MOROCCO – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY MOROCCO 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: THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 23 November 2018
Document codes: WT/DS513/5
Complainant: Turkey
Respondent: Morocco
Third parties: China, Egypt, EU, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Oman, Russia, Singapore, UAE, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 5.10, 6.8, Annex II, 6.9, 3.1, 3.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 6.5, 6.5.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. I:1, X:3(a), XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 3.2, 3.3  Import LicensingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 18  Anti-dumping

MOROCCO – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY MOROCCO 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 20 November 2018, from the delegation of Morocco, is being
circulated to Members.

Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
(WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010) ("Working Procedures"), Morocco hereby notifies the Dispute
Settlement Body ("DSB") of its de cision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in
the Panel Report in Morocco — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot -Rolled Steel from Turkey
() ("Panel Report").
2. Pursuant to Rules 21 of the Working Procedures, Morocco files this Notice of Appeal together
with its Appellant Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
3. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, this Notice of Appeal includes an
indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice
to Morocco's ability to rely on other paragraphs of the Panel Report in its appeal.
4. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings regarding its terms of
reference. In particular, the Panel erred in finding that Turkey's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement fell within its terms of reference.1 Accordingly, Morocco requests that
the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings in, inter alia, paragraphs 7.27-7.29 and 7.66, and
find that Turkey's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 were not within the Panel's terms of reference.
Morocco additionally requests the Appellate Body to reverse all of the Panel's substantive findings
under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement , including, inter alia , the findings in
paragraphs 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, 7.222, 7.235, 7.245, 7.250, 7.254,
7.262, 7.274, 7.277, 7.278, 7.283, 7.285, 7.287, 7.288, 7.289, and 8.3 d-f.
5. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body o f the Panel's findings under Article 6.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.8, and
also failed to make an objective assessment of the matter, including an objective assessment of the
facts of the case, under Article 11 of the DSU. The Panel's errors include, inter alia:
• finding that the MDCCE had not made an affirmative determination of non-cooperation in
the final determination.2 The Panel also acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in
reaching its finding;

1 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.29.
2 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.91.

• finding that the MDCCE was required to "engage meaningfully" with the producers and
that the MDCCE failed to do so;3
• finding that the MDCCE could not have reasonably applied facts available as a result of the
MDCCE's inability to verify export sales information at third-party traders;4
• finding that the MDCCE did not have a proper basis to determine that the two producers
had themselves failed to report the export sales;5 and,
• finding that MDCCE could not reject and replace all the sa les information that the
producers had reported.6
6. Morocco also seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's treatment of Exhibit MAR-11
(BCI) in the context of the Panel 's assessment of Turkey 's claim under Article 6.8 o f the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. T he Panel's treatment of MAR -11 is not consistent with the obligation
under Article 11 of the DSU to make an objective assessment of the matter, including an objective
assessment of the facts of the case.7
7. As a result of the errors indicated in paragraphs 5 and 6 above, Morocco requests that the
Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings, inter alia, in paragraphs 7.92, 7.93, 7.94, 7.95, 7.97,
7.99, 7.100, 7.101, 7.102, 7.103, 7.104, 7.107, and 8.3 b., that the MDCCE 's recourse to facts
available in respect of the producers' alleged failure to report the entirety of their export sales was
inconsistent with Article 6.8.
8. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel 's findings under Article 3.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 3.1, and
also failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU. The Panel 's
errors include:
• finding that Article 3.1 can be violated independently when an erroneous act or omission,
such as an erroneous finding that the domestic industry in question is unestablished, taints
the overall injury analysis;8
• finding that it need not rule on whether the Anti -Dumping Agreement requires an
investigating authority to determine that the domestic industry is unestablished in the
context of making a determination that the establishment of that industry is materially
retarded;9
• undertaking an assessment and making findings under Article 3.1 in the abstract witho ut
regard to whether an obligation to determine "unestablishment" exists or the contours of
that obligation;10
• finding that the MDCCE did not assess, based on positive evidence and an objective
examination, whether the domestic industry was established;11
• finding that the MDCCE did not properly examine the question of the domestic industry's
establishment;12

3 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.92, 7.93, 7.99, and 7.101.
4 See, For example, Panel Report, paras. 7.94-7.95.
5 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.95, 7.97, 7.99, 7.100, 7.101, and 7.102.
6 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.103.
7 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.101.
8 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.148 and 7.151.
9 See, for example, Panel Report, fn 213 to para. 7.148.
10 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.151, 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219,
and 8.3 d.
11 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.219.
12 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.219.

• finding that the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement in determining that the domestic industry was unestablished;13 and
• additionally, the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that the
MDCCE's analysis of "establishment" violated the Anti-Dumping Agreement without finding
that the Anti -Dumping Agreement requires an investigating authority to determine that
the domestic industry is "unestablished". 14 In reaching this finding, the Panel failed to
make an objective assessment of the matter, including an objective assessment of the
applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements.
9. Based on the above, Morocco requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings in,
inter alia, footnote 213 to paragraph 7.148 and paragraphs 7.148, 7.151, 7.166, 7.175, 7.191,
7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, and 8.3 d. of the Panel Report. Morocco also requests that the Appellate
Body find that the Panel acted inconsistently with its duty to conduct an objective assessment of the
matter under Article 11 of the DSU.
10. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement with respect to "material retardation of the establishment of the
domestic industry". The Panel's finding regarding the MDCCE's decision to conduct the injury analysis
in the form of "material retardation of the es tablishment of the domestic industry" is entirely
premised on its finding under Article 3.1 regarding "unestablishment" .15 Accordingly, as a
consequence of reversing the Panel's finding under 3.1 regarding the finding of "unestablishment"16,
Morocco requests that the Appellate Body also reverse the Panel 's findings in, inter alia ,
paragraphs 7.222 and 8.3 e., that the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement by conducting the injury analysis in the form of "material r etardation of
the establishment of the domestic industry".
11. Morocco seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement with regard to its assessment of the captive market. The Panel erred
in the interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4. The Panel's errors include, inter alia:
• finding that, in failing to evaluate each of the two parts that made up the hot -rolled steel
domestic industry in Morocco, the MDCCE failed to even -handedly evaluate the domestic
industry as a whole, and therefore failed to meet the requirement of objectivity set out in
Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;17
• finding that the requirement of objectivity in Article 3.1 applies to the MDCCE's evaluation
of each injury factor that formed part of its injury analysis, and therefore required the
MDCCE to evaluate data pertaining to the captive market in its evaluation of each of those
injury factors;18
• finding that MDCCE's conclusion that captive sales do not compe te directly with imports
did not serve as a satisfactory explanation based on which the MDCCE could exclude the
captive market from its injury analysis;19 and,
• finding that the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in disregarding the captive market in its injury analysis.20
12. Accordingly, Morocco requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings in,
inter alia, paragraphs 7.273, 7.274, 7.277, 7.278, 7.289 b., and 8.3 f(ii) of the Panel Report.
13. Morocco also seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application
of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement with regard to its assessment of the

13 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, and 8.3 d.
14 See, for example, Panel Report, fn. 213 to para. 7.148.
15 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.222 and 8.3 e.
16 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.166, 7.175, 7.191, 7.198, 7.207, 7.218, 7.219, and 8.3 d.
17 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.274.
18 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.274.
19 See, for example, Panel Report, para. 7.277.
20 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.278, 7.289 b., and 8.3 f(ii).

McLellan Report. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Artic les 3.1 and 3.4. The
Panel's errors include, inter alia:
• faulting the MDCCE for relying on the McLellan report because some of the projections in
the report did not turn out to be entirely accurate;21
• finding that the MDCCE did not base its injury determination on an objective examination22
because it dismissed the significance of the inaccuracies in the Business Plan without
further investigating the impact of those inaccuracies on Maghreb Steel 's actual and
projected performance levels based on explanation s that were not reasoned and
adequate;23 and,
• finding that that the MDCCE's reliance on the McLellan Report was improper, and that the
MDCCE's overall injury analysis, which was based on that report, was inconsistent with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.24
14. Accordingly, Morocco requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel 's findings in,
inter alia, paragraphs 7.283, 7.285, 7.287, 7.288, 7.289 c., and 8.3 f(iii) of the Panel Report.