UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEWS OF ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA
Document: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina Notification of an Other Appeal by Argentina 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
Date: 26 January 2007
Document codes: WT/DS268/20
Complainant: Argentina
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: China, EU, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Taiwan
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12, 18, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. VI, X  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEWS OF ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA

Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina

Notification of an Other Appeal by Argentina
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 notification, dated 24 January 2007, from the Delegation of Argentina, is being
circulated to Members.

 Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review ,
Argentina hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in
the Report of the Panel on United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country
Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Argentina – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU By Argentina
() (the "Panel Report") and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this
dispute.

1. Argentina seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's conclusions, and its related legal
findings and interpretations, that "[t]he USDOC did not act inconsistently with Articles 11.3 and 11.4
of the Agreement by developing a new factual ba sis for its Section 129 Determination." This
conclusion is set out in paragraph 8.1(b) of th e Panel Report. The re lated legal findings and
interpretations of the Panel are set out in paragraphs 7.47 to 7.61 of the Panel Report.

2. The Panel acted inconsistently with its obliga tion under Article 11 of the DSU to make an
objective assessment of the matter before it. The Pane l determined that "the resolution of Argentina's
claim must have regard to broader, horizontal c onsiderations underpinning the operation of the WTO
dispute settlement system."
1 By basing its findings on "broader, horizontal considerations
underpinning the operation of the WTO dispute settleme nt system", rather than on the specific claims
and arguments raised by Argentina, the Panel fa iled to make an objective assessment of "the matter
before it", including "the facts of the case" and "the applicability of and confor mity with the relevant
covered agreements."

3. The Panel's findings set out in paragraphs 8.1( b) and 7.47 to 7.61 of the Panel Report were
also inconsistent with Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU. The Panel's findings have diminished
Argentina's right under Article 11.3 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement to termination of the measure
after five years in the absence of compliance with the requirements of Articles 11.3 and 11.4. The

Panel's findings also diminished the obligation of the United States to terminate the antidumping
measure on Argentine OCTG absent a review a nd determination consiste nt with Articles 11.3
and 11.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

4. The Panel acted inconsistently with its obliga tion under Article 11 of the DSU by failing to
objectively assess Argentina's request for a suggestion pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU. Noting
the original Panel's conclusion that it "saw no par ticular reason to make a suggestion and therefore
decline[ed] Argentina's request"
2, Argentina provided additional argument and explanation as the
need for a suggestion during the DSU Article 21.5 pr oceeding. However, without any analysis, the
Panel simply repeated its statement that it "saw no particular reason to make a suggestion and
therefore decline[ed] Argentina's request." 3 The Panel also violated Article 12.7 of the DSU by
failing to set out the findings of fact, the applicability of relevant provisions and the basic rationale
behind its finding that there was "no particular reason to make a suggestion."

5. In the light of the Panel's finding that the United States did not bring itself into compliance
with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and in light of the fact that the United States
has not appealed the Panel' s finding in the regard,
4 Argentina respectfully re quests that the Appellate
Body suggest that the United States terminate th e anti-dumping measure on OCTG from Argentina.
The United States accepts the Panel's decision th at the United States did not achieve compliance
before the expiration of the implementation period. Article 19.1 of the DSU authorizes Panels and the
Appellate Body to make suggesti ons, and to suggest ways in wh ich the Member concerned could
implement the recommendations. A suggestion to terminate the anti-dumping measure is appropriate
and necessary in this case in order to protect the specific rights of Argentina which the United States
violated, and continues to violate.

Agreement. Thus, the United States does not challenge th e conclusion that at the United States failed to bring
itself into compliance with its WTO obligations. Stated differently, even if the United States were to prevail on
all its arguments in this appeal, it would still have faile d to bring itself into compliance with its obligations
under the Anti-Dumping.