93V of the FTA is
inconsistent as such with Article 18.1 of the AD Ag reement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.

By misinterpreting Article 93 of the FTA, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the
facts of the case. in breach of Article 11 of the DSU.
6. Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings and conclusions that
Mexico acted inconsistently with the provisions of the AD and SCM Agreements and that this
resulted in nullification or impairment of the be nefits accruing to the United States under those
Agreements.