UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO
Document: Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States under Article 16.4 and Article 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
Date: 19 August 2005
Document codes: WT/DS282/7
Complainant: Mexico
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Canada, China, Taiwan, EU, Japan, Venezuela, Thailand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 18  Anti-dumpingArt. VI, X  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON
OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO

Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States
under Article 16.4 and Article 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

 The following notification dated 16 August 2005, from the delegation of the United States, is
being circulated to Members.

 Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the United States
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Report
of the Panel on () ("Panel Report") and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in
this dispute.
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the
Sunset Policy Bulletin is inconsis tent with Article 11.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Ag reement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement"). This
conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous fi ndings on issues of law and related interpretations,
including:
(a) The Panel failed to apply the correct burden of proof. 1 Although elsewhere in the
report the Panel correctly articulated the standard for burden of proof and making a
prima facie case
2, the Panel failed to apply that standard in evaluating whether
Mexico made a prima facie case with respect to th e Sunset Policy Bulletin. 3 T h e
Panel also misapplied the Appellate Body’s analysis in United States – Sunset
Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina in
concluding that Mexico had made a prima facie case.4
(b) The Panel failed to apply the correct sta ndard in evaluating whether the Sunset Policy
Bulletin is inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.5

1See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 6.26-6.28, 8.1.
2Panel Report, para. 7.8.
3Panel Report, paras. 6.28, 7.49 and 7.64, footnote 85.
4Panel Report, para. 6.27.
5Panel Report, paras. 7.55, 7.61, 7.63, footnote 86.

2. The United States seeks review by the Appe llate Body, pursuant to Article 11 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Go verning the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), of the
finding that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is inconsis tent "as such" with the obligation set forth in
Article 11.3 of the Antidumping Agreement.
6 The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the
matter before it, including a failure to make an obj ective assessment of the facts of the case, contrary
to Article 11 of the DSU. For example, the Unite d States noted that the Panel had failed to identify
other factors that formed the basis for Commerce’s determination in Sugar and Syrups from Canada7,
but the Panel simply dismissed the consideration of other factors as "subsidiary". 8 The Panel also
selectively quoted statements from the sunset determinations it analyzed, ignoring exculpatory
statements found in the same determinations.
9 The Panel’s analysis was also contradictory 10 and
unsupported by the facts.11

6Panel Report, para. 8.1.
7U.S. Comments on Interim Report, para. 8.
8Panel Report, para. 6.35.
9See, e.g., paras. 6.35, 7.60. See U.S. Comments on Interim Report, paras. 6 and 8-9, Panel Report,
para. 6.29.
10Panel Report, paras. 7.38, 7.40, 7.58, and 7.63.
11Panel Report, paras. 7.45, 7.55, and 7.61.