CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER 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 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Document: AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 2 June 2015
Document codes: WT/DS460/8
Complainant: EU
Respondent: China
Third parties: Japan, South Korea, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER 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 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
The following communication, dated 26 May 2015, fr om the Delegation of the European Union, is
being circulated to Members.

Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the DSU, the European Union hereby notifies to the
Dispute Settlement Body its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered
in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute China –
Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes
("HP-SSST") from the European Union (WT/DS460) (AB-2015-5). Pursuant to Rule 23(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, modify or declare moot and
of no legal effect the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, with respect to the
following errors of law and legal interpretations contained in the Panel Report, and where indicated
to complete the analysis
1:

I. ADDITIONAL WORKING PROCEDURES ON BCI
1. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal
findings and conclusions concerning the designation of Business Confidential Information (BCI). 2
The Panel erred in its interpretation and applic ation of Articles 18.2 and 13.1 of the DSU and
Articles 17.7 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erroneously found that
information designated as confidential within the meaning of Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement is automatically confidential within the meaning of Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and Article 18.2 of the DSU and may be automatically designated as BCI within the
meaning of BCI Procedures. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to complete the
analysis.

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.
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.18-7.25, particularly paras. 7.21 ("… the phra se "confidential information" in
Article 17.7 refers to the confidential information previously examined by the investigating authority and
treated as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5 – and which is now provided to a dispute settlement panel
pursuant to Article 17.7.") and 7.25 ("… we have decided not to modify paragraph 1 of the BCI Procedures in
the manner proposed by the European Union.").

2. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal
findings and conclusions concerning the provision of an authorizing letter. 3 The Panel erred in its
interpretation and application of Articles 18.2 and 13.1 of the DSU and Articles 17.7 and 6.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erroneously found that information designated as confidential
within the meaning of Article 6.5 of the Anti-D umping Agreement is automatically confidential
within the meaning of Article 17.7 of the Anti-D umping Agreement and Article 18.2 of the DSU,
and that it may only be disclosed within the meaning of Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement on the basis of a formal authorization from the person, body or authority providing such
information to the investigating authority in the municipal anti-dumping proceeding. The
European Union requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis.
II. ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE DSU
3. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal
findings and conclusions that, with respect to the European Union's claim under Article 2.2, the
panel request did not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, because it allegedly did not "provide a
brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly".
4 The
Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.2 of the DSU. The European Union
requests the Appellate Body to complete the anal ysis. However, if the Appellate Body upholds the
Panel's findings concerning the European Union' s claim under Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement5, or completes the analysis by confirming that claim, then it need not consider this
appeal point.
4. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal
findings and conclusions that, with respect to the European Union's claim under Article 2.2.1.1, the
panel request did not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, because it allegedly did not "provide a
brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly".
6 The
Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.2 of the DSU. The European Union
requests the Appellate Body to complete the anal ysis. However, if the Appellate Body upholds the
Panel's findings concerning the European Union' s claim under Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement7, or completes the analysis by confirming that claim, then it need not consider this
appeal point.
III. DUMPING
5. If the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's lega l findings and conclusions to the effect that
China acted inconsistently with Article 6.7 and Annex I, paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement8, and does not complete the analysis by finding that China acted inconsistently with
these provisions, then the European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions with
respect to Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 3 and 6. 9 The European Union requests the
Appellate Body to reverse and/or modify these le gal findings and conclusions. The Panel erred in
its interpretation and application of Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 3 and 6. Investigating

3 Panel Report, paras. 7.26-7.29, and para. 7.21, particularly the finding that ("… the phrase
"confidential information" in Article 17.7 refers to the confidential information previously examined by the
investigating authority and treated as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5 – and which is now provided to a
dispute settlement panel pursuant to Article 17.7.") and the interpretation of the phrase "person, body or
authority".
4 Panel Report, para. 8.9, first sentence. The Panel Report contains a typographical error insofar as
para. 8.9 refers to Article 2.2.1 (found within the terms of reference in para. 7.49 of the Panel Report), when it
should refer to Article 2.2 (found outside the terms of reference in para. 7.48 of the Panel Report). The
European Union also appeals para. 7.48 of the Panel Report, particularly the final sentence. The European
Union does not appeal para. 7.47 of the Panel Report.
5 China's Notice of Appeal, paras. 5(a)(i) and (ii).
6 Panel Report, para. 8.9, second sentence, insofar as it contains the phrase: "did not reasonably reflect
the costs associated with the product under consideration". The European Union also appeals the eighth
sentence of para. 7.50 of the Panel Report ("We also note that China accepts …"), insofar as it does not include
the phrase "reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under
consideration", and the final sentence of para. 7.50, insofar as the term "such obligations" does not include
that phrase.
7 China's Notice of Appeal, paras. 5(a)(i) and (ii).
8 Panel Report, para. 8.6(c) and paras. 7.98-7.101; China's Notice of Appeal, para. 5(b).

authorities are not permitted to disregard rectified data only because it is provided at verification,
wholly failing in this respect to exercise their discretion, and base their determinations instead on
facts available. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis.
IV. INJURY
6. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the
interpretation and application of Article 3.1 an d the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, specifically with respect to the obligation to consider the effect of the
price of the dumped imports on the price of the domestic product being compared – and
particularly with respect to the question of whether the price of Grade C imports had any
significant price undercutting effect on domestic Grade C products. 10 The European Union submits
that these legal findings and conclusions of the Panel are legally erroneous and requests that the
Appellate Body reverse and/or modify them, and complete the analysis.
7. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the
interpretation and application of Article 3.1 an d the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, specifically with respec t to the question of whether MOFCOM's findings
of price undercutting in respect of Grades B and C were sufficient to comply with MOFCOM's
obligation to consider whether or not the price of the dumped imports had a significant effect on
the price of the domestic product.
11 The European Union submits that these legal findings and
conclusions of the Panel are legally erroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse and/or
modify them, and complete the analysis.
8. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the
interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,
specifically with respect to the assessment of th e impact of the dumped imports on the domestic
industry.12 In effect, the Panel erroneously concluded that MOFCOM's failure to comply with the
requirements of Article 3.2, as properly understood, and Article 3.5, had no implications for the
consistency of the measure at issue with Article 3.4, and that, in this respect, there were no
independent claims under Article 3.5. The Euro pean Union submits that these findings and
conclusions of the Panel are legally erroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse and/or
modify them, and complete the analysis.
9. The European Union appeals – pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU – certain of the Panel's
legal findings and conclusions concerning Articles 3.1 and Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, specifically with respect to the assessment of causation. 13 The European Union
submits that, in this respect, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter
before it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU. It wrongly concluded that the European Union had
not made relevant independent claims under Article 3.5, and it failed to assess those claims and
arguments. The European Union requests that the Appellate Body reverse and/or modify these
legal findings and conclusions, and complete the analysis.
V. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
10. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the
interpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, specifically with
respect to the obligation to adequately disclose essential facts – and particularly with respect to
the data underlying MOFCOM's determination of dumping with respect to SMST and Tubacex.14 The
European Union submits that these legal findings and conclusions of the Panel are legally
erroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse or modify them, and complete the
analysis.