CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY JAPAN 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
Document: AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 22 May 2015
Document codes: WT/DS454/7
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 APPEAL BY JAPAN
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 communication, dated 20 May 2015, from the delegation of Japan, is being circulated
to Members.

Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
("Working Procedures"), Japan hereby notifies th e Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report in China – Measures
Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performan ce Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes ("HP-SSST")
from Japan () ("Panel Report"), and certain legal interpretations developed by the
Panel in this dispute.
For the reasons to be elaborated in its submissions and oral statements to the Appellate Body,
Japan appeals the following errors in the issues of law in the Panel Report and legal interpretations
developed by the Panel, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse and modify the related
findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, and where indicated to complete the
analysis.
1
1. With respect to Japan's claims that the price effects analysis conducted by the Ministry of
Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("MOFCOM") is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2
of the Agreement on Implementation of Articl e VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement"):
a. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement in concluding that an investigating authority may complete its
analysis of the "effect of the dumped imports on prices" under Article 3.2 by simply
finding price undercutting to exist solely based on the consideration of whether subject
import prices are mathematically lower than prices of domestic like products, without
consideration of whether, by selling at lower prices, subject imports have the effect of
g i v i n g r i s e t o a n a c t u a l d e c r e a s e o r p r e v e n t i o n o f i n c r e a s e i n p r i c e s i n t h e d o m e s t i c
market for like products, or alternatively taking the place of domestic like products.
2
Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse and modify the Panel's legal interpretation
in this regard, and complete the analysis to find instead that MOFCOM acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by concluding an
analysis of the "effect of the dumped imports on prices" with a finding of price

1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii)of the Working Procedures, this Notice of Appeal includes an indicative
list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice to the ability of Japan
to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.124-7.130, 7.138, 7.152, 7.155.

undercutting for Grade C solely based on a mathematical comparison of imported and
domestic Grade C prices.3
b. The Panel erred in interpreting Articles 3. 1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to
mean that it is sufficient under Article 3.2 for an investigating authority to find
mathematically lower prices of subject imports at a single point in time during the period
of investigation ("POI"). 4 Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse and modify the
Panel's legal interpretation in this regard.
2. With respect to Japan's claims that MOFCOM's impact analysis is inconsistent with
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
a. The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement in concluding that an investigating authority may find the required
"consequent impact" by finding simply that "the state of the domestic industry shows
injury, and the subject imports are sold at prices that undercut certain like products
produced and sold by that industry", without any further consideration of the relationship
between subject imports and the state of the domestic industry, or the explanatory force
of subject imports on the state of the do mestic industry, and the logical connection
between the volume and price effects found to exist under the Article 3.2 analysis and
the state of the domestic industry. 5 Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse and
modify the Panel's legal interpretation in this regard, and complete the analysis to find
that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by failing to examine the relationship between subject imports and the state
of the domestic industry, and by conducting an impact analysis that was at odds with
and did not follow from its volume and price effects analyses.
b. The Panel erred in finding that Japan's clai m that MOFCOM failed to examine whether
subject imports provided explanatory force fo r the state of the domestic industry was
outside the Panel's terms of reference.
6 Japan requests that the Appellate Body reverse
the Panel's finding in this regard, and complete the analysis to find that MOFCOM acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to
examine whether subject imports provided explanatory force for the state of the
domestic industry.
3. With respect to Japan's claims that MOFCOM's causation analysis is inconsistent with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
c. The Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter before it as required by
Article 11 of the DSU by erroneously concluding that Japan has not advanced
independent claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in those
instances where the Panel had rejected (or not evaluated) one of Japan's claims under
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 concerning MOFCOM's price effects analysis or under Articles 3.1 and
3.4 concerning MOFCOM's impact analysis, as well as by failing to examine and by
abstaining from making findings on those independent claims.
7 Japan requests that the
Appellate Body complete the analysis to fi nd that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with
Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in those instances where Japan's
claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 concerning MOFCOM's price effects analysis or under
Articles 3.1 and 3.4 concerning MOFCOM's impact analysis have been rejected by the
Panel or the Appellate Body.