MOROCCO – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL FROM TURKEY AB-2018-11
Document: Report of the Appellate Body BCI redacted, as indicated [BCI]
Date: 10 December 2019
Document codes: WT/DS513/AB/R
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
AB-2018-11
Report of the Appellate Body
BCI redacted, as indicated [BCI]

[BCI redacted, as indicated [BCI]]

APPELLATE BODY

Morocco – Anti-Dumping Measures on
Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey

Morocco, Appellant
Turkey, Appellee

China, Third Participant
Egypt, Third Participant
European Union, Third Participant
India, Third Participant
Japan, Third Participant
Korea, Third Participant
Russian Federation, Third Participant
Singapore, Third Participant
United States, Third Participant

AB-2018-11

Appellate Body Division:

Bhatia, Presiding Member
Graham, Member
Zhao, Member

1.1. This appeal concerns the Panel Report, Morocco – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain
Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey 1 (Panel Report). The Panel was established on 20 February 2017 to
consider complaints by Turkey2 with respect to the definitive anti -dumping measures imposed by
Morocco on imports of certain hot-rolled steel products (hot-rolled steel) from Turkey.3
1.2. Morocco initiated the anti -dumping investigation at issue on 21 January 20134, and imposed
provisional anti -dumping duties on the imported products at issu e, following the preliminary
affirmative determination by the Ministère délégué auprès du Ministre de l'Industrie, du Commerce,
de l'Investissement et de l'Économie Numérique chargé du Commerce Extérieur (MDCCE) of
dumping, injury, and causation, dated 29 October 2013.5 On 12 August 2014, the MDCCE published
the final affirmative determination of dumping, injury, and causation.6 The definitive measure came
into force on 26 September 2014.7 The factual aspects of this dispute are set forth in greater detail
in section 2 of the Panel Report.
1.3. Before the Panel, Turkey raised the following claims under the Agreement on Implementation
of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti -Dumping Agreement) and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994):
a. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article 5.10 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement
because the duration of the investigation at issue exceeded the maximum time limit
under that provision;
b. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article 6.8 of, and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of
Annex II to, the Anti-Dumping Agreement in its use of facts available to determine the
margins of dumping for two Turkish producers of subject imports;
c. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 o f the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to disclose all "essential facts" in a timely manner with respect to its decision to
use facts available to determine the margins of dumping;

1 WT/DS513/R, 31 October 2018.
2 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Turkey, WT/DS513/2.
3 Minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) Meeting held on 20 February 2017, WT/DSB/M/392,
paras. 5.1-5.5.
4 Panel Report, para. 2.2.
5 Panel Report, para. 2.3.
6 Panel Report, para. 2.4.
7 Panel Report, para. 2.4.

[BCI redacted, as indicated [BCI]]

d. the MDCCE's determination that the domestic industry, composed of the sole domestic
producer Maghreb Steel8, was "unestablished" is inconsistent with Article VI:6(a) of the
GATT 1994, a s well as footnote 9 to Article 3 and Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement;
e. the MDCCE's determination that the domestic industry suffered injury in the form of
material retardation is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement; and
f. the MDCCE acted inconsistently with Articles 6.5, 6.5.1, and 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping
Agreement by failing to disclose information concerning the domestic industry's
break-even threshold in its analysis of whether the domestic industry was
"established".9
1.4. Turkey requested the Panel to exercise its discretion under Article 19.1 of the Unde rstanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and to suggest that Morocco
bring its measures into conformity with its World Trade Organization ( WTO) obligations by
immediately revoking the anti-dumping measure at issue.10
1.5. The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the WTO on 31 October 2018. For the reasons
set out in its Report, the Panel found the following claims of Turkey to be outside the Panel's terms
of reference:
a. the claim under footnote 9 to Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in respect of the
MDCCE's finding of "establishment";
b. the claims under Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in respect of
the confidential treatment of the domestic industry's (Maghreb Steel) break -even
threshold; and
c. the claim under Article 6.9 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in respect of the alleged
failure to inform all interested parties of the domestic industry's (Maghreb Steel)
break-even threshold.11
1.6. For the procedural reasons set out in its Report, the Panel declined to rule on:
a. the claim under Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994 in respect of the MDCCE's finding of
"establishment"; and
b. the claim under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in respect of any "essential
facts" used by the MDCCE in cross-checking the facts available rate.12
1.7. For the reasons set out in its Report, the Panel concluded that Turkey had established that
Morocco acted inconsistently with:
a. Article 5.10 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to conclude the investigation
within the 18-month maximum time limit set out in that provision;
b. Article 6.8 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by rejecting the reported information and
establishing the margins of dumping for the two investigated Turkish producers on the
basis of facts available;
c. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to inform all interested parties of:
(i) any essential facts in respect of the additional, unidentified export sales that the
MDCCE considered the producers to have failed to report; and (ii) the essential facts in

8 Panel Report, para. 7.30.
9 Panel Report, para. 3.1.
10 Panel Report, para. 3.2.
11 Panel Report, para. 8.1.
12 Panel Report, para. 8.2.

[BCI redacted, as indicated [BCI]]

respect of the data for the cost and freight prices and for the adjustments used in
arriving at the producers' margins of dumping using facts available;
d. Article 3.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in determining that the domestic industry
was "unestablished";
e. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by improperly conducting the
injury analysis in the form of "material retardation of the establishment of the domestic
industry"; and
f. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by: (i) failing to evaluate 5 of the
15 injury factors listed in Article 3.4; (ii) disregarding the captive market in the injury
analysis; and (iii) relying in the injury analysis on the McLellan report without properly
investigating the significance of inaccuracies in that report.13
1.8. For the reasons set out in its Report, the Panel concluded that Turkey had not established that
Morocco acted inconsistently with:
a. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to inform all interested parties of
the movement certificates and commercial invoices in respect of the [BCI] tonnes of
allegedly unreported export sales in sufficient time for the two investigated Turkish
producers to defend their interests; and
b. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to evaluate "factors
affecting domestic prices".14
1.9. The Panel did not consider it necessary to address Turkey's claims under paragraphs 1, 3, 5,
6, and 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement.15
1.10. Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, the Panel recommended that Morocco bring its measures
into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.16 The Panel noted
Turkey's request that the Panel exercise its discretion under Article 19.1 of the DSU and suggest
that Morocco bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations by immediately revoking
the anti-dumping measure at issue.17 The Panel considered that "Article 19.1 of the DSU allows, but
does not require, [the Panel] to suggest ways in which the Member concerned could implement the
Panel's recommendations"18, and that "implementation of [Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB)]
recommendations and rulings is left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the implementing
Member".19 The Panel therefore denied Turkey's request.20
1.11. On 20 November 2018, Morocco notified the DSB, pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the
DSU, of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal
interpretations developed by the Panel, and filed a Notice of Appeal21 and an appellant's submission
pursuant to Rule 20 and Rule 21, respectively, of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 22
(Working Procedures). On 10 December 2018, Turkey filed an appellee's submission .23 On
11 December 2018, the European Union, Japan, and the United States each filed a third participant's

13 Panel Report, para. 8.3. The McLellan report refers to "a pre-feasibility report … prepared for Maghreb
Steel by McLellan and Partners Ltd., an independent consulting firm". (Panel Report, para. 7.223)
14 Panel Report, para. 8.4.
15 Panel Report, para. 8.5.
16 Panel Report, para. 8.7.
18 Panel Report, para. 8.9 (referring to Panel Report, US – Stainless Steel (Korea), para. 7.9).
19 Panel Report, para. 8.9 (referring to Panel Reports, US – Shrimp II (Viet Nam), para. 8.6;
20 Panel Report, para. 8.9.
21 WT/DS513/5 (contained in Annex A-1 of the Addendum to this Report, WT/DS513/AB/R/Add.1).
22 WT/AB/WP/6, 16 August 2010.
23 Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Working Procedures.

[BCI redacted, as indicated [BCI]]

submission.24 China, Egypt, India, Korea, the Russian Federation, and Singapore each notified its
intention to appear at the oral hearing as a third participant.25
1.12. The claims and arguments of the participants , and the arguments of the third participants
that filed a written submission, are reflected in the executive summaries of their written submissions
provided to the Appellate Body.26 The Notice of Appeal and the executive summaries of the
participants' and third participants' written submissions are contained in Annexes A, B, and C of the
Addendum to this Report, WT/DS513/AB/R/Add.1.
1.13. By letter dated 15 January 2019, the Chair of the Appellate Body notified the Chair of the DSB
that the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its Report within the 60 -day period pursuant
to Article 17.5 of the DSU, or within the 90 -day period pursuant to the same provision, for the
reasons mentioned therein.27
1.14. On 4 December 2019, the Appellate Body received a letter from Morocco, in which Morocco
stated:
My authorities have requested that I inform you of Morocco's decision to withdraw its
appeal in [this] dispute. Morocco requests the Appellate Body to inform the DSB of
Morocco's decision in accordance with Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures for
Appellate Review.
The anti -dumping measure underlying the dispute expired on 26 September 2019.
Although Morocco continue s to believe th at the Panel's findings suffer from serious
flaws, those findings have become moot with the expiration of the underlying measure.
Consequently, and in light of the heavy workload of the Appellate Body, Morocco has
decided to withdraw the appeal.
Morocco respectfully requests the Appellate Body to record the reasons for Morocco's
decision as set out above in the event that the Appellate Body issues a report.
1.15. Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures provides that:
At any time during an appeal, the appellant may withdraw its appeal by notifying the
Appellate Body, which shall forthwith notify the DSB.
1.16. Upon receipt of Morocco's letter of 4 December 2019, the Appellate Body on the same day
notified the Chair of the DSB, pursuant to Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures, that Morocco had
decided to withdraw the appeal in this dispute.28
1.17. In response to Morocco's letter, on the same day, Turkey sent a letter to the Appellate Body,
in which Turkey stated:
Turkey takes note of Morocco's decision to withdraw its appeal in [this] matter. Pursuant
to Rule 30(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Turkey joins Morocco in
requesting the Appellate Body to notify the DSB of this decision.
On the previous instance in which an appeal was withdraw n, the Appellate Body
proceeded to issue a short report noting the withdrawal of the appeal ( India – Autos,
WT/DS146/AB/R; WT/DS175/AB/R). This report, together with the underlying

24 Pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Working Procedures.
25 Pursuant to Rule 24(2) and Rule 24(4) of the Working Procedures.
26 Pursuant to the Appellate Body's communication on "Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" and "Guidelines in Respect of Executive Summaries of Written Submissions in
Appellate Proceedings" (WT/AB/23, 11 March 2015).
27 WT/DS513/6. The Chair of the Appellate Body referred to the size of the Panel record and the
complex issues appealed, and further noted the backlog of appeals pending with the Appellate Body, the fact
that all Appellate Body Divisions in the appeals filed since 1 October 2018 were composed of the same three
remaining Appellate Body Members, and that it would not be possible to staff this appeal for some time. (Ibid.)
28 WT/DS513/7, dated 5 December 2019.