CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 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/DS454/8
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: China
Third parties: EU, India, South Korea, Russia, U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, 6.5.1, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
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, from the Delegation of the People's Republic of
China, is being circulated to Members.

Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from Japan
() (Panel Report).

2. Pursuant to Rules 23(1) and 23(3) of the Working Procedures, China is simultaneously filing
this Notice of Other Appeal and its Other Appellant Submission with the Appellate Body
Secretariat.

3. The measure at issue in this dispute concerns anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of
High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST") from the Japan. The Ministry of
Commerce of China (MOFCOM) issued a final determination finding the existence of dumping that
caused injury to the domestic industry by means of MOFCOM Notice No. 72 [2012].

4. Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii)(C), the present No tice of Other Appeal provides an indicative
list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report co ntaining the alleged errors of law and legal
interpretation by the Panel in its report, without prejudice to the ability of China to refer to other
paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.

5. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse,
the following findings and conclusions of the Panel, with respect to the following errors of law and
legal interpretation contained in the Panel Report:

a. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's reliance on
the market share in the causation analysis with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, as contained inter alia in paras. 6.106, 7.181-7. 188, 7.205 and 8.1(a)(iii),
including that "MOFCOM improperly relied on the market share of subject imports […] in
determining a causal link between subject imports and material injury to the domestic
industry, contrary to Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement", because of
the following errors of law and legal interpretation:
i. in reaching those findings and conclusions, the Panel acted contrary to Articles 6.2
and 7.1 of the DSU since it reached findings and ruled on a claim that was not within
its terms of reference;

ii. even if assuming that the claim was within the Panel's terms of reference, in
reaching those findings and conclusions the Panel erred in considering that Japan in
its submissions "referred to the relevance of market share data in the context of
price effects" and ruled on a matter that was not before it, contrary to Article 11 of
the DSU, or in the alternative, made th e case for the complainant and acted in
violation of the principles governing the burden of proof, the due process
requirements, Paragraph 7 of the Joint Wo rking Procedures and Article 11 of the
DSU;
iii. the Panel erred in the interpretation and a pplication of Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and acted contrary to Article 11 of the DSU when reaching
those findings and conclusions, including when finding that MOFCOM's reliance on
the market shares is not sufficient to establish that subject imports, through price
undercutting, had a relatively big impact on the price of the domestic industry, and a
consequent finding of causation consistent with Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement;
b. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's non-
attribution analysis with Articles 3.1 an d 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as
contained inter alia in paras. 7.200-7.205 and 8.1(a)(iv), including that "MOFCOM failed
to ensure that injury caused by the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase
in production capacity was not attributed to subject imports, contrary to Articles 3.1 and
3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement", becaus e these are entirely based on the Panel's
findings and conclusions contained in paras. 6.106, 7.181-7.188, 7.205 and 8.1(a)(iii)
(including the Panel's erroneous rejection of China's reliance on MOFCOM's price
correlation finding) that have to be reversed for the reasons set out in subparagraph (a)
above;
c. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's treatment
of confidential information with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as contained
inter alia in paras. 7.290, 7.297-7.303 and 8.1(b), including that "MOFCOM allowed
certain information supplied by the petitioners to remain confidential without objectively
assessing "good cause" or scrutinizing the petitioners' showing of "good cause", contrary
to Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement", because of the following errors of law
and legal interpretation:
i. the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.5 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement when reaching those findings and conclusions;
ii. the Panel applied an erroneous standard of review and failed to make an objective
assessment of the facts before it and acted contrary to Article 11 of the DSU and
Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when reaching those findings and
conclusions;
iii. the internally inconsistent reasoning as regards the consistency of the measure at
issue with Article 6.5 and Article 6.5.1 cannot be reconciled with the Panel's duty to
make an objective assessment of the facts under Article 11 of the DSU and the Panel
disregarded Paragraph 7 of the Joint Working Procedures when reaching those
findings and conclusions.