UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA
Document: Notification of an Appeal by China 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: 6 December 2010
Document codes: WT/DS379/6
Complainant: China
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Japan, Kuwait, the State of, Mexico, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. I, VI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19, 32  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 2, 6, 9, 18, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. 15  Protocol of Accession

UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING AND
COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

Notification of an Appeal by China

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 notification, dated 1 December 2010, from the Delegation of China, is being
circulated to Members.

Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review, China hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal to the Appellate
Body certain issues of law and legal inte rpretation covered in the Panel Report in United States –
Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Du ties on Certain Products from China ()
(Panel Report). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, China is
simultaneously filing this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
2. The measures at issue are certain anti-dumping and countervailing duty determinations by the
U.S. Department of Commerce ("USDOC"), an d the definitive anti-dumping and countervailing
duties imposed by the United States pursuant to thei r authority. As further specified in China's
Request for Establishment of a Panel (WT/DS379 /2), these determinations were made in the
investigations of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Pipe from the People's Republic of China
("CWP"), Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China ("OTR"),
Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from the People's Republic of China ("LWR"), and
Laminated Woven Sacks from the People's Republic of China ("LWS").
3. The issues that China raises in this appeal relate to the Pane l's findings and conclusions in
respect of the consistency of the challenged measures with the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM
Agreement").
4. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of
Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement as it relat es to Commerce's determinations in all four
countervailing duty investigations that certain stat e-owned enterprises and/or state-owned commercial
banks are "public bodies" within the meaning of that provision. The Panel's errors of law and legal
interpretation include:

(a) The Panel erred in its interpretation and a pplication of the term "public body" in
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement.
1
(b) The Panel acted inconsistently with Artic les 3.2 and 11 of the DSU by relying on
municipal law usages of certain terms to interpret the term "public body" in
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement.2
5. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of
Article 2.1(a) of the SCM Agreement as it rela tes to the finding by the USDOC in the OTR
investigation that certain alleged loan subsidies were de jure specific. The Panel's errors of law and
legal interpretation include:
(a) The Panel erred in interpreting the term "subsidy" in Article 2.1(a) of the SCM
Agreement to refer to either a financial c ontribution or a benefit, and by failing to
give effect to the requirement of an explicit limitation of access to a subsidy.3
(b) The Panel erred in its interpretation of the term "certain enterprises" in Article 2 of
the SCM Agreement and in its application of that term to the measures that formed
the basis for the USDOC's specificity determination. 4 To the extent that the Panel's
findings in respect of "certain enterprises" were based on its assessment of the facts,
that assessment was not objective as required by Article 11 of the DSU.5
(c) Conditionally, in the event that the Appellate Body sustains the Panel's interpretation
of Article 2.1(a), China appeals the Pane l's finding that the USDOC's specificity
determination was not inconsistent with th at interpretation of Article 2.1(a). The
Panel's findings were legally insufficient to sustain Commerce's determination of
de jure specificity, even under the Panel's interpretation of Article 2.1(a).6
6. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of
Article 2.2 of the SCM Agreement as it relates to the finding by the USDOC in the LWS investigation
that the provision of allegedly subsidized land-use rights was "limited to certain enterprises located
within a designated geographical region within the ju risdiction of the granting authority". The Panel's
errors of law and legal interpretation include:
(a) The Panel erred in interpreting the term "subsidy" in Article 2.2 of the SCM
Agreement to refer to either a financial cont ribution or a benefit, and in finding that
Article 2.2 permits an investigating authority to make a finding of regional specificity
based solely "on the element of the financial contribution".
7

1Panel Report, paras. 8.55-8.94, 8.127-8.143. The referenced paragraph numbers indicate the primary
instances of the identified errors. Ch ina appeals all findings and conclusions of the Panel that are derived from
or related to the identified errors, as well as the rele vant findings and conclusions of the Panel set forth in
Section XVII of the Panel Report.
2Panel Report, paras. 8.60-8.63, para. 8.69.
3Panel Report, paras. 9.25-9.32, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.
4Panel Report, paras. 9.66-9.72, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.
5Panel Report, paras. 9.66-9.72, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.
6Panel Report, paras. 9.66-9.72, para. 9.95, paras. 9.106-9.107.
7Panel Report, para. 9.155.

(b) The Panel erred in its interpretation of Ar ticle 2.2 of the SCM Agreement in finding
that the existence of a "distinct" or "unique" "regime" for the provision of a subsidy is
legally relevant to a determination of specificity under this provision.8
7. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of
Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement as it relates to the USDOC's rejection of in-country private
prices for hot-rolled steel as a benchmark in the CWP and LWR investigations. The Panel's errors of
law and legal interpretation include:
(a) The Panel erred in interpreting Article 14(d) to permit the rejection of in-country
private prices as a benchmark where th e only evidence relied upon by the
investigating authority is that the government is a predominant supplier of the good in
question.9
(b) The Panel erred in interpreting Article 14( d) to permit investigating authorities to
reject private prices as a benchmark based exclusively on evidence relating to
government market share, so long as the investigating authority "consider[s] …
arguments and evidence" relating to factors other than government market share.
10
(c) The Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by appearing to attribute to
the USDOC a rationale for its rejection of private prices that differs from the rationale
that appears in the USDOC's published determinations.
11
8. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation and application of
Article 14(b) of the SCM Agreement as it relates to the USDOC's selection of loan benchmarks in the
OTR, LWS, and CWP investigations. The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:
(a) The Panel erred in finding that the be nchmark used by the USDOC was "a
comparable commercial loan which the firm could actually obtain on the market"
within the meaning of Article 14(b).
12
(b) The Panel acted inconsistently with Artic le 11 of the DSU by failing to assess the
conformity of the benchmark used by th e USDOC with the legal requirements of
Article 14(b).13 To the extent that the Panel's fi ndings and conclusions in respect of
the USDOC loan benchmark were based on its assessment of the facts, that
assessment was not objective as required by Article 11 of the DSU.
14
(c) The Panel erred in its interpretation and a pplication of Article 14(b) in finding that
observed interest rates for loans denominated in a particular currency can be rejected
as a "distorted" benchmark, and in finding th at the USDOC had a legal basis to reject
observed RMB interest rates as a loan benchmark.15
9. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of th e Panel's conclusion that, in respect of the
imposition of countervailing duties, th e covered agreements do not require the United States to take
into account the extent to which it simultaneously offsets the same subsidies through the manner in

8Panel Report, paras. 9.159-9.164.
9Panel Report, paras. 10.38-10.47, para. 10.61.
10Panel Report, paras. 10.55-10.56.
11Panel Report, paras. 10.55-10.56.
12Panel Report, paras. 10.203-10.209.
13Panel Report, paras. 10.203-10.209.
14Panel Report, paras. 10.203-10.209.
15Panel Report, paras. 10.108-10.130; paras. 10.144-10.148.

which it calculates anti-dumping duties under its non-market economy (NME) methodology. The
Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation include:
(a) The Panel erred in finding that Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 19.4 of the
SCM Agreement do not require the United States to take into account the extent to
which the use of its NME methodology in a parallel anti-dumping investigation
affects the existence and amount of the s ubsidy that remains attributable to the
imported product under investigation.
16
(b) The Panel erred in finding that Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement does not require
the United States to take into account th e extent to which the use of its NME
methodology in a parallel anti-dumping inves tigation affects the appropriate amount
of the countervailing duty to be levied.17
(c) The Panel erred in finding that Article 10 of the SCM Agreement does not require the
United States to take all necessary steps to ensure that it does not offset the same
subsidies twice through the imposition of two different duties, and in finding that the
United States did not act inconsistently w ith Article 10 in imposing the challenged
countervailing duty measures.18
(d) The Panel erred in finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement in imposing the challenge d countervailing duty
measures.19
(e) The Panel erred in finding that it was China' s obligation to "conclusively establish[]"
that the USDOC offset the same subsidies twice in the investigations at issue.20
10. China respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse th e findings and conclusions of
the Panel that are based on the errors of law and le gal interpretation identified above. With respect to
the claims of error iden tified in paragraphs 5 and 9 above, China respectfully requests that the
Appellate Body complete the analysis to conclude that the challenged measures were inconsistent
with the obligations of the United States under the covered agreements. China further requests that
the Appellate Body complete the analysis with resp ect to China's claims of consequential violations
under Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement as th ey pertain to all of the foregoing claims of
error, in respect of which the Panel exercised judicial economy.21

16Panel Report, paras. 14.112-14.123, para. 14.136.
17Panel Report, paras. 14.128-14.130.
18Panel Report, paras. 14.137-14.138.
19Panel Report, para. 14.139.
20Panel Report, para. 14.76.
21Panel Report, para. 13.1.