, accessed 30 January 2014).\n355 Panel Reports, para. 7.128.\n356 In this regard, the Panel noted that Article 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement refers separately to price\nundercutting, price depression, price suppression, and \"lost sales\". In the Panel's view, this provision strongly\nsuggests, therefore, that the phenomenon of lost sales is distinct from price undercutting. (See Panel Reports,\nfn 251 to para. 7.129)\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nThe Panel therefore found that, while price undercutting by imports may lead to lost domestic\nsales, or to price depression or price suppressi on, there is no requirement in Article 3.2 to\ndemonstrate the existence of these other phenom ena when considering the existence of price\nundercutting.357\n5.150. Based on this analysis, the Panel rejected the claims by the complainants that MOFCOM\nacted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to consider\nwhether Grade C dumped imports had any price undercutting effect on domestic Grade C products,\nin the sense of placing downward pressure on those domestic prices by being sold at lower\nprices.358\n5.5.1.1.2 Arguments on appeal\n5.151. On appeal, Japan claims that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement by finding that the question of whether price undercutting exists is a\n\"simple factual\" question that \"can be answered … by a comparison of prices for domestic and\nimported product[s]\", and that \"the existence of price undercutting itself provides the requisite\ninsight into the effect of the dumped imports (and the relationship of subject import prices with\ndomestic prices)\".\n359 Japan submits that the Panel appears to have considered \"that an\ninvestigating authority may conclude the price effect analysis under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 by simply\nfinding that import prices are mathematically lower than the price of a domestic like product.\" 360\nJapan submits that the mere fact of dumped import prices being mathematically lower than\ncomparable domestic prices does not, in and of itself, provide a \"meaningful basis\" for conducting\na further causation analysis under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n361\n5.152. The European Union, for its part, claims that the Panel erred in finding that the obligation\nin Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement can be met, and was met in this case, on the basis\nof the fact that, in 2010, the price of the dumped imports under consideration was below the price\nof the domestic product being compared.\n362 Given MOFCOM's decision to conduct a\ngrade-by-grade analysis, the European Unio n submits that MOFCOM was required under\nArticles 3.1 and 3.2 to consider more than the \"mere juxtaposition\" of the price of the dumped\nimports under consideration and the price of the domestic product being compared. 363 In\nparticular, it was required to consider whether the juxtaposition of the price of the dumped imports\nunder consideration and the price of the domestic product being compared, together with other\nrelevant facts such as specifically identified quantitati ve differences, inverse price movements, a\nsudden and substantial increase in the domestic prices, an increase in the market share of\ndomestic Grade C products, and an absence of substitutability – have explanatory force for the\neffect of the prices of the dumped imports under consideration on the prices of the domestic\nproduct being compared.\n364\n5.153. By contrast, China agrees with the Panel's interpretation of \"price undercutting\" in\nArticle 3.2, and supports the Panel's finding that an investigating authority can \"simply consider\nwhether subject imports 'sell at lower prices than' comparable domestic products\".365\n\n357 Panel Reports, para. 7.129.\n358 Panel Reports, para. 7.130.\n359 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 13 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.126).\n360 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 13.\n361 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 31.\n362 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 113.\n363 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 114 (referring to Appellate Body Report, China\n– GOES, paras. 129-132).\n364 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 114.\n365 China's appellee's submission, para. 137 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.128).\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.1.1.3 Analysis\n5.154. The second sentence of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement reads:\nWith regard to the effect of the dumped imports on prices, the investigating\nauthorities shall consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by\nthe dumped imports as compared with the price of a like product of the importing\nMember, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a\nsignificant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to\na significant degree.\n5.155. The second sentence of Article 3.2 begins with the clause \"[w]ith regard to the effect of\nthe dumped imports on prices\". The definition of the word \"effect\" is, inter alia , \"something\naccomplished, caused, or produced; a result, a consequence\".\n366 By referring to \"the effect of the\ndumped imports\", Article 3.2 postulates certain inquiries with regard to the effect of those imports\non domestic prices. 367 In particular, an investigating authority is required to consider whether\nthere has been a \" significant price undercutting \" by the dumped imports as compared with the\nprice of a like product of the importing Member; or \"whether the effect of such imports is\notherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise\nwould have occurred, to a significant degree.\"\n368 With regard to the latter inquiry, the\nAppellate Body has noted that, to examine whether the effect of dumped imports \"is otherwise to\ndepress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increases \", \"an investigating authority is\nrequired to consider whether a first variable – that is, subject imports – has explanatory force for\nthe occurrence of significant depression or suppression of a second variable – that is, domestic\nprices.\"\n369\n5.156. The Appellate Body has further noted that the two inquiries under the second sentence of\nArticle 3.2 are separated by the words \"or\" and \"otherwise\".370 The elements that are relevant to a\nconsideration of whether there has been \"significant price undercutting\" may, therefore, \"differ\nfrom those relevant to the consideration of significant price depression and suppression\". 371 We do\nnot read Article 3.2 as suggesting that the \"effect\" of price undercutting must either be price\ndepression or price suppression. Instead, we agree with the Panel that, while price undercutting by\nimports may lead to price depression or price suppression, \"there is no requirement in Article 3.2\nto demonstrate the existence of these other phen omena when considering the existence of price\nundercutting.\"372\n5.157. Having said this, we recall that the focus of these appeals is on the meaning and scope of\nan investigating authority's obligation to consider whether there has been \"significant price\nundercutting\" within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement.\n5.158. Beginning with the ordinary meaning of the term \"price undercutting\", we note that\ndictionary definitions of the word \"undercut\" include: \"sell at lower prices than\"; and \"make\nunstable or less firm, undermine\".\n373 These definitions cover a range of possible meanings.\nHowever, in order to determine the ordinary meaning of the term \"price undercutting\", it should be\nread in the context in which it appears in Article 3.2. With this in mind, we recall that the\nintroductory part of the second sentence – i.e. \"With regard to the effect of the dumped imports on\nprices\" – requires an investigating authority to consider whether there has been a significant price\nundercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of a like product of the importing\n\n366 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 135 (quoting Shorter Oxford English Dictionary,\n6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 798).\n367 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 135.\n368 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.\n369 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.\n370 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 137.\n371 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 137.\n373 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),\nVol. 2, p. 3423.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nMember. The meaning of \"effect\" is \"a result\" of something else. 374 In the context of Article 3.2,\nthis suggests inquiries as to the \"effect\" of dumped imports on domestic prices, and each inquiry\nlinks the dumped imports with the prices of the like domestic products.\n375 With respect to \"price\nundercutting\", the Appellate Body has found that Article 3.2 thus expressly establishes \"a link\nbetween the price of subject imports and that of like domestic products\" by requiring that a\ncomparison be made between the two.376\n5.159. Still in this regard, we observe that the te rm \"price undercutting\" in Article 3.2 is used in\npresent participle, suggesting that the inquiry under Article 3.2 concerns pricing conduct that\ncontinues over time. Hence, Article 3.2 does not ask the question of whether an investigating\nauthority can identify an isolated instance of the dumped imports being sold at lower prices than\nthe domestic like products. Rather, a proper reading of \"price undercutting\" under Article 3.2\nsuggests that the inquiry requires a dynamic assessment of price developments and trends in the\nrelationship between the prices of the dumped im ports and those of domestic like products over\nthe entire period of investigation (POI). An examination of such developments and trends includes\nassessing whether import and domestic prices are moving in the same or contrary directions, and\nwhether there has been a sudden and substantial increase in the domestic prices.\n5.160. We note that the Panel described the investigating authority's obligation to consider\nwhether there has been price undercutting as consisting of \"a simple factual issue – is there price\nundercutting or not? – which can be answered, as Article 3.2 suggests, by a comparison of prices\nfor domestic and imported product[s].\"\n377 The Panel also found that an investigating authority\nshould \"simply consider whether subject imports 'sell at lower prices than' comparable domestic\nproducts\".378 As we see it, the Panel appears to have assumed that price undercutting, under\nArticle 3.2, is merely concerned with the question of whether there is a mathematical difference, at\nany point in time during the POI, between the pr ices of the dumped imports and the comparable\ndomestic products. We disagree. As discussed above, while price undercutting involves situations\nwhere imports are being sold at prices lower than the domestic like products, an inquiry into price\nundercutting under Article 3.2 is not satisfied by a static examination of whether there is a\nmathematical difference at any point in time during the POI without any assessment of whether or\nhow these prices interact over time. Rather, as noted above, Article 3.2 requires a dynamic\nassessment of price developments and trends in the relationship between the prices of the\ndumped imports and those of domestic like products over the duration of the POI.\n5.161. Moreover, we note that the term \"price undercutting\" in Article 3.2 is qualified by the word\n\"significant\", which is relevantly defined as \"important, notable, consequential\".\n379 As noted above,\nwith respect to \"price undercutting\", Article 3.2 expressly establishes a link between the price of\nsubject imports and that of like domestic produc ts, by requiring that a comparison be made\nbetween the two. 380 This comparison contemplates a dynamic assessment of price developments\nand trends in the relationship between the prices of the dumped imports and those of domestic\nlike products over the duration of the POI. The significance of the price undercutting found on the\nbasis of that dynamic assessment is a question of the magnitude of the price undercutting. 381\nWhat amounts to significant price undercutting – that is, whether the undercutting is important,\nnotable, or consequential – will therefore necessarily depend on the circumstances of each case. In\norder to assess whether the observed price undercutting is significant, an investigating authority\nmay, depending on the case, rely on all positive evidence relating to the nature of the product or\nproduct types at issue, how long the price undercu tting has been taking place and to what extent,\nand, as appropriate, the relative market shares of the product types with respect to which the\nauthority has made a finding of price undercutting. In all cases, an investigating authority must,\npursuant to Article 3.1, objectively examine all positive evidence, and may not disregard relevant\n\n374 The definition of the word \"effect\" is, inter alia, \"something accomplished, caused, or produced; a\nresult, a consequence\". (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University\nPress, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 798) See also Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 135.\n375 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 135.\n376 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.\n377 Panel Reports, para. 7.126.\n379 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 2007),\nVol. 2, p. 2833. See also Appellate Body Report, US – Upland Cotton, para. 426; and Panel Report, US –\nUpland Cotton, para. 7.1326.\n380 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.\n381 See e.g. Panel Report, EC – Salmon (Norway), para. 7.638.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nevidence suggesting that prices of dumped imports have no, or only a limited, effect on domestic\nprices.382\n5.162. Furthermore, we recall that Article 3 contemplates a \"logical progression\" in the\ninvestigating authority's examination leading to an ultimate determination of whether dumped\nimports are causing material injury to the domestic industry. 383 Indeed, as the Appellate Body has\nexplained, the outcome of the price effects inquir y under Article 3.2 must be one that enables the\ninvestigating authority to advance its analysis so as to serve as a meaningful basis for its\ndetermination as to whether subject imports, throug h such price effects, are causing injury to the\ndomestic industry. 384 A proper assessment of price effects under Article 3.2 is, therefore, a\nnecessary building block for the ultimate determination of injury.\n5.163. Turning to the case before us, we observe that the Panel, in its interpretation, focused only\non the term \"price undercutting\" in Article 3.2, and appears not to have accorded any importance\nto the word \"significant\" or its implications for the inquiry required under Article 3.2. We are not\npersuaded that an outcome of a price effects inquiry under Article 3.2 that consists of a mere\nmathematical comparison is one that could serve as a meaningful basis for an investigating\nauthority's determination of injury and causation. The fact that Article 3.2 expressly establishes\n\"a link between the price of subject imports and that of like domestic products, by requiring that a\ncomparison be made between the two\"\n385, does not mean that an investigating authority can\ncomply with its obligations under Article 3.2 by simply considering \"whether subject imports 'sell at\nlower prices than' comparable domestic products\".\n386 While an examination of whether there is a\nprice differential between imported and domestic products may be a useful starting point for an\nanalysis of price undercutting, it does not provide a sufficient basis for an investigating authority to\nsatisfy its obligation under Article 3.2.\n5.164. In the light of the above, we find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 3.2 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that, in its consideration of whether there has been a\nsignificant price undercutting, an investigating authority may \"simply consider whether subject\nimports 'sell at lower prices than' comparable domestic products\".\n387 The Panel's finding rejecting\nthe complainants' claims regarding MOFCOM's analysis of whether there was significant price\nundercutting by Grade C dumped imports was base d on the Panel's erroneous interpretation of\nArticle 3.2.388 We therefore reverse the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.130 and 7.144 of the\nPanel Reports, paragraph 8.2.a.i of the Japan Pa nel Report, and paragraph 8.7.b.i. of the EU\nPanel Report, regarding MOFCOM's finding of price undercutting with respect to Grade C HP-SSST.\n5.165. This brings us to the question of whether we can complete the legal analysis, as requested\nby the complainants, and find that MOFCOM's consideration of price undercutting in respect of\nGrade C HP-SSST is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,\nincluding because MOFCOM failed to consider whether Grade C dumped imports had any price\nundercutting effect on domestic Grade C products . In previous cases, the Appellate Body has\ncompleted the legal analysis with a view to facilitating the prompt settlement and effective\nresolution of the dispute.\n389 The Appellate Body has completed the legal analysis when sufficient\nfactual findings by the panel and undisputed facts on the panel record allowed it to do so.390\n\n382 In this respect, the Appellate Body also clarified that, although there is no explicit requirement in\nArticle 3.2, a failure to ensure price comparability is inconsistent with the requirement under Article 3.1 that a\ndetermination be based on \"positive evidence\" and involve an \"objective examination\" of the effect of dumped\nimports on the prices of domestic like products. (Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 200)\n383 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 128.\n384 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 154.\n385 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 136.\n386 Panel Reports, para. 7.128.\n387 Panel Reports, para. 7.128.\n388 See Panel Reports, paras. 7.116 and 7.121.\n389 See Appellate Body Reports, US – Countervailing Measures (China), para. 4.82; Australia – Salmon,\nparas. 117-136; US – Wheat Gluten, paras. 80-92; and Canada – Aircraft (Article 21.5 – Brazil), paras. 43-52.\n390 See Appellate Body Reports, US – Countervailing Measures (China), para. 4.82; US – Gasoline,\np. 19, DSR 1996:I, p. 18; Canada – Periodicals, p. 24, DSR 1997:I, p. 469; EC – Poultry, para. 156; EC –\nHormones, para. 222; US – Shrimp, paras. 123-124; Japan – Agricultural Products II, para. 112; US – FSC,\npara. 133; Australia – Salmon, paras. 117-118; US – Lamb, paras. 150 and 172; US – Section 211\nAppropriations Act, para. 352; EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, paras. 1174-1178; and\nUS – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), paras. 1272-1274.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.166. Turning to the case before us, we note China's assertion that, to the extent that the\ncomplainants have made arguments challenging the comparability of the prices between the\nGrade C dumped imports and domestic Grade C, we should exclude such arguments from our\nconsideration.\n391 However, we see no reason why, in our assessment of the claims on appeal, we\nwould be precluded from taking into account the totality of the parties' legal arguments to the\nextent that they are relevant to the issue raised on appeal.\n5.167. We note the Panel's finding that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM did not pr operly establish that the prices of imports\nand domestic like products were \"comparable\" for the purpose of considering price undercutting by\nimports of Grade C products given that it failed \"to properly account for differences in quantities\nwhen comparing the price of Grade C subject imports with the domestic Grade C price\".\n392 This\nfinding by the Panel, not appealed by China, implies that MOFCOM could not have had an objective\nbasis to determine the existence of price undercutting for Grade C HP-SSST.\n5.168. Moreover, we note, as did the Panel, that \"MOFCOM failed to account for record evidence\nthat trends in domestic prices by grade had no apparent relationship in terms of magnitude or\ndirection with trends in import prices.\" 393 The Panel stated that this was particularly apparent in\nrespect of domestic Grade C, \"the price of which increased by 112.80% from 2009-2010, without\nany corresponding movement in prices for subject imports\" of Grade C, \"which actually fell over\nthat period\".394 As explained above, in order properly to carry out an analysis of whether there had\nbeen significant price undercutting by dumped imports of Grade C, MOFCOM would have been\nrequired, pursuant to Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to undertake a dynamic\nassessment of price developments and trends in the relationship between the prices of the\ndumped imports of Grade C and those of the domest ic Grade C over the duration of the POI. Yet,\nwe note that MOFCOM did not explain the basis for its finding that imports of Grade C were\nunderselling domestic Grade C despite the fact that the price of domestic Grade C \"increased\nby 112.80% from 2009-2010\", while the prices of dumped imports of Grade C \" actually fell over\nthat period\".\n395\n5.169. As explained above, the inquiry under Ar ticle 3.2 is concerned with the effect of the\ndumped imports on the prices of domestic like products. It was therefore not sufficient for\nMOFCOM to make a finding of price undercutting based only on the fact that, in 2010, there was a\nmathematical difference between the prices of the imports of Grade C HP-SSST and those of\ndomestic Grade C HP-SSST. Instead, MOFCOM ought to have taken into account whether that\nmathematical difference amounted to significan t price undercutting in the light of the facts\nunderlying the investigation and the considerations we explained above. To our minds, an\nobjective examination would have taken into account all the positive evidence relating to,\ninter alia, the contrary price movements of the Grade C imports and domestic Grade C, as well as\nthe limited period during which the perceived mathematical difference occurred.\n5.170. We further recall that the provisions of Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\ncontemplate a \"logical progression\" in the investigating authority's examination leading to an\nultimate determination of whether dumped imports are causing material injury to the domestic\nindustry.\n396 Accordingly, the outcome of the price effects inquiry under Article 3.2 must be one\nthat enables the investigating authority to advance its analysis and to have a meaningful basis for\nits determination as to whether dumped imports, through such price effects, are causing injury to\nthe domestic industry.\n397 We do not see how MOFCOM, under the specific facts of this case, could\nhave provided a \"meaningful basis\" for an analys is of whether the dumped imports were causing\ninjury without considering \"record evidence that trends in domestic prices by grade had no\napparent relationship in terms of magnitude or direction with trends in import prices\".\n398\n\n391 China's appellee's submission, paras. 139-140 and 174-175.\n392 Panel Reports, para. 7.115.\n393 Panel Reports, para. 7.186.\n394 Panel Reports, para. 7.186.\n396 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 128.\n397 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 154.\n398 Panel Reports, para. 7.186.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.171. In the light of the above, we find that MOFCOM's assessment of whether there had been a\nsignificant price undercutting by Grade C imports from Japan and the European Union, as\ncompared with the price of domestic Grade C, is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement.\n5.172. Having addressed the first issue raised on appeal under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, we now turn to the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in\nfinding that MOFCOM was not required to make a finding of price undercutting for the product as a\nwhole, including Grade A HP-SSST.\n\n5.5.1.2 Whether MOFCOM was required to ma ke a finding of price undercutting for the\nproduct as a whole\n5.5.1.2.1 The Panel's findings\n5.173. Before the Panel, the complainants submitted that China acted inconsistently with\nArticles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM extended its finding of price\nundercutting in respect of imports of Grades B an d C HP-SSST to the domestic like product as a\nwhole, including domestic Grade A HP-SSST.\n399\n5.174. The Panel did not agree with the complainants that MOFCOM was required under\nArticles 3.1 and 3.2 to find price undercutting in respect of the domestic like product as a whole ,\nencompassing the three product types (Grades A, B, and C). 400 The Panel noted that, when an\ninvestigating authority considers the existence of price undercutting for the purpose of Article 3.2,\nit need only consider the existence of price undercutting in respect of the dumped imports at issue.\nFor the Panel, where dumped imports are of different grades, it is appropriate to consider price\nundercutting with respect to the comparable domestic grades.\n401\n5.175. The Panel noted the complainants' argument that Article 3.1 refers to \"the effect of the\ndumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products\". 402 According to the\ncomplainants, the use of the definite article \"the\" in conjunction with \"domestic market for like\nproducts\" necessarily constitutes a reference to the entire domestic market and, therefore, the like\nproduct as a whole. The Panel disagreed and sa w nothing in Article 3.1 to suggest that the\nexistence of price undercutting must be considered in respect of the entire range of the like\nproduct in the domestic market of the importin g Member. For the Panel, the reference to \"the\"\ndomestic market simply meant that prices in the domestic market should be used, rather than\nthose in any other market. The Panel noted, in that context, that there can be one or more\ndomestic like products corresponding to the imports subject to an anti-dumping investigation.\nThus, the Panel found that, while the text of Articl e 3.1 \"leaves open the possibility of more than\none like product, it does not … establish that pric e undercutting must be found with respect to the\nentire range of goods making up the domestic like product(s).\"\n403\n5.176. The Panel also rejected the complainants' argument that MOFCOM improperly found the\nrelevant price undercutting to be \"significant\", given that the majority 404 of domestic production\n(of Grade A products) was unaffected by such price undercutting. In the Panel's view, this\nargument was predicated on the complainants' understanding that MOFCOM was required by\nArticle 3.2 to establish that dumped imports ha d a price undercutting effect in respect of the\ndomestic like product as a whole, including domestic Grade A. Relying on the panel's finding in US\n– Upland Cotton , the Panel considered that the signific ance of price undercutting by dumped\nimports of Grades B and C should be assessed in relation to the price of domestically produced\nGrades B and C, and not in relation to other factors, such as the proportion of domestic production\nfor which no price undercutting was found.\n405 Furthermore, the Panel recalled that price\nundercutting must be established on the basis of a comparison of the prices of comparable goods.\nAs a result, there may well be domestic product models or grades for which no price undercutting\nis established. The Panel considered that this fact should not preclude a finding of \"significant\"\n\n400 Panel Reports, para. 7.139.\n401 Panel Reports, para. 7.139.\n403 Panel Reports, para. 7.141.\n404 At fn 270 to para. 7.142 of the Panel Reports, the Panel highlighted that the complainants' estimate\nthat only about 20% of domestic production concerned Grade B or C products, with the remaining +/-80%\nconcerning Grade A products. (Japan's first written submission to the Panel, para. 148; European Union's first\nwritten submission to the Panel, para. 243) The Panel also noted that China challenged the accuracy of Japan's\nestimates, but did not provide actual numbers. The Panel considered it unnecessary to examine this\ndiscrepancy in any detail, since China, in any event, acknowledged that \"the majority\" of domestic HP-SSST\nproduction related to Grade A. (China's comments on Japan's response to Panel question No. 84, para. 31)\n405 Panel Reports, para. 7.142 (referring to Panel Report, US – Upland Cotton, paras. 7.1325\nand 7.1328).\n\nprice undercutting. The Panel noted, however, that this fact may become relevant in the\nconsideration of causation of injury, pursuant to Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.406\n5.5.1.2.2 Arguments on appeal\n5.177. On appeal, the European Union notes that there \"were no relevant imports of Grade A\",\nand that most of the domestic sales were of Grade A.\n407 Y e t , M O F C O M f o u n d t h a t p r i c e\nundercutting by imported Grades B and C had a significant effect on the domestic product, without\nconducting any cross-grade analysis. In the European Union's view, the Panel accepted this\nconclusion solely on the basis of its erroneous finding that Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement do not require any consideration of the effect of the price of the dumped product on\nthe price of the domestic product.\n408\n5.178. China counters that the Panel correctly noted that MOFCOM did not make a finding of price\nundercutting with respect to the domestic like product as a whole, and that, instead, it found\nundercutting only for Grades B and C. 409 In addition, China submits that the European Union's\nargument is predicated on the contention that an investigating authority is always to consider price\nundercutting for the domestic like product as a whole, and that the Panel properly rejected that\nproposition.410\n5.5.1.2.3 Analysis\n5.179. Turning to the facts of the present dispute, we note that MOFCOM defined the domestic\nlike product as certain HP-SSST, encompassing three product types or grades referred to by the\nPanel as Grades A, B, and C.\n411 The Panel noted that MOFCOM \"conducted grade-by-grade price\ncomparisons\" and found \"price undercutting in respect of Grades B and C\". 412 The Panel also noted\nthat \"MOFCOM did not make any finding of price undercutting in respect of Grade A, because this\nproduct was only imported in 2008, in very small quantities.\"413\n5.180. We agree with the Panel that an investigating authority is not required, under Article 3.2 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement, to establish the ex istence of price undercutting for each of the\nproduct types under investigation, or with respec t to the entire range of goods making up the\ndomestic like product. 414 That said, an investigating authority is under an obligation to examine\nobjectively the effect of the dumped imports on domestic prices. As discussed above, with respect\nto its consideration of whether there has been a significant price undercutting, an investigating\nauthority must undertake a dynamic assessment of price developments and trends in the\nrelationship between the prices of the dumped imports and those of the domestic like product over\nthe duration of the POI, taking into account all relevant evidence including, where appropriate, the\nrelative market share of each product type. Impo rtantly, and as discussed above, an investigating\nauthority's consideration of price effects under Article 3.2 must provide a meaningful basis for\nsubsequently determining whether the dumped imports are causing injury to the domestic industry\nwithin the meaning of Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n415 We therefore disagree with\nthe Panel that MOFCOM was not required to assess the significance of price undercutting by the\ndumped imports in relation to \"the proportion of domestic production for which no price\nundercutting was found\".416\n\n406 Panel Reports, para. 7.142 and fn 273 thereto.\n407 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 138.\n408 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 138 (referring to Panel Reports, para. 7.138).\n410 China's appellee's submission, para. 207.\n411 MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30), internal pp. 23-28. In\nMOFCOM's Final Determination, Grade A corresponds to TP347HFG, Grade B corresponds to S30432, and\nGrade C corresponds to TP310HNbN. We note that MOFCOM's definition of the domestic like product was not\nthe subject of a claim by the complainants before the Panel.\n412 Panel Reports, para. 7.137.\n413 Panel Reports, para. 7.137.\n414 Panel Reports, para. 7.141.\n415 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, paras. 149 and 154.\n416 Panel Reports, para. 7.142.\n\n5.181. In its investigation, MOFCOM observed that, during the POI, the dumped imports and\ndomestic sales were concentrated in di fferent segments of the HP-SSST market. 417 On the one\nhand, the majority of Chinese domestic HP-SSST production related to Grade A. 418 As such, the\nmajority of domestic sales was of Grade A. The market share held by Grade A dumped imports in\n2008 was only 1.45%. 419 There were no Grade A dumped imports thereafter. On the other hand,\nduring the POI, the dumped imports of Grades B and C each held a market share of around 90%\nof its respective market segment. 420 We further recall that Japan argued before the Panel, and\nChina did not dispute, that Grade B is approximat ely double the price of Grade A, and Grade C is\napproximately triple the price of Grade A. 421 In the case before us, we consider that an objective\nexamination by MOFCOM of whether there had been a significant price undercutting by the\ndumped imports as compared with the prices of the domestic like product (encompassing all three\nproduct types) should have taken into account the relevant market shares of the respective\nproduct types. Likewise, a proper analysis of price effects ought to have taken into account the\nfact that there were significant differences in the prices of these product types.\n As discussed\nabove, an investigating authority may not disregard evidence suggesting that the dumped imports\nhave no, or only a limited, effect on domestic prices.\n5.182. In the light of the above, we reverse the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.143,\n7.144, and 8.7.b.i. of the EU Panel Report; and find instead that MOFCOM's assessment of whether\nthere had been a significant price undercutting by t h e d u m p e d i m p o r t s , a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e\nprices of the domestic like product, is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement.\n\n417 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\n419 Panel Reports, para. 7.182 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 65).\n420 Panel Reports, para. 7.182 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 66 (translation amended by Panel Exhibit CHN-16-EN, and accepted by the complainants in\nPanel Exhibits JPN-29 and EU-32)).\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.2 MOFCOM's impact analysis – Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\n5.183. Japan and the European Union claim that the Panel erred in its interpretation and\napplication of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in rejecting their claims that\nMOFCOM was required to undertake a segmented analysis of the impact of dumped imports on the\nstate of the domestic industry, having found no significant increase in the volume of dumped\nimports, and having found price effects with respect to Grades B and C only. In addition, Japan\nasserts that the Panel erred in finding that Japan's claim that MOFCOM failed to examine whether\ndumped imports provided explanatory force for the state of the domestic industry fell outside the\nPanel's terms of reference.\n5.184. Before the Panel, the complainants submitted that MOFCOM's impact analysis was\ninconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement on several grounds. The\nPanel addressed three of the claims pursued by the complainants. The Panel rejected the\ncomplainants' claims that MOFCOM acted incons istently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement by assessing the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry\nproducing all three grades of HP-SSST, even though it found no significant increase in the volume\nof dumped imports\n422, and found price effects with respect to Grades B and C only. The Panel also\ndisagreed with the complainants that MOFCOM acte d inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 by\nfailing to weigh properly the positive and negative injury factors. However, the Panel agreed with\nthe complainants that MOFCOM failed to evalua te the magnitude of the margins of dumping,\ncontrary to Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement. The latter two findings of the\nPanel are not the subject of these appeals.\n5.185. We begin by addressing Japan's claim under Article 6.2 of the DSU. Thereafter, we will\nreview the complainants' appeal of the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the\ninterpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n\n422 In its Final Determination, MOFCOM noted:\nBased on data provided by foreign producers in their Response to Questionnaire for\nProducers/Exporters of Other Countries/Regions and relevant subsequent supplemental\nmaterials, during the period of investigation, the import volumes of the subject products from\nthe EU and Japan decreased year by year from 20,100 tons in 2008 to 16,400 tons in 2009, a\ndecrease of 18.49% from 2008, and to 4500 tons in 2010, a decrease of 72.79% from 2009.\nFrom January to June 2011, the import volume of the subject products was 2600 tons, down\n21.89% year on year.\n(Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30, internal p. 43)\n\n5.5.2.1 Japan's claim under Article 6.2 of the DSU\n5.186. Japan contends that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 6.2 of the DSU in finding\nthat Japan's claim regarding MOFCOM's allege d failure to examine whether dumped imports\nprovided explanatory force for the state of the dome stic industry under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement was outside its terms of reference. The Panel made this finding on the\nbasis that the claim was not sufficiently identified in Japan's panel request.\n5.187. China requests that we uphold the Panel's finding. In addition, China takes issue with what\nit views as Japan's attempt to rely on the argu ments concerning the absence of any explanatory\nforce in support of its claim on appeal that the Panel erred in rejecting the complainants' claims\nthat MOFCOM was required by Articles 3.1 and 3. 4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to undertake a\nsegmented impact analysis. China submits that, gi ven that the Panel found Japan's \"explanatory\nforce\" claim to be outside its terms of referenc e, this aspect of Japan's appeal should be\nrejected.\n423\n5.188. Japan's panel request states, in relevant part:\nJapan considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with, at least, China's\nobligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:\n1. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 because China's injury determination was not\nbased on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the\nvolume of the dumped imports under investigation, the effect of those imports on\nprices in the domestic market for like products, and the consequent impact of those\nimports on domestic producers of such products. Specifically:\n(a) …\n(b) China's analysis of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry:\n(i) failed to make an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the impact\nof subject imports on the domestic industry based on the volume of such imports and\ntheir effect on prices; (ii) failed to evaluate the magnitude of the margin of dumping;\nand (iii) failed to objectively determine the relative importance and weight to be\nattached to relevant economic factors an d indices, and improperly disregarded the\nmajority of those factors and indices indica ting that the domest ic industry did not\nsuffer material injury. Accordingly, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4\nof the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n424\n5.189. We recall our discussion in section 5.1.1.2 of these Reports 425 of the requirements that a\ncomplainant must satisfy in its panel request purs uant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. Based on our\nreading of the plain language in Japan's panel request, we understand Japan to have made three\nclaims under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement – namely that, in conducting its\nimpact analysis, China: \"(i) failed to make an objective examination, based on positive evidence,\nof the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry based on the volume of such imports\nand their effect on prices; (ii) failed to evalua te the magnitude of the margin of dumping; and\n(iii) failed to objectively determine the relative importance and weight to be attached to relevant\neconomic factors and indices, and improperly disregarded the majority of those factors and indices\nindicating that the domestic industry did not suffer material injury.\"\n426\n5.190. Japan contends that its statement in the panel request, that \"China's analysis of the\nimpact of the dumped imports on the domestic i n d u s t r y … f a i l e d t o m a k e a n o b j e c t i v e\nexamination, based on positive evidence, of th e impact of subject imports on the domestic\nindustry based on the volume of such imports and their effect on prices\", encompassed two\nseparate claims – namely: (a) that MOFCOM failed to examine \"the consequent impact\", and thus\n\n423 China's appellee's submission, para. 243 (referring to Japan's appellant's submission, paras. 49,\n55-61, and 63-66).\n424 Japan's panel request, pp. 1-2.\n425 Supra, paras. 5.11-5.16.\n426 Japan's panel request, para. 1(b).\n\na logical connection with its volume and price effects conclusions; and (b) that MOFCOM failed to\nexamine the \"explanatory force\" of dumped imports.427\n5.191. We do not see, in Japan's panel request, a claim under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement regarding MOFCOM's alleged failure to examine whether dumped\nimports provided \"explanatory force\" for the state of the domestic industry. 428 The reference to\n\"explanatory force\" is drawn from the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article 3.4 in its report in\nChina – GOES . This reference formed part of the Appellate Body's reasoning in interpreting\nArticle 3.4 in that dispute and should not be read to create an obligation that is distinct from that\nexpressed in Article 3.4. Accordingly, we view Japan's submissions, insofar as they refer to\n\"explanatory force\", as setting out arguments, based on the Appellate Body's reasoning in China –\nGOES, in support of Japan's claims under Article 3.4. These claims were properly within the Panel's\nterms of reference, and were addressed by the Panel.\n5.192. Further, we note that China takes issue with what it views as Japan's attempt to rely on\nnew arguments concerning the absence of any explan atory force in support of its claim on appeal\nthat the Panel erred in rejecting the complainants' claims that MOFCOM was required by\nArticles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to undertake a segmented impact analysis.\nWe recall that, before the Panel, Japan argued that MOFCOM improperly considered the impact of\ndumped imports on the domestic industry as a whole, in respect of all three product grades, even\nthough it had only found price effects in respect of Grades B and C. In its claim under Article 3.4,\nJapan argued that MOFCOM's reliance on its flawed and partial price effects analysis for purposes\nof its impact examination does not constitute \"an objective examination 'of the explanatory force\nof subject imports for the state of the domestic industry' as a whole\".\n429 We therefore disagree\nwith China to the extent that it contends that Japan's arguments concerning \"explanatory force\"\nunder Article 3.4 are new arguments.\n5.193. In sum, we do not consider that Japan's arguments regarding \"explanatory force\" could\nconstitute grounds for a separate \"claim\" under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement. Accordingly, there was no basis for the Panel to consider, as it did, whether such\n\"claim\" was properly within the scope of its terms of reference. Consequently, we declare the\nPanel's findings, in paragraphs 6.29-6.31 and footnote 274 of the Japan Panel Report, to be moot\nand of no legal effect.\n\n427 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 73.\n428 See Panel Reports, paras. 6.29-6.31.\n429 Japan's first written submission to the Panel, para. 165. (emphasis added; fn omitted)\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.2.2 The Panel's assessment of MOFCOM's impact analysis\n5.194. We begin by recalling the relevant findings of the Panel, before turning to the specific\nissues raised by the complainants on appeal.\n5.5.2.2.1 The Panel's findings\n5.195. Before the Panel, Japan and the European Union submitted that MOFCOM's impact analysis\nwas at odds with, and did not follow from, its volume and price effects analyses. The complainants\nasserted that, having found no significant increase in volume whatsoever and price effects with\nrespect to only Grades B and C, to ensure a logical progression of inquiry, MOFCOM should have\nanalysed the impact of the dumped imports on ly on the segment of the domestic industry\nproducing Grades B and C. China disagreed, argu ing that Article 3.4 requires MOFCOM to have\nassessed the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry as a whole . Moreover, China\nargued that the two domestic producers making up the domestic industry are \"producers of all\nthree grades of the like product\"\n430, such that it is not possible to distinguish any part of the\ndomestic industry that is producing only Grade A.431\n5.196. The Panel considered that the complain ants' claims regarding the scope of MOFCOM's\nimpact analysis were premised on their interp retation of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, and reiterated its finding that, \"in finding price undercutting in respect of Grades B\nand C, MOFCOM was not required by Article 3.2 to consider the effect of subject Grade B and C\nimports on domestic Grade A.\" 432 The Panel considered on this basis that MOFCOM's failure to\nconduct such a cross-grade price analysis did not preclude a finding that the segment of the\ndomestic industry producing Grade A products co uld be impacted by dumped imports. The Panel\nfurther reasoned that the complainants' approach to Article 3.4 was overly \"focused on the causal\nconnotations of the term 'impact'\"\n433, and overlooked the obligation in Article 3.4 to evaluate the\nstate of the \"domestic industry\" as defined by Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The\nPanel recalled that, in the present case, \"MOFCOM defined the domestic industry as comprising\ntwo domestic producers accounting for a major proportion of total domestic production of the\ndomestic product like the subject imports.\"\n434 According to the Panel, an evaluation of the state of\nthe domestic industry envisaged by Article 3. 4 must therefore consider the state of those\ntwo producers, with respect to their production of all types of HP-SSST. Thus, the Panel saw no\nbasis in Article 3.4 \"for limiting this evaluation to the state of those two domestic producers with\nrespect to their production of only Grades B and C\".\n435\n5.197. The Panel clarified that it was not suggesting that the scope of MOFCOM's price effects\nconclusions was of \"no relevance to the remainder of MOFCOM's injury analysis\". 436 Instead, it\nnoted that \"a limited finding of price undercutting will have obvious implications for an authority's\nassessment of whether dumped imports caused material injury to the domestic industry.\" 437\nHowever, for the Panel, this was \"an assessment to be made pursuant to Article 3.5, rather\nthan 3.4, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\"\n438\n5.198. Based on the foregoing, the Panel rejected the complainants' claims that China acted\ninconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM was\nrequired to, but did not, undertake a segmented impact analysis and, instead, assessed the impact\no f d u m p e d i m p o r t s o n t h e d o m e s t i c i n d u s t r y a s a w h o l e , e v e n t h o u g h i t f o u n d n o s i g n i f i c a n t\nincrease in the volume of dumped imports and found price effects with respect to HP-SSST of\nGrades B and C only.\n439\n\n430 China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 179.\n431 Panel Reports, paras. 7.148-7.149.\n433 Panel Reports, para. 7.153.\n434 Panel Reports, para. 7.153.\n435 Panel Reports, para. 7.153.\n439 Panel Reports, para. 7.170.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.2.2.2 Arguments on appeal\n5.199. On appeal, Japan and the European Union argue that the Panel erred in its interpretation\nand application of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the Panel failed\nproperly to take into account the logical progression of inquiry contemplated under the various\nparagraphs of Article 3. In partic ular, Japan argues that, if an investigating authority, pursuant to\nthe inquiry under Article 3.2, finds no increase in the volume of imports, and finds price effects\nonly for certain, but not all, grades of the product, the investigating authority should conduct its\nanalysis under Article 3.4 on the premise that those grades for which no price effects were found\nwere not impacted by the dumped imports. In Japan's view, failing to do so would violate an\ninvestigating authority's obligation to make an objective examination of the consequent impact of\nthe dumped imports based on positive evidence.\n5.200. The European Union, for its part, argues that the Panel failed to take into consideration\nwhat the European Union refers to as a \"unitary analysis\": one which recognizes that it is \"highly\nproblematic\" to distinguish between the concept of injury and the concept of causation, given that\nonly what is caused by the dumped imports is correctly characterized as \"injury\" within the\nmeaning of footnote 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n440 Accordingly, if, in the application of\nArticle 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, an inve stigating authority determines that a particular\nthing is a non-attribution factor, then, at the same time, anything caused by that non-attribution\nfactor is not \"injury\" within the meaning of footnote 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The\nEuropean Union argues that \"[t]his necessarily means that it is not part of the 'impact of the\ndumped imports on the domestic industry' within the meaning of Article 3.4.\"\n441 According to the\nEuropean Union, in the present case, given that MOFCOM did not find volume and price effects\narising out of imports of Grade A HP-SSST, Grade A should have been considered as a \"non-\nattribution factor\" within the meaning of Article 3. 5, and should therefore not have formed part of\nthe impact analysis under Article 3.4.\n442\n5.201. China requests that we reject the appeals by the complainants and uphold the Panel's\nfindings. China notes that Article 3.4 contemplates that an investigating authority must derive an\nunderstanding of the impact of dumped imports on the basis of the examination of the state of the\nindustry. China considers that the obligation to derive an understanding of the impact of the\ndumped imports on the domestic industry must be distinguished from the obligation to determine\nthat the dumped imports are causing injury. China emphasizes that \"the 'requirement to conduct a\nnon-attribution analysis regarding all factors causing injury to the domestic industry' is laid down\nin Article 3.5, rather than in Article 3.4.\"\n443 Furthermore, China highlights that Article 3.4 requires\nan investigating authority to derive an understanding of the impact of dumped imports on the\nstate of the domestic industry as defined in Ar ticle 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. This\nrequirement applies irrespective of whether the consideration under Article 3.2 reveals price\nundercutting with respect to all domestic like products, or only with respect to some of such\ndomestic like products.\n444\n5.5.2.2.3 Analysis\n5.202. Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides:\nThe examination of the impact of the du mped imports on the domestic industry\nconcerned shall include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices\nhaving a bearing on the state of the industry, including actual and potential decline in\nsales, profits, output, market share, producti vity, return on investments, or utilization\nof capacity; factors affecting domestic prices; the magnitude of the margin of\ndumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,\nwages, growth, ability to raise capital or investments. This list is not exhaustive, nor\ncan one or several of these factors necessarily give decisive guidance.\n\n440 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 154.\n441 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 155.\n442 European Union's response to questioning at the oral hearing.\n443 China's appellee's submission, para. 249 (quoting Appellate Body Report,\nChina – GOES, paras. 128 and 149-150).\n444 China's appellee's submission, para. 251.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.203. As discussed at paragraph 5.140 above, the various paragraphs of Article 3 contemplate a\n\"logical progression\" in the investigating authority's inquiry leading to an ultimate determination of\nwhether dumped imports are causing material injury to the domestic industry.\n445 As part of this\nlogical progression of inquiry, Article 3.4 requires an investigating authority to examine\n\"the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry\". This examination must include\n\"an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the\nindustry\". Article 3.4 then lists certain factors that \"are deemed to be relevant in every\ninvestigation and which must always be evaluated by the investigating authorities\".\n446 Importantly,\nthe Appellate Body has stressed that the evaluation of the relevant factors must respect the\noverarching principles set out in Article 3.1, requiring investigating authorities to conduct an\nobjective examination based on positive evidence.\n447\n5.204. While the second sentence of Article 3.2 requires an investigating authority to consider the\neffect of the dumped imports on prices, the focus of Article 3.4 is on the state of the domestic\nindustry.448 The Appellate Body has clarified that it would be compatible with Article 3.4 for\ninvestigating authorities to evaluate factors having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry\non the basis of an evaluation of specific part s, sectors, or segments within the domestic\nindustry.449 Such a sectoral analysis \"may be highly pertinent, from an economic perspective, in\nassessing the state of an industry as a whole\".450 As we see it, while there is no exclusive\nmethodology prescribed for an investigating authority to conduct an examination under Article 3.4,\nan investigating authority's examination of the relationship between the dumped imports and the\nstate of the domestic industry must be one that enables the investigating authority to derive an\nunderstanding about the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry as a whole.\n5.205. Article 3.4 does not merely require an ex amination of the state of the domestic industry,\nbut contemplates that \"an investigating authority must derive an understanding of the impact of\nsubject imports on the basis of such an examination\".\n451 Consequently, Article 3.4 is concerned\nwith \"the relationship between subject imports an d the state of the domestic industry, and this\nrelationship is analytically akin to the type of link contemplated by the term 'the effect of' under\nArticle[] 3.2\".452 In other words, Article 3.4 requires an examination of the \"explanatory force\" of\nsubject imports for the state of the domestic industry. 453 As noted, the Appellate Body stated in\nChina – GOES that the inquiries under Article 3.2, and the examination required under Article 3.4,\nare necessary in order to answer the ultimate question in Article 3.5 as to whether dumped\nimports are causing injury to the domestic industry. The Appellate Body has clarified that, similar\nto the consideration under Article 3.2, the examination under Article 3.4 \" contributes to , rather\nthan duplicates, the overall determination required under Article[] 3.5\". 454 However, whilst an\ninvestigating authority is required to examine the impact of dumped imports on the domestic\nindustry pursuant to Article 3.4, it is not required to demonstrate that dumped imports are causing\ninjury to the domestic industry, which is an analysis specifically mandated by Article 3.5.455\n5.206. Turning to the specific facts of this case, we recall that there were no imports of Grade A\nHP-SSST after 2008, and that MOFCOM did not make a finding of price undercutting in respect of\nGrade A.\n456 We also recall that MOFCOM defined the domestic industry as comprising two domestic\n\n445 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 128.\n446 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 194 (referring to Appellate Body Report,\nThailand – H-Beams, fn 36 to para. 128).\n447 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, paras. 196-197.\n448 We observe that Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement defines the term \"domestic industry\" as\nthe \"domestic producers as a whole of the like products\" or \"[domestic producers] whose collective output of\nthe products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production\".\n449 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 195.\n450 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 195 (referring to Panel Report, Mexico – Corn\nSyrup, fn 30 to para. 7.154). (emphasis added)\n451 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 149. (emphasis original)\n452 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 149.\n453 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 149.\n454 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 149. (emphasis original)\n455 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 150.\n456 Panel Reports, para. 7.137 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 53).\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nproducers accounting for a major proportion of total domestic production of the domestic product\ncomprising Grades A, B, and C.457\n5.207. As noted, Article 3.4 requires the evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices\nhaving a bearing on the state of the industry. These factors include actual and potential decline in\nsales, market share, and factors affecting domestic prices. Article 3.4, read together with\nArticle 3.1, instructs investigating authorities to evaluate, objectively and on the basis of positive\nevidence, the importance and the weight to be a ttached to all the relevant factors. In every\ninvestigation, this evaluation turns on the \"bearing\" that the relevant factors have on the state of\nthe domestic industry.458\n5.208. In the present case, MOFCOM found that dumped imports of Grades B and C each held a\nmarket share of around 90% of its respective market segment. 459 The majority of domestic sales,\nhowever, were of Grade A. The market share held by Grade A dumped imports in 2008 was only\n1.45%, and there were no Grade A imports thereafter. 460 In the light of these factual findings by\nMOFCOM, we note the following finding by the Panel:\nWe do not mean to suggest that the scope of MOFCOM's price effects conclusions is of\nno relevance to the remainder of MOFCOM's injury analysis. As previously noted, a\nlimited finding of price undercutting will have obvious implications for an authority's\nassessment of whether dumped imports caused material injury to the domestic\nindustry. However, this is an assessment to be made pursuant to Article 3.5, rather\nthan 3.4, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n461\n5.209. We agree with the Panel that the results of the inquiries, pursuant to Article 3.2, relating to\nthe volume of the dumped imports and the effects of the dumped imports on prices are relevant to\nthe causation analysis required under Article 3.5. However, unlike the Panel, we consider that the\nresults of these inquiries are also relevant to the impact analysis required under Article 3.4, given\nthat this provision requires the evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a\nbearing on the state of the industry, including ma rket share and factors affecting domestic prices.\nSignificantly, as discussed at paragraph 5.141 above, the disciplines that apply under Article 3,\nwhile distinct, are interlinked and logically prog ress to answering the question of whether the\ndumped imports are causing injury to the domestic industry. As the Appellate Body stated in\nEC\n Tube or Pipe Fittings , \"Article 3.1 and the succeeding paragraphs of Article 3 clearly indicate\nthat volume and prices, and the consequent impact on the domestic industry, are closely\ninterrelated for purposes of the injury determination.\" 462 Accordingly, we do not agree with the\nPanel that, because the results of the inquiry under Article 3.2 are relevant for an investigating\nauthority's causation and non-attribution analyses under Article 3.5, they are not relevant for the\nimpact analysis under Article 3.4.\n463\n5.210. We recall that, in the present case, the majority of Chinese domestic production consisted\nof Grade A HP-SSST464, but Chinese producers also produced Grades B and C. We further note that\nMOFCOM \"defined the domestic industry as comp rising two domestic producers accounting for the\nmajor proportion of total domestic production\" of HP-SSST. 465 We agree with the Panel that it was\ntherefore appropriate for MOFCOM to examine the impact of the dumped imports on the state of\n\"those two producers, with respect to th eir production of all types of HP-SSST\". 466 Contrary to\n\n457 MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30), internal p. 28. See also Panel\nReports, para. 7.153. The two domestic producers are Jiangsu Wujin Stainless Steel Pipe Group Co., Ltd. and\nChangshu Walsin Specialty Steel Co., Ltd.\n458 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, paras. 196-197.\n459 Panel Reports, para. 7.182 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 66 (translation amended by Panel Exhibit CHN-16-EN, and accepted by the complainants in\nPanel Exhibits JPN-29 and EU-32)).\n460 Panel Reports, para. 7.182 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 65).\n462 Appellate Body Report, EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, para. 115.\n463 We note, moreover, that the Panel's reading of Article 3.4 appears to have been premised on its\ninterpretation of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which we have reversed above. (See Panel\nReports, para. 7.152)\n465 Panel Reports, para. 7.153.\n466 Panel Reports, para. 7.153.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nwhat the European Union appears to suggest, such an approach would not necessarily mean that\nthe investigating authority's ultimate determination of injury will include injury that is not\nattributable to the dumped imports. 467 Moreover, Article 3.5 expressly requires an investigating\nauthority to \"also examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same\ntime are injuring the domestic industry, and the injuries caused by these other factors must not be\nattributed to the dumped imports.\"\n5.211. Having said this, we note that Article 3.4 does not merely require an examination of the\nstate of the domestic industry, but contemplates that an investigating authority \"must derive an\nunderstanding of the impact of subject imports on the basis of such an examination.\" 468 The\nevaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the\nindustry, including market share and factors affecting domestic prices, must be such that it\nprovides a \"meaningful basis\"\n469 for an analysis of whether the dumped imports are, through the\neffects of dumping, as set forth in Articles 3.2 and 3.4, causing injury to the domestic industry.\nDepending on the particular circumstances of each case, an investigating authority may therefore\nbe required to take into account, as appropriate, the relative market shares of product types with\nrespect to which it has made a finding of price undercutting; and, for example, the duration and\nextent of price undercutting, price depression or price suppression, that it has found to exist.\n5.212. In the light of the above, we find that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Articles 3.1\nand 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to the exte nt it found that the results of the inquiries\nunder Article 3.2 are not relevant to the impact analysis under Article 3.4. We understand the\nPanel to have relied on its erroneous interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 in rejecting, in\nparagraphs 7.170 of the Panel Reports, paragraph 8.2.a.ii of the Japan Panel Report, and\nparagraph 8.7.b.ii of the EU Panel Report, the complainants' claims that China acted inconsistently\nwith Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM was required to, but\ndid not, undertake a segmented impact analysis. Accordingly, we reverse these findings by the\nPanel. Having found that China acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1 and 3.2\nof the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and in the light of the Panel's finding that MOFCOM's analysis of\nthe impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry is inconsistent with China's obligations\nunder Articles 3.1 and 3.4 because MOFCOM faile d to evaluate properly the magnitude of the\nmargin of dumping, we do not consider that additional findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 are\nrequired to resolve these disputes.\n5.5.3 MOFCOM's causation analysis – Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement\n5.213. Before the Panel, Japan and the European Union claimed that MOFCOM's causation\nanalysis is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement for several\nreasons. The Panel found that MOFCOM's reference to the market shares held by subject imports\nwas \"not sufficient to establish that subject imports, through price undercutting, had 'a relatively\nbig impact on the price of the like domestic produc ts', and therefore caused injury to the domestic\nindustry through their price effects.\"\n470 In addition, the Panel concluded that, because it had found\nthat certain aspects of MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses were inconsistent with\nArticles 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agr eement, MOFCOM's subsequent reliance on those\nanalyses in the context of its causation determination was inconsistent with Article 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement.\n471 The Panel also found that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1\nand 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM failed properly to ensure that the injury\ncaused by the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase in domestic production capacity\nwas not attributed to the dumped imports.472\n5.214. Each of the participants appeals different aspects of the Panel's findings. China alleges that\nthe Panel erred in concluding that Japan's panel request, as it relates to MOFCOM's reliance on the\nmarket share of dumped imports in order to dete rmine causation, provides a \"brief summary of\n\n467 See European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 154-156.\n468 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 149. (emphasis original)\n469 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, paras. 145 and 154.\n470 Panel Reports, para. 7.188.\n471 Panel Reports, para. 7.191.\n472 Panel Reports, para. 7.204. We note that the Panel referred interchangeably in its discussion to the\n\"decline\" or \"decrease in apparent consumption\" and the \"drop\" or \"decline in domestic demand\". (See e.g.\nPanel Reports, paras. 7.169, 7.196, and 7.203)\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nthe legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly\", as required by\nArticle 6.2 of the DSU. 473 China submits that the Panel incorrectly interpreted and applied\nArticle 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in fi nding that MOFCOM improperly relied on the\nmarket share of dumped imports in determining that such imports, through price undercutting,\ncaused injury to the domestic industry. China also asserts, in this regard, that the Panel acted\ninconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by ruling on a claim for which the complainants failed to\nmake a prima facie case.\n474 For their part, Japan and the European Union contend that the Panel\nacted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that the complainants had not brought\nindependent claims under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement other than those concerning\nMOFCOM's reliance on the market share of du mped imports, and MOFCOM's non-attribution\nanalysis. We begin by recalling the Panel's findings before turning to the specific issues raised in\nthese appeals.\n5.5.3.1 The Panel's assessment of MOFCOM's causation analysis\n5.5.3.1.1 The Panel's findings\n5.215. The Panel summarized MOFCOM's causation analysis as follows:\n\nMOFCOM determined that \"the large quantiti es of imports of the subject products …\ndumped into China at low prices\" caused material injury to the domestic industry. The\ndetermination was based on the price effects of the subject imports. MOFCOM did not\nfind that subject imports had any volume effects on the domestic industry, in light of\nthe fact that the absolute volume of subject imports declined during the period of\ninvestigation. However, MOFCOM did find that the market share of subject imports as\na whole \"remained high at around 50%\". MOFCOM also found that the market share\nheld by subject imports of both Grade B and C was around 90%. MOFCOM considered\nthis market share relevant in assessing the price undercutting effect of subject\nimports. After considering the market share data and pricing information, MOFCOM\nfound that \"the imports of the subject products had a relatively big impact on the price\nof domestic like products\".\n475\n5.216. Based on its review of MOFCOM's analysis, the Panel found that \"MOFCOM [had] failed to\naccount for the fact that the market share of subject imports had actually dropped from around\n90% in 2008 and 2009 to around 50% in 2010 and [the first half of] 2011, and that domestic\nmarket shares increased correspondingly.\"\n476 The Panel observed that, \"[w]hile an investigating\nauthority might properly determine, given the necessary facts, that high market shares exacerbate\nthe price effects of dumped imports, an objective and impartial investigating authority would also\nconsider whether the fact that import market shares are declining significantly indicates that the\nprice effects are in fact somewhat attenuated.\"\n477\n5.217. The Panel recalled that the market share of imported Grade B fluctuated, the market share\nof imported Grade C decreased during the POI, and the majority of domestic sales were of\nGrade A.478 The Panel also found that the market share held by Grade A dumped imports in 2008\nwas only 1.45%, and that there were no Grade A dumped imports thereafter. 479 The Panel noted\nthat, although dumped imports and domestic sales were concentrated in different segments of the\nHP-SSST market, \"MOFCOM made no finding of cross-grade price effects, whereby price\n\n473 China's other appellant's submission, para. 57.\n474 China's appellant's submission, para. 165; other appellant's submission, para. 70.\n475 Panel Reports, para. 7.171 (quoting MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal pp. 65-67 (translation amended by Panel Exhibit CHN-16-EN and accepted by the\ncomplainants in Panel Exhibits JPN-29 and EU-32); and referring to China's first written submission to the\nPanel, paras. 516-518). See also Panel Reports, para. 7.172 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel\nExhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30), internal p. 66.\n476 Panel Reports, para. 7.181 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal pp. 43-49).\n477 Panel Reports, para. 7.181.\n478 Panel Reports, para. 7.182 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal pp. 44 and 66).\n479 Panel Reports, para. 7.182 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 65).\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nundercutting by subject imports of Grades B and C might be shown to affect the price of domestic\nsales of Grade A.\"480 The Panel stated that it:\n… would [have] expect[ed] an objective and impartial investigating authority to have\nexamined and explained how the 90% market shares of Grade B and C subject imports\nenabled those imports, through price effects, to cause injury to the domestic industry\nas a whole, notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of domestic production was of\nGrade A, the sales and market share of domestic Grade A increased, the negligible\nmarket share of subject imports of Grad e A and the absence of cross-grade price\neffects, and despite the decline in the absolute volume of those imports and the\ndeclining market share of Grade C imports and the fluctuating market share of\nGrade B.\n481\n5.218. The Panel added that, in the absence of any such examination or analysis, it remained\n\"unclear\" how the market shares of imports of Grade B and Grade C HP-SSST were \"relevant in\nassessing whether subject imports caused injury to a domestic industry producing primarily\nGrade A\".\n482\n5.219. Responding to China's argument that the existence of cross-grade price correlation is a\n\"normal feature\" for a single product consisti ng of high-end and low-end grades, the Panel\nobserved that there was no \"meaningful analysis\" in MOFCOM's Final Determination of whether or\nhow this feature manifests itself in the specific circumstances of this case.483 Instead, MOFCOM left\nopen the degree of impact that movements of prices of imported Grades B and C might have on\nthe price of domestic Grade A, and made no assessment of whether the effect would be minimal,\nor sufficiently pronounced to cause prices for domestic Grade A to fall by the amounts that they\ndid.\n484\n5.220. The Panel also found that MOFCOM had failed to evaluate record evidence indicating that\ntrends in domestic prices by grade had no apparent relationship in terms of magnitude or trends in\nimport prices, noting that \"[a]n objective and impartial investigating authority would not have\nfound price correlation without at least addressing, and explaining, such contrary price\nmovements.\"485 The Panel added that, in addition to not making a finding that the prices of\nimported Grades B and C had \"pushed down\" the price of domestic Grade A, \"MOFCOM never\nconsidered, and certainly failed to exclude, the equally logical possibility that Grade B and C\nsubject import prices declined in response to the decline in domestic Grade A prices in 2009 and\n2010, in order to maintain the price differential between the various grades.\"\n486\n5.221. For these reasons, the Panel concluded that \"MOFCOM's reference to the market shares\nheld by subject imports was not sufficient to establish that subject imports, through price\nundercutting, had 'a relatively big impact on the price of the domestic like products', and therefore\ncaused injury to the domestic industry through their price effects.\"487 Having found that MOFCOM's\nreliance on the market share of dumped imports was \"central\" to its ultimate determination that\ndumped imports, through their price effects, caus ed injury to the domestic industry, the Panel\nconcluded that the flaws in MOFCOM's analysis of the market share of dumped imports rendered\nits causation determination inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement.\n488\n\n480 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\n481 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\n482 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\n483 Panel Reports, paras. 7.183-7.184.\n484 Panel Reports, para. 7.185 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN\nand EU-30), internal p. 48).\n485 Panel Reports, para. 7.186 and fn 335 thereto (referring to China's second written submission to the\nPanel, para. 155).\n486 Panel Reports, para. 7.187.\n487 Panel Reports, para. 7.188.\n488 Panel Reports, paras. 7.188 and 7.205.\n\n5.5.3.1.2 Japan's panel request and Article 6.2 of the DSU\n5.222. We begin by examining China's claim that the Panel erred in concluding that Japan's panel\nrequest, as it relates to MOFCOM's reliance on the market share of dumped imports in order to\ndetermine causation, provides a \"brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to\npresent the problem clearly\", as required by Arti cle 6.2 of the DSU. According to China, Japan's\npanel request, as it relates to MOFCOM's analysis of causation, was limited to \"claims\" regarding\nthe lack of volume effects and flaws in MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses, and did not\ninclude a claim regarding MOFCOM's reliance on the market share of dumped imports.\n489\n5.223. In response, Japan argues that it properly raised a claim regarding MOFCOM's reliance on\nthe market share of dumped imports. Japan further disputes China's contention that its claims\nunder Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement were limited to a \"volume analysis\nbased claim\" and claims based on MOFCOM's pric e effects and impact analyses, which are \"purely\nconsequential\" to the alleged violations of Articles 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n490\n5.224. Japan's panel request states, in relevant part:\nJapan considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with, at least, China's\nobligations under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:\n1. Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 because China's injury determination was not based\non positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of the\ndumped imports under investigation, the effect of those imports on prices in the\ndomestic market for like products, and the consequent impact of those imports on\ndomestic producers of such products. Specifically:\n…\n(c) China's demonstration of the alleged causal relationship between the imports under\ninvestigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry was not based on an\nobjective examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities. In particular,\nChina determined that the allegedly dumped imports are causing injury despite an\nabsence of a significant increase in the vo lume of dumped imports, and based on its\nflawed price effects and impact analyses. Accordingly, China acted inconsistently with\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n491\n5.225. As discussed, the obligations that apply to an investigating authority's determination of\ninjury are found in Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The first two sentences of Article 3.5\nidentify the causal link that must be shown in reaching an injury determination. These sentences\nexpressly require investigating authorities to demonstrate that the dumped imports are causing\ninjury, and stipulate that such \"demonstration of a causal relationship between the dumped\nimports and the injury to the domestic inju ry shall be based on an examination of all relevant\nevidence before the authorities\".\n492 Moreover, the disciplines under Article 3.5 are linked to the\nfundamental obligations set out in Article 3.1, namely, that an investigating authority must\nconduct an \"objective examination\" based on \"positive evidence\".\n5.226. In relation to its claims under Article 3. 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Japan stated in\nits panel request that MOFCOM's injury determination \"did not involve an objective examination of\nthe volume of the dumped imports under investigation, the effect of those imports on prices in the\ndomestic market for like products, and the consequent impact of those imports on domestic\nproducers of such products.\"\n493 Japan submitted, \"[i]n particular\", that MOFCOM \"determined that\nthe allegedly dumped imports are causing injury despite an absence of a significant increase in the\n\n489 China's other appellant's submission, paras. 58-59 and 61 (referring to Panel Report,\nUS – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 7.53; and Japan Panel Report, para. 7.188). China also\nargues that Japan's subsequent submissions to the Panel confirm the limited scope of Japan's panel request.\n(China's other appellant's submission, para. 66)\n490 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 16 (referring to China's other appellant's submission, para. 49).\n491 Japan's panel request, pp. 1-2.\n492 Emphasis added.\n\nvolume of dumped imports, and based on its flawed price effects and impact analyses.\" 494\nWith regard to MOFCOM's allegedly \"flawed price effects and impact analyses\", we recall that\nparagraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of Japan's panel request read as follows:\n(a) In its price effects analysis, China failed to conduct proper analyses with respect to\nthe three different grades of HP-SSST products under investigation and the HP-SSST\nproducts as a whole, and China improperly concluded that the imports under\ninvestigation had an overall significant effect on the prices of like domestic products.\nAccordingly, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement.\n(b) China's analysis of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry:\n(i) failed to make an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the impact\nof subject imports on the domestic industry based on the volume of such imports and\ntheir effect on prices; (ii) failed to evaluate the magnitude of the margin of dumping;\nand (iii) failed to objectively determine the relative importance and weight to be\nattached to relevant economic factors and indices, and improperly disregarded the\nmajority of those factors and indices indicating that the domestic industry did not\nsuffer material injury. Accordingly, China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4\nof the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n5.227. We are of the view that this language in Japan's panel request, when read together with\nthe reference to Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, is sufficiently clear to\npresent, in a manner consistent with Article 6.2 of the DSU, a problem concerning MOFCOM's\nanalysis of whether \"the dumped imports are, th rough the effects of dumping, as set forth in\nparagraphs 2 and 4, causing injury\" to the domestic industry, as required under Article 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement. We do not see why Japan would have been obliged to present a\nseparate \"problem\" regarding MOFCOM's \"reliance on the market share of subject imports\" on\nseparate grounds, distinct from the other issues it raised with regard to MOFCOM's determination\nof causation.\n5.228. As we understand it, the Panel characterized the issues raised by the complainants\n(including Japan), under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as a problem relating to\nwhether MOFCOM's \"reliance on the market share of subject imports\" constituted a sufficient basis\nfor MOFCOM's finding of causation under Article 3.5. In addressing this question, the Panel noted,\nfor example, that MOFCOM had not explained:\n… how the 90% market shares of Grade B and C subject imports enabled those\nimports, through price effects, to cause injury to the domestic industry as a whole,\nnotwithstanding the fact that the bulk of domestic production was of Grade A, the\nsales and market share of domestic Grade A increased, the negligible market share of\nsubject imports of Grade A and the absence of cross-grade price effects, and despite\nthe decline in the absolute volume of thos e imports and the declining market share of\nGrade C imports and the fluctuating market share of Grade B imports. MOFCOM failed\nto provide any such explanation. In the absence of any such examination or analysis,\nit remains unclear how the market shares of imports of Grade B and C HP-SSST are\nrelevant in assessing whether subject imports caused injury to a domestic industry\nproducing primarily Grade A HP-SSST.\n495\n5.229. The Panel's reasoning quoted above makes clear, in our view, that the Panel referred to\nthe issues raised by the complainants, both in the context of MOFCOM's price effects and impact\nanalyses, as well as in the context of causation , as questions going to whether MOFCOM erred in\nrelying on the \"market share\" of dumped imports. Rather than referring directly to factors that\nMOFCOM did not rely on (or explain) in the context of its causation analysis, the Panel referred to\nwhat MOFCOM, in the Panel's view, did rely on – i.e. the \"market share\" of dumped imports. The\nfact that the Panel described Japan's claim (and the European Union's claim) in this manner does\nnot mean that it was, therefore, addressing a claim that was outside the scope of its terms of\nreference. Nor does it mean that Japan's panel request does not comply with the standard set out\nin Article 6.2 of the DSU.\n\n494 Japan's panel request, para. 1(c).\n495 Japan Panel Report, para. 7.182.\n\n5.230. China asserts that the expression \"in particular\", in Japan's panel request, limits the\ncoverage of the panel request to claims regarding the lack of volume effects, and flaws in\nMOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses. 496 We recall that compliance with the requirements\nof Article 6.2 of the DSU must be assessed in the light of the language contained in Japan's panel\nrequest as a whole . The second sentence of paragraph 1(c) of the panel request starts with the\nexpression \"in particular\", and refers to MOFCOM's determination that \"the allegedly dumped\nimports are causing injury despite an absence of a significant increase in the volume of dumped\nimports, and based on its flawed price effects and impact analyses\". We understand the expression\n\"in particular\" to indicate that Japan's claims under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement focused on the manner in which MOFCOM determined that the dumped\nimports were causing injury, \"despite an absence of a significant increase in the volume of dumped\nimports, and based on its flawed price effects and impact analyses\".\n5.231. China also argues that the reference in Japan's panel request to MOFCOM's causation\ndetermination being \"based on\" MOFCOM's flawed price effects analysis \"unambiguously shows\nthat the claim is purely consequential to the claim of violation of Article 3.2 as regards the price\neffects analysis\".\n497 In addition, China submits that \"the reference to 'flawed' presupposes a\nfinding that the price effects analysis is found to be violating Article 3.2.\"498\n5.232. As noted above, Japan's panel request refers to MOFCOM's determination that \"the\nallegedly dumped imports are causing injury despite an absence of a significant increase in the\nvolume of dumped imports, and based on its flawed price effects and impact analyses .\"\n499 As the\nAppellate Body has explained, while being \"nec essary\" and forming the \"basis\" for the overall\ncausation analysis, the inquiries under Articles 3.2 and 3.4 do not result in duplicating, but rather\ncontribute to, the causation analysis under Article 3.5. 500 While we understand Japan's claims\nunder Article 3.2 to have concerned MOFCOM's consideration of the relationship between the\nprices of the dumped imports and domestic prices, we read the language in Japan's panel request\nto indicate that its claims under Article 3.5 were more broadly concerned with MOFCOM's alleged\nfailure to demonstrate properly the existence of a \"causal relationship\" between the dumped\nimports and injury to the domestic industry 501 on the basis of an examination of \"all relevant\nevidence\" before the investigating authority including: (i) the volume of the dumped imports and\ntheir price effects listed under Article 3.2; as well as (ii) the results of the evaluation of all the\nrelevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, as\nrequired under Article 3.4. Thus, while Japan ma y have also brought consequential claims under\nArticle 3.5 flowing from errors under Articles 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, we\nunderstand Japan's primary claim under Article 3.5 to have related to MOFCOM's failure to make\nan overall determination of causation in the light of record evidence regarding the volume, price\neffects, and impact of dumped imports (consisting mainly of Grades B and C) on the domestic\nindustry (producing mainly Grade A HP-SSST).\n5.233. In the light of the above, we find that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 6.2\nof the DSU by addressing Japan's claims under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\nregarding \"MOFCOM's reliance on the market share of subject imports\", in paragraphs 7.180-7.188\nof the Japan Panel Report.\n\n496 China's other appellant's submission, para. 62. We have discussed the legal standard applicable\nunder Article 6.2 of the DSU at paras. 5.11-5.16 of these Reports.\n497 China's other appellant's submission, para. 64.\n498 China's other appellant's submission, para. 64. (emphasis added)\n499 Japan's panel request, para. 1(c). (emphasis added)\n500 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, paras. 147 and 149.\n501 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, paras. 147 and 149.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.3.1.3 Whether the Panel made the case for the complainants\n5.234. China argues that, in making findings re garding \"MOFCOM's reliance on the market share\nof subject imports\", the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by ruling on a claim\nthat had not been articulated by the complainants, and in relation to which the complainants had\nraised no arguments. In the alternative, China argues that the Panel deprived China of its due\nprocess rights and \"made the case\" for both Japan and the European Union by ruling on a claim in\nrespect of which the complainants had failed to make a prima facie case.\n502\n5.235. Referring to their first and second written submissions to the Panel and opening\nstatements at the first and second meetings of the Panel, the complainants submit that they made\na prima facie case regarding MOFCOM's reliance on the market share of dumped imports, factoring\nin the same aspects of MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses that the Panel considered in its\nassessment of the matter at paragraphs 7.181 to 7.188 of the Panel Reports. 503 The complainants\nsubmit that they presented \"evidence and legal argument\" to establish that MOFCOM's failure to\nconsider the market share of dumped imports in the context of all relevant evidence, including\nevidence relating to price effects and impact, resulted in a causation determination that is\ninconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 504 They argue that China\nappears to divide improperly and artificially their overarching claim and arguments under\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 \"into pieces\", when these claims and arguments should instead be considered\n\"as a whole\".505\n5.236. In US – Gambling, the Appellate Body specified that \"[a] prima facie case must be based\non 'evidence and legal argument' put forward by the complaining party in relation to each of the\nelements of the claim.\" 506 The Appellate Body further stated that \"[a] complaining party may not\nsimply submit evidence and expect the panel to divine from it a claim of WTO-inconsistency. Nor\nmay a complaining party simply allege facts without relating them to its legal arguments.\"\n507\nMoreover, the evidence and legal argumentation put forward in a prima facie case must be\nsufficient to identify the challenged measure and its basic import, to identify the relevant WTO\nprovision and obligation contained therein, and to explain the basis for the claimed inconsistency\nof the measure with that provision.\n508 In Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff\nProgram, the Appellate Body explained that, \"while a panel cannot make the case for a\ncomplainant, it has the competence 'freely to us e arguments submitted by any of the parties – or\nto develop its own legal reasoning – to support its own findings and conclusions on the matter\nunder its consideration'.\" 509 Once a complainant has made out a prima facie case, a panel is\nrequired to develop its own reasoning in order to make an objective assessment of the matter\nbefore it and is required to set out in its report the basic rationale behind any findings and\nrecommendations that it makes.\n510 Panels and the Appellate Body are not constrained by the\nparties' arguments in developing legal reasoning.\n5.237. In their first written submissions to the Panel, the complainants argued that MOFCOM's\ncausation determination lacks any foundation in its analysis of the volume, price effects, and\nimpact of dumped imports, and stated that \"a finding of causation is dependent upon the\noutcomes of the investigating authority's analyses of the previous steps – namely, the volume and\nprice effects of dumped imports and their impact on the domestic industry producing like\n\n502 See China's appellant's submission, para. 165; and other appellant's submission, paras. 91 and 98.\n503 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 25; European Union's appellee's submission, para. 241.\n504 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 25 (emphasis original; fn omitted); European Union's appellee's\nsubmission, para. 241.\n505 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 26; European Union's appellee's submission, para. 242 (quoting\nAppellate Body Reports, US – Carbon Steel, para. 127; Korea – Dairy, paras. 124-127; and Thailand –\nH-Beams, para. 95). (emphasis added by Japan and the European Union)\n506 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 140 (quoting Appellate Body Report,\nUS – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 16, DSR 1997:I, p. 336). (emphasis added in US – Gambling)\n507 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 140 (referring to Appellate Body Report, Canada –\nWheat Exports and Grain Imports, para. 191).\n508 Appellate Body Report, US – Gambling, para. 141.\n509 Appellate Body Reports, Canada – Renewable Energy / Canada – Feed-in Tariff Program, para. 5.215\n(quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 156).\n510 See Articles 11 and 12.7 of the DSU. Article 12.7 provides in relevant part: \"[T]he report of a panel\nshall set out the findings of fact, the applicability of relevant provisions and the basic rationale behind any\nfindings and recommendations that it makes.\"\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nproducts.\"511 The complainants further referred to alleged flaws in MOFCOM's (i) volume analysis,\n(ii) price effects analysis, and (iii) impact analysis to argue that, \"by grounding its causation\ndetermination on its volume, price effects, and impact analyses, which did not support a finding of\ninjury, [MOFCOM/China] failed to conduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of\nthe existence of a causal link between [the su bject imports/HP-SSST impo rts] and [the injury\nitself/injury], inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\"\n512 Both\ncomplainants also referred to MOFCOM's determination of causation on the basis of the \"market\nshare\" held by dumped imports at the end of the POI.513\n5.238. In the light of the above, we consider that Japan and the European Union put forward\nsufficient evidence and legal argument to support their claims under Article 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement. Accordingly, we find that the Panel did not act inconsistently with\nArticle 11 of the DSU by ruling on a matter that was not before it, or making the case for the\ncomplainants.\n5.5.3.1.4 Whether the Panel erred in find ing that MOFCOM's causation analysis is\ninconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\n5.239. China alleges that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1\nand 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, in\nconcluding that MOFCOM's reliance on the market share of dumped imports was not sufficient to\nestablish that these imports had \"a relatively big impact on the price of the domestic like\nproducts\", and that they caused injury to the domestic industry through their price effects.\n514\n5.240. China challenges, in essence, two aspects of the Panel's assessment. First, China takes\nissue with the Panel's review of MOFCOM's analysis of the market share of dumped imports. In this\ncontext, China raises a claim under Article 11 of the DSU as its primary claim. China then raises a\nclaim regarding the Panel's interpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-\nDumping Agreement, alleging that the Panel erred to the extent that it found that \"MOFCOM was\nrequired to assess the nature and extent of th e injurious effects of the dumped imports (as\ndistinguished from those of other known factors), in order to find that the imports of the subject\nproducts had an impact on the domestic industry through their price effects.\"\n515\n5.241. Second, China asserts that the Panel erred in dismissing MOFCOM's finding of \"price\ncorrelation\" as a sufficient basis for a demonstration of cross-grade price effects, including, in\nparticular, the requirement to assess how the ma rket shares of Grade B and C dumped imports\nenabled those imports, through price effects, to ca use injury to the domestic industry as a whole,\nwhich produces mainly Grade A products.\n516 As further analysed below, we understand that most\nof China's arguments raised in this context relate to the objectivity of the Panel's assessment of\nthe matter before it, rather than going to the question of whether the Panel correctly applied the\nlegal standard under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to the facts of the case.\n5.242. In our following analysis, we begin, therefore, by briefly setting out WTO jurisprudence\nregarding the requirements of Article 11 of the DSU. We then analyse the arguments raised by\nChina in the context of its claim of error under Article 11 of the DSU. For each issue raised by\n\n511 Japan's first written submission to the Panel, para. 190; European Union's first written submission to\nthe Panel, paras. 280-282. (emphasis original)\n512 Japan's first written submission to the Panel, para. 209; European Union's first written submission to\nthe Panel, para. 299.\n513 See e.g. Japan's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 198-201. See also European Union's\noral statement at the first Panel meeting, paras. 117-119 and 122-123). In their second written submissions to\nthe Panel, the complainants referred back to their first written submissions, reiterating that \"MOFCOM's\ncausation analysis was flawed because it did not logically progress from its volume, price effects, and impact\nanalyses\"; and \"China's causation determination lacks any foundation in its analysis of the volume, price\neffects, and impact of HP-SSST imports.\" (See Japan's second written submission to the Panel, para. 56; and\nEuropean Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 176)\n514 China's appellant's submission, para. 207; other appellant's submission, para. 114.\n515 China's appellant's submission, para. 216; other appellant's submission, para. 123. According to\nChina, such an obligation may exist in the context of a non-attribution analysis, but does not apply in the\ncontext of the first step of the causation analysis, which is the subject of this aspect of China's appeal.\n516 See China's other appellant's submission, para. 125.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nChina, we will also examine separately any arguments that implicate the Panel's application of the\nlaw to the facts.\n5.5.3.1.4.1 Article 11 of the DSU\n5.243. In previous disputes, the Appellate Body has noted that a panel is required to \"consider all\nthe evidence presented to it, assess its credibility, determine its weight, and ensure that its factual\nfindings have a proper basis in that evidence\". 517 Within these parameters, \"it is generally within\nthe discretion of the [p]anel to decide which evidence it chooses to utilize in making findings.\"518\n5.244. A claim that a panel has failed to conduct an \"objective assessment of the matter before it\"\nis \"a very serious allegation\". 519 An appellant may not effectively recast its arguments before the\npanel under the guise of a claim under Article 11 of the DSU, but must identify specific errors 520\nthat are so material that, \"taken together or singly\" 521, they undermine the objectivity of the\npanel's assessment of the matter before it.522 A challenge under Article 11 of the DSU must \"stand\nby itself and be substantiated with specific arguments, rather than merely being put forth as a\nsubsidiary argument or claim in support of a cl aim of a panel's failure to construe or apply\ncorrectly a particular provision of a covered agreement.\"\n523\n5.245. With these considerations in mind, we turn to consider the two specific elements of China's\nchallenge to the Panel's assessment of MOFCOM's findings on causation.\n5.5.3.1.4.2 The Panel's assessment regarding MOFCOM's findings concerning the market\nshare of imports\n5.246. With regard to the market share of dumped imports, the Panel found that:\n… although MOFCOM relied on the fact that the market share of subject imports\n\"remained high at around 50%\", MOFCOM failed to account for the fact that the\nmarket share of subject imports had actual ly dropped from around 90% in 2008 and\n2009 to around 50% in 2010 and [the first half of] 2011, and that domestic market\nshares increased correspondingly. While an investigating authority might properly\ndetermine, given the necessary facts, that high market shares exacerbate the price\neffects of dumped imports, an objective and impartial investigating authority would\nalso consider whether the fact that import market shares are declining significantly\nindicates that the price effects are in fact somewhat attenuated.524\n5.247. China takes issue with these findings by the Panel, arguing that the Panel \"disregard[ed]\nthe part of MOFCOM's Final Determination addressing causation and distorts the findings reached\nby MOFCOM\". 525 China points to an excerpt of MOFCOM's Final Determination, stating that, in\n2008, 2009, and 2010, dumped imports held a market share of 86.20%, 87.03%, and 47.23%,\nrespectively, and that, although the market share of imports fluctuated, it remained high at around\n\n517 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.178 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Brazil –\nRetreaded Tyres, para. 185).\n518 Appellate Body Reports, US – COOL, para. 299 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones,\npara. 135).\n519 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.227 (quoting Appellate Body Report, EC –\nPoultry, para. 133).\n520 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 442.\n521 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1318.\n522 Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.179. See also Appellate Body Report, EC –\nFasteners (China), para. 499.\n523 Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), para. 337 (referring to\nAppellate Body Reports, US – Steel Safeguards, para. 498; and Australia – Apples, para. 406). See also\nAppellate Body Report, Peru – Agricultural Products, para. 5.66. In case of similarly overlapping claims of error\nin the application of a legal standard to the relevant facts of a case and under Article 11 of the DSU, there is no\nbasis to have an additional examination of whether a panel has conducted an objective assessment of the facts\nunder Article 11 of the DSU. (Appellate Body Reports, China – Rare Earths, para. 5.174 (referring to\nAppellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 184))\n525 China's appellant's submission, para. 213; other appellant's submission, para. 120.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n50% in 2010. 526 China states that it fails to see how any objective assessment of the quoted\nparagraph can lead to a conclusion that MOFCOM relied on a remaining high market share of 50%,\nbut did not account for the declining market share of imports.\n527 China also argues that the\nexpression \"remained high at around 50%\" in itself shows that MOFCOM took into account the\nevolution of the market share, contrary to what the Panel suggested.528\n5.248. We do not agree with China's characterization of the Panel's reasoning. Contrary to what\nChina appears to suggest, the Panel in fact agreed with China that \"an investigating authority\nmight properly determine, given the necessary facts, that high market shares exacerbate the price\neffects of dumped imports.\" 529 The Panel added, however, that an objective and impartial\ninvestigating authority would \"consider whether the fact that import market shares are declining\nsignificantly indicates that the price effects are in fact somewhat attenuated\".\n530\n5.249. Other than pointing to the expression \"r emained high at around 50%\" in MOFCOM's Final\nDetermination to argue that this \"in itself … shows that MOFCOM took into account the evolution of\nthe market share\"531, China has not pointed to any analysis or explanation in the passage quoted\nabove or elsewhere in the Final Determination regarding whether or not such declining market\nshares of imports indicated that the price effect s are in fact somewhat attenuated. We therefore\nsee no error, nor failure to make an objective asse ssment of the matter, in this part of the Panel's\nanalysis.\n5.250. We also do not understand the Panel to have suggested that MOFCOM was required to\nassess the nature and extent of dumped imports, as opposed to other known factors, when it\nnoted that MOFCOM had provided no explanation or analysis of declining market shares of dumped\nimports when considering the price effects of such imports. This aspect of the Panel's analysis\nrelated to MOFCOM's assessment of the market sh are of the dumped imports, and not to \"other\nknown factors\" that may also be injuring the domestic industry, which must be considered in the\ncontext of a non-attribution analysis.\n5.5.3.1.4.3 MOFCOM's finding of price correlation\n5.251. China also takes issue with several aspects of the Panel's assessment of MOFCOM's finding\nof price correlation, asserting that this finding was sufficient to demonstrate cross-grade price\neffects and, consequently, to satisfy MOFCOM's obligation to assess \"how the 90% market shares\nof Grade B and C subject imports enabled those imports, through price effects, to cause injury to\nthe domestic industry as a whole, notwithstanding the fact that the bulk of domestic production\nwas of Grade A [and] the negligible market share of subject imports of Grade A and the absence of\ncross-grade price effects\".\n532 We address each of China's arguments in turn below.\nWhether price correlation can be assumed for a single product consisting of multiple\nproduct grades\n5.252. With regard to cross-grade price effects, China argues that price correlation is a \"normal\nfeature\" for a single product consisting of high-end and low-end grades; hence, China fails to see\nwhy an investigating authority would have been required to do more than MOFCOM did – that is,\nto state that Grade A products belong to the sa me category of products as Grade B and Grade C\nproducts and that \"the price changes of the three [grades] are to a certain extent correlated with\none another.\"\n533 According to China, there was no eviden ce before MOFCOM to suggest that this\n\"normal feature\" did not manifest itself in relation to HP-SSST. 534 Moreover, China submits that\nthe Final Determination included a brief discussion of the basis on which MOFCOM found price\n\n526 China's appellant's submission, para. 210; other appellant's submission, para. 117 (referring to\nMOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30), internal pp. 65-66).\n527 China's appellant's submission, para. 211; other appellant's submission, para. 118.\n528 China's appellant's submission, para. 212; other appellant's submission, para. 119.\n530 Panel Reports, para. 7.181.\n531 China's appellant's submission, para. 212; other appellant's submission, para. 119. (emphasis\nadded)\n532 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\n533 China's appellant's submission, para. 228; other appellant's submission, para. 135 (quoting\nMOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30), internal p. 48).\n534 China's appellant's submission, para. 228.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\ncorrelation. In any event, China submits that Arti cles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\ncannot be interpreted as requiring MOFCOM to set out the \"obvious\", that is, that price correlation\nfollows as a matter of logic from the fact that the high-end products (Grades B and C) can\nsubstitute for the low-end products (Grade A).\n535\n5.253. Japan the European Union contend that MOFCOM's finding of cross-grade price effects was\nbased solely on assertions made by the petitioner s, without any proper evaluation or analysis of\nthose assertions. The complainants argue that, if such a finding were sufficient to justify\naffirmative causation determinations, it would render meaningless the requirements for an\ninvestigating authority to provide \"reasoned and adequate\" explanations of its findings and to\nconduct an \"unbiased and objective\" analysis.\n536\n5.254. With respect to China's assertion that th e existence of cross-grade price correlation is a\n\"normal feature\" for a single product consisti ng of high-end and low-end grades, the Panel\nobserved that there was \"no meaningful analysis in MOFCOM's Final Determination of whether or\nhow this feature manifests itself in the specific circumstances of the product at issue\".\n537 Instead,\nafter recording the petitioners' argument that pr ice correlation existed, MOFCOM seemed to have\nsimply accepted that view \"without any consideration of the accuracy thereof\". 538 The Panel added\nthat MOFCOM had asserted that prices of the different grades were to a \"certain extent\" correlated\nwith one another, leaving open the degree of im pact that movements of prices of imported\nGrades B and C might have on the price of domestic Grade A, and making no assessment of\nwhether the effect would be minimal, or sufficiently pronounced to cause prices for domestic\nGrade A to fall by the amounts that they did.\n539\n5.255. We recall that the task of a WTO panel is to examine whether the investigating authority\nhas adequately performed its investigative function, and has adequately explained how the\nevidence supports its conclusions. It follows from the requirement that the investigating authority\nprovide a \"reasoned and adequate\" explanation for its conclusions that the entire rationale for the\ninvestigating authority's decision must be set out in its report on the determination. This is not to\nsay that the meaning of a determination cannot be explained or buttressed by referring to\nevidence on the record. Yet, in all instances, it is the explanation provided in the written report of\nthe investigating authorities (and supporting documents) that is to be assessed in order to\ndetermine whether the determination was sufficiently explained and reasoned.\n5.256. In the present case, we disagree with Chin a to the extent it suggests that MOFCOM could\nsimply \"assume\" that price correlation between diff erent grades of HP-SSST is a \"normal feature\"\nfor a single product consisting of high-end and lo w-end grades on the basis of assertions made by\ndomestic applicants, and without any further discussion that would be reflected in its\ndetermination of whether substitutability of lower- and higher-end HP-SSST actually exists. Nor do\nwe consider that it was sufficient for MOFCOM merely to state, in its Final Determination, that the\nprices of the different grades \"were to a certain extent correlated with one another\" without any\nanalysis or explanation, or supporting evidence, of the degree of impact that movements of prices\nof imported Grades B and C might have on th e price of domestic Grade A, and without an\nassessment of whether the effect would be sufficiently pronounced to cause prices of domestic\nGrade A to fall by the amounts that they did. We fail to see how a mere statement by MOFCOM\nregarding a \"certain extent\" of price correlation between different grades of HP-SSST, without any\nfurther explanation, provides a \"meaningful basis\"\n540 for an analysis of whether the subject\nimports are, through the effects of dumping, as set forth in Articles 3.2 and 3.4, causing injury to\nthe domestic industry.\n\n535 China's appellant's submission, para. 230; other appellant's submission, para. 137.\n536 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 33; European Union's appellee's submission, para. 251.\n537 Panel Reports, para. 7.184.\n538 Panel Reports, para. 7.184.\n539 Panel Reports, para. 7.185 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 48).\n540 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, paras. 145 and 154.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.257. Furthermore, we find no merit in China's assertion that the Panel should have inferred,\n\"in line with its duties under Article 11 of the DSU\", from certain references in MOFCOM's Final\nDetermination, that MOFCOM had \"evaluate[d]\" the petitioners' argument and had \"concluded that\nit agreed with the argument\".\n541 China argues, in this regard, as follows:\nThe Panel acknowledges MOFCOM's reference to the Applicants' argument that\n\"[a] large margin decrease of the prices of [Grade C] and [Grade B] products, both\nhigh-end products, will certainly drive down the price of [Grade A] products, so that a\ncertain price difference among the three can be maintained\" before concluding that\n\"[Grade A] products belong to the same category of products as [Grade C] and\n[Grade B] products; that the price changes of the three are to a certain extent\ncorrelated with one another; that while assessing the impact on the domestic industry\nby imports of each individual grade, the Investigation Authority shall also consider the\nthree grades of products collectively as belonging to the same product category\".\n542\n5.258. Beyond a reference to the petitioners' arguments and MOFCOM's statement that the prices\nof the three types of HP-SSST \"to a certain extent correlated\", we are unable to identify, in the\npassage referred to by China, any explanation or reasoning indicating that MOFCOM actually\nexamined the degree of impact that movements of prices of imported Grades B and C might have\non prices of domestic Grade A, including whether the effect would be sufficiently pronounced to\ncause prices for domestic Grade A to fall by th e amounts that they did. In assessing the WTO-\nconsistency of a decision by an investigating authority, it is not for a panel to develop an\nexplanation of the basis for the investigating authority's conclusions, nor to \"infer\" the existence of\nsuch a basis as China seems to suggest from some general economic logic. Rather, it is the task of\na panel to examine whether the investigating authority has adequately performed its investigative\nfunction, and has adequately explained in its published report (and its related supporting\ndocuments) how the evidence supports its conclusions. We therefore do not agree with China to\nthe extent it suggests that the Panel should have sought to find a basis, in MOFCOM's Final\nDetermination, for MOFCOM's statement that the prices of the three types of HP-SSST are \"to a\ncertain extent correlated\".\n5.259. China also argues that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by\ncharacterizing, as ex post rationalization, China's argument that higher-grade imports can\n\"obviously\" substitute for lower-grade domestic products.543 Referring to the oral statements made\nby the complainants before the Panel, China argues that even Japan and the European Union\nseemed to agree that it is \"obvious that the high end products (B and C) can substitute the\nlow-end grade (Grade A)\". We recall MOFCOM's finding that \"the price changes of the three\n[grades] are to a certain extent correlated with one another\"\n544, and that there was no discussion,\nin MOFCOM's Final Determination, of the basis on which MOFCOM made that finding. We also note\nthe Panel's finding that there was \"no evidence\" on the record that there had been \"any\nconsideration\" by MOFCOM of whether higher-gra de imported products can substitute for the\nlower-grade domestic products.\n545 In the absence of any analysis and explanation by MOFCOM\nregarding substitutability of the different grades of HP-SSST, we see no error in the Panel's finding\nthat China's argument regarding \"'obvious' substitutability\" constituted an \" ex post rationalization\"\nprovided by China in the Panel proceedings, \"r ather than an element of MOFCOM's analysis\". 546\nInstead, we are of the view that the Panel pr operly focused on the language and reasoning\ncontained in MOFCOM's Final Determination regarding price correlation between the different\ngrades of dumped products, rather than on ex planations provided by China during the Panel\nproceedings.\n5.260. China further argues that the Panel dismissed China's reference to substitutability on the\nbasis that MOFCOM did not analyse the extent of actual substitution.547 While acknowledging that\nthe Panel's focus on actual substitution would be correct if it were analysing the consistency of a\nfinding of causation based on volume effects, China emphasizes that MOFCOM's causation analysis\n\n541 China's appellant's submission, para. 229; other appellant's submission, para. 136.\n542 China's appellant's submission, para. 229; other appellant's submission, para. 136. (fns omitted)\n543 China's appellant's submission, paras. 234-235; other appellant's submission, paras. 140-141.\n544 MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and EU-30), internal p. 48.\n545 Panel Reports, para. 7.184.\n546 Panel Reports, para. 7.184.\n547 China's appellant's submission, para. 232; other appellant's submission, para. 139.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nwas based on price effects.548 China submits that, as an investigating authority has discretion as to\nhow it carries out its causation analysis, there was no need for MOFCOM to carry out any\nadditional analysis regarding the actual degree of substitution.\n549\n5.261. The complainants submit that, notwithsta nding whether \"actual or logical evidence of\nsubstitutability or price correlation\" may exist, the Panel correctly found that there was\n\"[no] consideration by MOFCOM of how this unspeci fied degree of substitutability, and resultant\nprice correlation, might enable Grade B and C subject imports to cause injury to the domestic\nindustry's Grade A operations.\"550 The complainants also note that, for dumped imports to have an\n\"effect\" on domestic prices, such imports must be \"in fact\", or \"actually\", substitutable for the\ndomestic like products.\n551\n5.262. The Appellate Body has explained that \"[ a]n examination of the competitive relationship\nbetween products is … required so as to determine whether such products form part of the same\nmarket.\"552 It also noted that a set of products are in the same market when they \"are in actual or\npotential competition with each other\" 553, that \"a market comprises only those products that\nexercise competitive constraint on each other\", and that products would be in the same market\n\"when the relevant products are substitutable\". 554 While the Appellate Body made these\nstatements in the context of examining claims brought under the Agreement on Subsidies and\nCountervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), we read them as supporting the proposition that an\nanalysis of \"substitutability\" or \"price correlation \" may well be required in cases, such as here,\ninvolving a dumped product and a like domestic product consisting of a range of different product\ntypes that are distinguished by considerable price differences. We note, in particular, that, in order\nto make a finding of present material injury under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the\ninvestigating authority must demonstrate that the dumped imports (consisting of Grades B and C)\nhave the \"effect\" of causing material injury to the domestic industry (producing mainly Grade A).\nWe do not see how such a finding could be made if the relevant imports are not substitutable for\nthe domestic like products. Moreover, as note d above, we do not see how MOFCOM, under the\nspecific facts of this case, could provide a \"meaningful basis\" for an analysis of whether the\ndumped imports are causing injury, without consid ering the degree of impact that movements of\nprices of imported Grades B and C might have on the price of domestic Grade A.\n5.263. With regard to substitutability of different product types, we note the Appellate Body's\nexplanation that \"whether two products compete in the same market is not determined simply by\nassessing whether they share particular physical characteristics or have the same general uses\";\nand that \"it may also be relevant to consider whether customers demand a range of products or\nwhether they are interested in only a particular product type.\"\n555 We consider these findings to be\npertinent to the present disputes, where Japan argued before the Panel, and China did not dispute,\nthat \"Grade B is about double the price of Grade A, and Grade C is about triple the price of\nGrade A.\"\n556 We also note the physical differences in the dumped products, including, for example,\nthat the higher-grade products B and C are capable of enduring the greater pressures and\ntemperatures produced in ultra-supercritical boilers, and that the lower-grade product A is used in\nlower pressure and temperature environments in supercritical boilers.\n557 Given the considerable\nprice and physical differences between the different product grades at issue, MOFCOM should, at\nthe very least, have assessed the existence and the extent of substitutability of lower- and\nhigher-end HP-SSST in order to show that \"alleged substitutability demonstrates price correlation\"\nbetween each product type. As noted by the Pane l, there was no \"consideration by MOFCOM of\nhow [the] unspecified degree of substitutability, an d the resultant price correlation, might enable\nGrade B and C subject imports to cause injury of the domestic industry's Grade A operations.\"\n558\n\n548 China's appellant's submission, para. 236; other appellant's submission, para. 142.\n549 China's appellant's submission, para. 237; other appellant's submission, para. 143.\n550 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 35; European Union's appellee's submission, para. 253 (quoting\nPanel Reports, para. 7.184). (emphasis added by Japan and the European Union)\n551 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 36; European Union's appellee's submission, para. 255.\n552 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1119.\n553 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1119.\n554 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1120.\n555 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, para. 1120.\n557 See Japan's oral statement at the second Panel meeting, para. 35.\n558 Panel Report, para. 7.184.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.264. Additionally, China argues that there was evidence on the record of actual substitution,\nand asserts that the Panel acted contrary to Article 11 of the DSU by disregarding this evidence\nsimply because it was not referred to in the Final Determination.\n559 China points, in particular, to\nthe following statements made by the investigated Japanese exporters:\nDue to significant differences in their mechanical and chemical properties, steel tubes\nused in ultra-supercritical power plant boilers ([Grade B] and [Grade C]) significantly\noutperform steel tubes used in supercritical power plant boilers ([Grade A]) in the\naspects of steam resistance oxidation thickness and fly ash corrosion resistance.\nConsequently, their usages are different. [Gra de B] and [Grade C] products are used\nin the superheaters and reheaters of ultra-supercritical power plant boilers (as well as\nin the superheaters and reheaters of supercritical power plant boilers), while [Grade A]\nproducts can only be used in the superheaters and reheaters of supercritical power\nplant boilers.\n560\n5.265. China also notes that it referred the Panel to SMI's Injury Questionnaire Response 561,\nwhere SMI states that \"the boiler manufacturers in China primarily use … steel products other than\n[Grades B and C] to produce the super-heater and re-heater of the supercritical power plant\nboiler\".\n562 The passages to which China refers do not establish that MOFCOM actually explained\nand analysed whether imported Grades B and C are substitutable for domestic Grade A HP-SSST,\nand the extent of such substitutability. It was not for the Panel to provide such an explanation, nor\nto \"infer\" the existence of one, contrary to what China seems to suggest.\n5.266. Furthermore, China submits that the Pane l erred in suggesting that MOFCOM was required\nto assess the extent of the effect of the dumped imports in order to find a causal link, including\nwhether such effect would be \"sufficiently pronounced to cause prices for domestic Grade A to fall\nby the amounts that they did\".\n563 Referring to the Appellate Body's findings in US – Hot-Rolled\nSteel, China argues that \"[a]n investigating authority's 'explanation of the nature and extent of the\ninjurious effects of the other factors, as distinguished from the injurious effects of the dumped\nimports' should be provided in the non-attribution analysis, not in the first part of the causation\ndetermination.\"\n564\n5.267. We note that China raised a similar argument regarding MOFCOM's treatment of declining\nimport volumes, which we have addressed at paragraphs 5.248-5.249 above. With respect to\nChina's argument as it relates to price correlation , we do not understand the Panel to have\nsuggested that MOFCOM was required to assess th e nature and extent of dumped imports, as\nopposed to other known factors, when it noted that MOFCOM had provided no assessment of the\ndegree of impact that movements in the prices of imported Grades B and C might have on the\nprice of domestic Grade A, including whether it would be \"minimal, or sufficiently pronounced to\ncause prices for domestic Grade A to fall by the amounts they did\".\n565\n\n559 China's appellant's submission, paras. 238-239; other appellant's submission, paras. 144-145.\n560 China's appellant's submission, para. 238; other appellant's submission, para. 144 (quoting Request\nfor Considering Public Interest in the Anti-Dumping Investigation on Certain High-Performance Stainless Steel\nSeamless Tubes by Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. & Kobe Special Tube Co., Ltd., February 2012 (Panel\nExhibit JPN-25-EN), internal p. 4; as referred to in China's responses to Panel questions after the second Panel\nmeeting, para. 16). (emphasis added by China)\n561 SMI's Injury Questionnaire Response (question 8) (Panel Exhibits CHN-20-CH (BCI) and CHN-20-EN\n(BCI)).\n562 China's appellant's submission, para. 239; other appellant's submission, para. 145 (quoting SMI's\nInjury Questionnaire Response (Panel Exhibit CHN-20-EN (BCI)), p. 10 (emphasis added by China); and\nreferring to China's second written submission to the Panel, paras. 149-150; and responses to Panel questions\nfollowing the second Panel meeting, para. 18).\n563 China's appellant's submission, para. 242; other appellant's submission, para. 148 (quoting Panel\nReports, para. 7.185).\n564 China's appellant's submission, para. 244; other appellant's submission, para. 150 (quoting\nAppellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 226).\n565 Panel Reports, para. 7.185.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nContrary price movements\n5.268. The Panel found that \"MOFCOM failed to account for record evidence that trends in\ndomestic prices by grade had no apparent relationship in terms of magnitude or direction with\ntrends in import prices.\"\n566 The Panel stated that this was particularly apparent in respect of\ndomestic Grade C, \"the price of which increased by 112.80% from 2009-2010, without any\ncorresponding movement in prices for subject imports of Grades B and C, which actually fell over\nthat period.\"\n567 The Panel also noted that the price of domestic Grade A \"increased by 9.35% from\n2010 to [the first half of] 2011, whereas the price of imported Grade B fell by 10.63% during that\nperiod\".568 The Panel expressed concern, noting that \"[a]n objective and impartial investigating\nauthority would not have found price correlation without at least addressing, and explaining, such\ncontrary price movements.\"\n569\n5.269. China takes issue with the Panel's finding, arguing that the Panel erred in its interpretation\nand application of Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and acted contrary to\nArticle 11 of the DSU \"by finding that MOFCOM should have addressed contrary price movement to\nbe able to find price correlation that it could rely on to assess the impact of imports of Grades B\nand C on the price of domestic Grade A sales\".570\n5.270. In particular, China asserts that the Panel erred \"in law\" in finding that the contrary price\nmovements \"precluded\" MOFCOM from finding price correlation. 571 China further asserts that the\nfact that price movements may not be in line does not detract from the conclusion that they were\ninfluenced by one another.\n572 Furthermore, China contends that the Panel ignored the nature of\nMOFCOM's finding of price correlation, which related to the effect of the prices of Grades B and C\non the prices of domestic Grade A and was ex pressly linked to MOFCOM's assessment of the\nimpact on the domestic industry by imports of each individual grade.573\n5.271. We have examined China's arguments regarding the Panel's assessment of MOFCOM's\nfinding of price correlation above. There, we disa greed with China to the extent it suggests that\nMOFCOM could simply assume price correlation be tween different grades of HP-SSST on the basis\nof assertions made by domestic applicants, and without any further discussion by MOFCOM that\nwould be reflected in its Final Determination of whether such substitutability of lower- and\nhigher-end HP-SSST actually exists. Moreover, cont rary to what China suggests, the Panel did not\nfind that MOFCOM was precluded from findin g price correlation given the contrary price\nmovements. Instead, the Panel found that \"MOFCO M failed to account for record evidence that\ntrends in domestic prices by grade had no apparent relationship in terms of magnitude or direction\nwith trends in import prices.\" 574 We therefore do not agree with China to the extent it argues that\nthe Panel erred in its examination of this aspect of MOFCOM's analysis. Rather, as we see it, the\ncontrary price movements that MOFCOM had determined to exist between import and domestic\nprices of HP-SSST would have called for some explanation as to why MOFCOM nonetheless\nconsidered that the prices of the three types of HP-SSST \"to a certain extent correlated\".\nThe possibility that Grade B and Grade C dump ed imports declined in response to the\ndecline in domestic Grade A prices\n5.272. The Panel found that, in addition to not making a finding that the prices of imported\nGrades B and C had pushed down the prices of domestic Grade A, MOFCOM \"never considered,\nand certainly failed to exclude, the equally logical possibility\" that the opposite might be true,\nnamely that \"Grade B and C subject import prices declined in response to the decline in domestic\n\n566 Panel Reports, para. 7.186 (referring to China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 155).\n567 Panel Reports, para. 7.186.\n568 Panel Reports, para. 7.186.\n569 Panel Reports, para. 7.186.\n570 China's appellant's submission, para. 252; other appellant's submission, para. 158.\n571 China's appellant's submission, para. 249; other appellant's submission, para. 155.\n572 China's appellant's submission, para. 249; other appellant's submission, para. 155.\n573 China's appellant's submission, paras. 250-251; other appellant's submission, paras. 156-157.\n574 Panel Reports, para. 7.186 (referring to China's second written submission to the Panel, para. 155).\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nGrade A prices in 2009 and 2010, in order to main tain the price differential between the various\ngrades.\"575\n5.273. According to China, this reasoning by th e Panel distorts MOFCOM's finding and disregards\nthe wording of MOFCOM's Final Determination, contrary to Article 11 of the DSU. While\nacknowledging that MOFCOM's reasoning might be brief, China argues that this does not imply\nthat MOFCOM did not \"explore this issue meaningfully\". 576 Taking into account that: (i) MOFCOM\nfound price correlation on the basis of the applicants' arguments; (ii) \"as a matter of logic\", the\nlow-end Grade A cannot substitute Grades B and C; and (iii) MOFCOM found price correlation in\nthe sense that imported Grades B and C could have an impact on the price of domestic Grade A,\nChina submits that it fails to see how an objective assessment of the facts could lead to a\nconclusion that MOFCOM did not find that the price correlation concerned the impact of the prices\nof imported Grades B and C on domestic Grade A prices.\n577\n5.274. We agree with China that, \"as a matter of logic\", it would appear that lower-grade\ndomestic products cannot substitute for higher-grade imported products, while the opposite could\nbe true. Moreover, we note that, having found price undercutting for Grades B and C, MOFCOM\nexamined the impact of dumped imports on China's domestic industry, which produces mainly\nGrade A. Contrary to what China seems to sugge st, this does not mean, however, that MOFCOM\n\"meaningfully\" evaluated and explained whether, as argued by the petitioners, the prices of\nimported Grades B and C had pushed down the pr ices of domestic Grade A. We understand the\nPanel to have merely observed that, by not evalua ting this issue, MOFCOM failed to exclude the\npossibility that imported Grade B and C prices declined in response to declines in domestic Grade A\nprices in 2009 and 2010.\n578 We see no error in this statement by the Panel, and do not consider\nthat the Panel distorted MOFCOM's findings in making this statement.\n5.275. China argues that, \"to the extent that the Appellate Body considers that the Panel found\nthat MOFCOM did not examine the fact that the sales and market share of Grade A increased as\nset out above, the Panel acted cont rary to Article 11 of the DSU.\" 579 In the alternative, China\nsubmits that, \"to the extent that the Appellate Bo dy considers that the Panel found that MOFCOM\nwas obliged to examine the fact that the sales and market share of Grade A increased in more\ndetail than MOFCOM did, the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Articles 3.1\nand 3.5.\"\n580 In addition, with respect to MOFCOM's a ssessment of \"the decline in the absolute\nvolume of those imports and the declining market share of Grade C imports and the fluctuating\nmarket share of Grade B imports\", China argues that the Panel erred to the extent that it\nconsidered that MOFCOM did not take these factors into account.581\n5.276. Contrary to what China seems to suggest, the Panel did not find that MOFCOM \"failed to\ntake into account\", or failed to examine \"in sufficient detail\", the increase in sales and market\nshare of domestic Grade A, the negligible market share of dumped imports of Grade A, the decline\nin the absolute volume of those imports, the declining market share of Grade C imports, and the\nfluctuating market share of Grade B imports. Instea d, the Panel considered that, in the absence of\nany examination or analysis provided by MOFCOM in its Final Determination, it remained \"unclear\nhow the market shares of imports of Grade B and C HP-SSST are relevant in assessing whether\nsubject imports caused injury to a domestic industry producing primarily Grade A HP-SSST.\"\n582 We\nsee no error in the Panel's finding in this regard.\n\n575 Panel Reports, para. 7.187 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 66).\n576 China's appellant's submission, para. 257; other appellant's submission, para. 163.\n577 China's appellant's submission, paras. 254-256; other appellant's submission, paras. 160-162.\n578 Panel Reports, para. 7.187 (referring to MOFCOM's Final Determination (Panel Exhibits JPN-2-EN and\nEU-30), internal p. 66).\n579 China's appellant's submission, para. 260; other appellant's submission, para. 166.\n580 China's appellant's submission, para. 261; other appellant's submission, para. 167.\n581 See China's appellant's submission, paras. 262-263; and other appellant's submission,\nparas. 168-169.\n582 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.3.1.4.4 Conclusion\n5.277. For all these reasons, we uphold the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.188 and 7.205 of the\nPanel Reports, paragraph 8.1.a.iii of the Japa n Panel Report, and paragraph 8.6.d.iii of the\nEU Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement because MOFCOM improperly relied on the market share of dumped imports, and its\nflawed price effects and impact analyses, in de termining a causal link between dumped imports\nand material injury to the domestic industry, an d made no finding of cross-grade price effects\nwhereby price undercutting by Grade B and C imports might be shown to affect the price of\ndomestic Grade A HP-SSST.\n5.5.3.1.5 MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis\n5.5.3.1.5.1 The Panel's findings\n5.278. Before the Panel, Japan and the European Union argued that MOFCOM failed properly to\nensure that injury caused by two known \"other factors\" – namely: (i) the decline in apparent\nconsumption; and (ii) the increase in domestic production capacity – was not attributed to the\ndumped imports. The complainants submitted that MOFCOM conducted its non-attribution analysis\nregarding these two factors with respect to al l grades of HP-SSST taken together, without\nconsidering any possibility that these other factors may have influenced different segments of the\nmarket differently, despite record evidence before MOFCOM demonstrating that imported and\ndomestic HP-SSST were concentrated in differe nt segments of the market, and despite the\nabsence of any cross-grade price effects of dumped imports of Grades B and C on the prices of\ndomestic Grade A. The complainants also contended that MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis would\nnecessarily be flawed if its initial determination of the causal link between dumped imports and\nmaterial injury to the domestic industry itself were flawed.\n5.279. The Panel observed that MOFCOM sought to comply with the non-attribution requirement\ncontained in Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by considering whether certain other\nfactors broke the causal link between dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry\nit had found, stating that such methodology provides an appropriate basis for ensuring non-\nattribution.\n583 Referring to previous jurisprudence by th e Appellate Body, the Panel observed that,\n\"before it becomes relevant or necessary for an investigating authority to separate and distinguish\nthe injury caused by other factors from the injury caused by subject imports, the investigating\nauthority must first properly establish that the dumped imports have caused material injury, and\nthe 'nature and extent' of the injury caused by su bject imports and the injury caused by the other\nfactor(s).\"\n584 Recalling its prior conclusion that MOFCOM had failed properly to establish the causal\nlink between dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry, the Panel held that\n\"MOFCOM could not have meaningfully assessed whether or not injury caused by other factors was\nsufficient to break that wrongly-determined causal link.\" 585 The Panel therefore considered that it\nwas not necessary to address every aspect of the parties' non-attribution arguments in detail.586\n5.280. In the light of the above, the Panel conc luded that MOFCOM's examination of the injury\ncaused by the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase in domestic production capacity\nwas \"flawed and not objective\".\n587 Consequently, the Panel held that MOFCOM's non-attribution\nanalysis of these factors was insufficient, and that its determination was thus inconsistent with\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.588\n5.5.3.1.5.2 Arguments on appeal\n5.281. China argues on appeal that the Panel's findings relating to MOFCOM's non-attribution\nanalysis relied entirely on MOFCOM's alleged failure to determine properly the causal link between\ndumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry.\n589 Referring to its contention that\n\n583 Panel Reports, para. 7.200.\n584 Panel Reports, para. 7.201 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 226).\n585 Panel Reports, para. 7.201.\n586 Panel Reports, para. 7.202.\n587 Panel Reports, para. 7.204.\n588 Panel Reports, para. 7.204.\n589 China's appellant's submission, paras. 268-269; other appellant's submission, paras. 174-175.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nthe Panel's findings in relation to MOFCOM's determination of the causal link (including those made\nin respect of MOFCOM's finding of price correlation) should be reversed, China contends that the\nPanel's finding that MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement should, as a consequence, also be reversed.\n590\n5.282. Japan and the European Union disagree with China that the Panel's non-attribution findings\nin paragraphs 7.200-7.204 of the Panel Reports are \"entirely based\" on the Panel's findings\nregarding MOFCOM's determination of causation.\n591 Referring to paragraphs 7.202-7.203 of the\nPanel Reports, the complainants submit that the Panel independently addressed certain additional\naspects of their non-attribution arguments, and that China presented no argument as to why these\nadditional reasons do not support the Panel's conclusion that MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis is\ninconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n592 On this basis, the\ncomplainants contend that, even if the Appellate Body were to reverse the Panel's causation\nfindings based on China's arguments in these appeals, it would have no basis to reverse the\nPanel's finding that MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.5,\ndue to the additional reasons provided by the Panel at paragraphs 7.202-7.203 of the Panel\nReports.\n593\n5.5.3.1.5.3 Analysis\n5.283. Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides that an investigating authority must,\nin its analysis, \"examine any known factors other than the dumped imports which at the same\ntime are injuring the domestic industry\" and must ensure that \"the injuries caused by these other\nfactors [are not] attributed to the dumped imports.\"\n594 Article 3.5 therefore requires an\nassessment that involves \"separating and distinguishing the injurious effects of the other factors\nfrom the injurious effects of the dumped imports\".595 Further, if the injurious effects of the dumped\nimports are not appropriately separated and distin guished from the injurious effects of the other\nfactors, \"the authorities will be unable to conclude that the injury they ascribe to dumped imports\nis actually caused by those imports, rather than by the other factors\" and they \"would have no\nrational basis to conclude that the dumped imports are indeed causing the injury\".596\n5.284. We have upheld the Panel's findings that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1\nand 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MO FCOM improperly relied on the market share\nof dumped imports, and its flawed price effects and impact analyses, in determining a causal link\nbetween dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry. As we understand it,\nChina's claims on appeal concerning the Panel's non-attribution analysis are purely consequential\nin the sense that they rely on China's argument s made in the context of challenging the Panel's\nfinding regarding MOFCOM's causation determination. We have rejected those arguments above,\nand therefore we also reject China's appeal insofar as it relates to the Panel's findings regarding\nMOFCOM's non-attribution analysis.\n5.285. In any event, we do not agree with China that the Panel's findings concerning MOFCOM's\nnon-attribution analysis relied entirely on MOFCOM's alleged failure to determine properly the\ncausal link between dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry. Instead, the\nPanel also found that \"MOFCOM's analyses of the injurious effects of both the decline in apparent\nconsumption and the increase in domestic production capacity failed to address the fact that\nsubject imports were comprised almost exclusively of Grades B and C, while the domestic\nindustry's operations were focused on Grade A\" and that \"[t]hose analyses also failed to account\n\n590 China's appellant's submission, para. 270; other appellant's submission, para. 176.\n591 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 44 (quoting China's other appellant's submission, para. 175);\nEuropean Union's appellee's submission, para. 263 (quoting China's appellant's submission, para. 269).\n592 Japan's appellee's submission, paras. 44-46; European Union's appellee's submission,\nparas. 263-265.\n593 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 46; European Union's appellee's submission, para. 265.\n594 See Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 151. Pursuant to the fourth sentence of Article 3.5,\nthese other factors include the volume and prices of imports not sold at dumped or subsidized prices;\ncontraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption; trade-restrictive practices of, and\ncompetition between, the foreign and domestic producers; developments in technology; and the export\nperformance and productivity of the domestic industry. (Ibid., fn 241 to para. 151)\n595 Appellate Body Report, China – GOES, para. 151 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US –\nHot-Rolled Steel, para. 223).\n596 Appellate Body Report, US – Hot-Rolled Steel, para. 223.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nfor the fact that MOFCOM had not established that subject imports of Grades B and C had injurious\nprice effects on domestic Grade A.\"597\n5.286. In the light of the foregoing, we uphold the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.204\nand 7.205 of the Panel Reports, paragraph 8.1.a.iv of the Japan Panel Report, and\nparagraph 8.6.d.iv of the EU Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5\nof the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM fail ed to ensure that the injury caused by the\ndecrease in apparent consumption and the increase in domestic production capacity was not\nattributed to the dumped imports.\n5.5.3.1.6 Additional \"independent\" clai ms under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement\n5.287. We now turn to the question of whether Japan and the European Union advanced\nindependent claims under Article 3.5 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement, concerning MOFCOM's\nreliance on its Article 3.2 price effects and Article 3.4 impact analyses, or whether such claims\nwere merely consequential, as found by the Pane l. Having set out the Panel's findings and the\nparties' arguments before the Panel, we provide a summary of the claims and arguments on\nappeal, followed by an analysis of the complainants' claims on appeal.\n5.5.3.1.6.1 The Panel's findings\n5.288. The Panel summarized what it referred to as the complainants \"consequential claims\"\nunder Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as follows:\nThe complainants have made consequential Article 3.5 claims based on alleged\ninconsistencies in MOFCOM's Article 3.2 price effects and Article 3.4 impact analyses.\nThe complainants recall their claims that MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses\nare respectively inconsistent with Articles 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\nThey submit that, as a consequence, MOFCOM's reliance on those price effects and\nimpact analyses to determine causation is inconsistent with Article 3.5 of the Anti-\nDumping Agreement.\n598\n5.289. Having recalled its prior findings that certain aspects of MOFCOM's price effects analysis\nare inconsistent with Article 3.2, and that one aspect of its impact analysis is inconsistent with\nArticle 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Panel found that MOFCOM's subsequent reliance\non the WTO-inconsistent aspects of its price effects and impact analyses in determining that\ndumped imports caused material injury to the domestic industry undermined MOFCOM's causation\nanalysis, and rendered MOFCOM's causation determination inconsistent with Article 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement.\n599\n5.290. The Panel emphasized, however, that it \"had not upheld all aspects\" of the complainants'\nclaims under Articles 3.2 and 3.4, and that those aspects of the complainants' claims under\nArticles 3.2 and 3.4 that it had rejected \"[could not] form the basis for any consequential\nArticle 3.5 claims\".\n600 While the Panel was of the view that many of the issues raised by the\ncomplainants in the context of their Article 3.2 and Article 3.4 claims could have formed \"the basis\nfor independent claims\" under Article 3.5, it considered that the complainants had neither\nidentified any relevant independent Article 3.5 claims in their written submissions, nor identified\narguments explaining how alleged flaws in MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses resulted in\nindependent violations of Article 3.5 as distinct from violations of Article 3.2 or 3.4.\n601 Accordingly,\nthe Panel found that the complainants \"ha[d] not advanced any independent Article 3.5 claims,\nother than those concerning MOFCOM's reliance on market shares, and MOFCOM's non-attribution\nanalysis, concerning MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses.\"\n602\n\n597 Panel Reports, para. 7.202.\n599 Panel Reports, para. 7.191.\n600 Panel Reports, para. 7.192.\n601 Panel Reports, para. 7.192.\n602 Panel Reports, para. 7.192.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n5.5.3.1.6.2 Arguments on appeal\n5.291. On appeal, Japan and the European Union take issue with the Panel's findings in\nparagraph 7.192 of the Panel Reports, submitting that the Panel failed to make an objective\nassessment of the matter before it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU, by failing to examine the\ncomplainants' claims of independent violations of Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement arising from MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses.\n603 The complainants further\nrequest us to complete the legal analysis and evaluate on the basis of the Panel's factual findings\nand undisputed facts on the record whether independent violations of Articles 3.1 and 3.5 arise in\nthose instances where the complainants' claims under Articles 3.2 and 3.4 were rejected by the\nPanel or the Appellate Body.\n604 M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , J a p a n r e q u e s t s u s t o f i n d t h a t C h i n a v i o l a t e d\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because: (i) MOFCOM improperly found that\nimports of Grade C had explanatory force for price undercutting effects on domestic Grade C; (ii)\nMOFCOM improperly extended its findings of price undercutting in respect of Grades B and C to the\ndomestic like product as a whole; (iii) MOFCOM improperly found the domestic industry as a whole\nto be impacted by dumped imports despite finding no price effects with respect to Grade A; and\n(iv) MOFCOM failed to examine whether dumped imports had explanatory force for the state of the\ndomestic industry.\n605\n5.292. In response, China submits that the Panel correctly concluded that the complainants did\nnot raise independent claims under Article 3.5 (other than those concerning MOFCOM's reliance on\nmarket shares and MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis). China further argues that the Panel did\nnot fail to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, as required by Article 11 of the\nDSU, and requests us to reject the complainants' appeals.\n606\n5.5.3.1.6.3 Analysis\n5.293. In order to determine whether the Panel erred in finding that \"the complainants have not\nadvanced any independent claims under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, other than\nthose concerning MOFCOM's reliance on market shares, and MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis,\nconcerning MOFCOM's price effects and impact an alyses\", we begin by reviewing the language\nfound in the complainants' panel requests.\n607\n5.294. As noted above, after claiming the inconsistency of China's price effects and impact\nanalyses under, respectively, Articles 3.1 and 3. 2 and Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, Japan stated in paragraph 1(c) of its panel request that:\nChina's demonstration of the alleged causal relationship between the imports under\ninvestigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry was not based on an\nobjective examination of all relevant evidence before the authorities. In particular,\nChina determined that the allegedly dumped imports are causing injury despite an\nabsence of a significant increase in the vo lume of dumped imports, and based on its\nflawed price effects and impact analyses. Accordingly, China acted inconsistently with\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n5.295. In paragraph 5 of its panel request, after claiming the inconsistency of China's price effects\nand impact analyses under, respectively, Articles 3.1 and 3.2 and Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, the European Union specified its relevant claims under Articles 3.1\nand 3.5 as follows:\n\n603 Japan's appellant's submission, paras. 82 and 84; European Union's other appellant's submission,\nparas. 165 and 167.\n604 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 104; European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 178.\n605 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 104 (referring to Japan's comments on the Interim Reports,\npara. 61).\n606 China's appellee's submission, para. 318.\n607 Panel Reports, para. 7.192.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to conduct\nan objective examination, based on positive evidence, of the causal relationship\nbetween the imports under investigation and the alleged injury to the domestic\nindustry. China determined that the allegedly dumped imports are causing injury\ndespite an absence of a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports, based\non improper price effects analyses and based on flawed impact analyses, including\nimproper evaluation of or failure to consider relevant economic factors and indices\nhaving a bearing on the state of the domestic industry.\n5.296. In the light of this language in the complainants' panel requests, we understand the\ncomplainants to have sought to challenge MOFCOM's causation analysis on several grounds,\nincluding on the basis of alleged flaws in MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses. While the\ncomplainants raised many of the same arguments in support of their claims under Article 3.5 as\nthey did in support of their claims under Arti cles 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\n608,\nwe see no error in the Panel's finding that the complainants had not claimed, before the Panel,\nthat MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses, taken alone, resulted in independent violations\nof Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. We therefore uphold the Panel's finding, in\nparagraph 7.192 of the Panel Reports, that the complainants had not advanced independent\nArticle 3.5 claims – other than those concerning MOFCOM's reliance on market shares and\nMOFCOM's non-attribution analysis – concerning MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses.\n5.297. Having said that, we understand the key contention underlying the complainants' overall\nclaims under Article 3.5 to relate to MOFCOM's failure to conduct a cross-grade price analysis . In\nparticular, we understand the complainants to have claimed that MOFCOM did not address or\nexplain how the volume and price effects of imports of Grade B and Grade C HP-SSST were\nrelevant in assessing whether such imports (of Grades B and C) caused material injury to the\ndomestic industry producing primarily Grade A HP-SSST. The complainants raised the same overall\nconcern in the context of their claims under Arti cles 3.2 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,\narguing, inter alia, that: (i) MOFCOM improperly extended its findings of price undercutting in\nrespect of Grades B and C to the domestic like product as a whole; (ii) MOFCOM improperly found\nthe domestic industry as a whole to be impacted by dumped imports despite its finding that there\nwas no price undercutting with respect to Grade A; and (iii) MOFCOM failed properly to examine\nwhether the dumped imports (consisting primarily of Grades B and C) had explanatory force for\nthe state of the domestic industry (producing primarily Grade A HP-SSST).\n609 While the Panel did\nnot find that the concerns expressed by the complainants were the subject of \"independent claims\"\nunder Article 3.5, the Panel observed in the context of its Article 3.5 analysis, inter alia , that\n\"MOFCOM made no finding of cross-grade price effects, whereby price undercutting by subject\nimports of Grades B and C might be shown to affect the price of domestic sales of Grade A\"\n610, and\nfound that the flaws in MOFCOM's analysis of the market share of dumped imports rendered its\ncausation determination inconsistent with Articl es 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 611\nWe have agreed with the Panel's reasoning in this regard.\n5.5.3.2 Conclusions\n5.298. In sum, we find that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 6.2 of the DSU by\naddressing Japan's claims under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding \"MOFCOM's\nreliance on the market share of subject imports\" , in paragraphs 7.180-7.188 of the Japan Panel\nReport. We also find that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by ruling\non a matter that was not before it, or making the case for the complainants. We uphold the Panel's\nfindings, in paragraphs 7.188 and 7.205 of the Panel Reports, paragraph 8.1.a.iii of the Japan\nPanel Report, and paragraph 8.6.d.iii of the EU Pa nel Report, that China acted inconsistently with\nArticles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent because MOFCOM improperly relied on the\nmarket share of the dumped imports, and its flawed price effects and impact analyses, in\ndetermining a causal link between dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry,\nand made no finding of cross-grade price effects whereby price undercutting by Grade B and C\n\n608 See Japan's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 186-209; and European Union's first written\nsubmission to the Panel, paras. 277-299. See also Japan's second written submission to the Panel, para. 56;\nand European Union's second written submission to the Panel, para. 176.\n609 Japan's comments on the Interim Reports, para. 61.\n610 Panel Reports, para. 7.182.\n611 Panel Reports, paras. 7.188 and 7.205.\nWT/DS454/AB/R • WT/DS460/AB/R\n\nimports might be shown to affect the price of domestic Grade A HP-SSST. We also uphold the\nPanel's findings, in paragraphs 7.204 and 7.205 of the Panel Reports, paragraph 8.1.a.iv of the\nJapan Panel Report, and paragraph 8.6.d.iv of the EU Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently\nwith Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM failed properly to\nensure that the injury caused by the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase in\ndomestic production capacity was not attributed to the dumped imports. Finally, we find that the\nPanel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in concluding, in paragraph 7.192 of the\nPanel Reports, that the complainants had not advanced independent Article 3.5 claims – other\nthan those concerning MOFCOM's reliance on market shares and MOFCOM's non-attribution\nanalysis – concerning MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses.\n\n5.6 Additional working procedures concerning BCI\n5.299. We now turn to address the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in its\ninterpretation and application of Articles 17.7 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and\nArticle 18.2 of the DSU, when ruling on certain preliminary issues raised by the European Union\nregarding the additional working procedures adopte d by the Panel to protect business confidential\ninformation (BCI).\n612 We start by setting out the relevant findings by the Panel and the context in\nwhich the Panel made these findings.\n5.6.1 The Panel's findings\n5.300. Following consultations with the parties, on 27 September 2013, the Panel adopted\nadditional working procedures concerning BCI (BCI Procedures). 613 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the\nBCI Procedures originally provided:\n(1) These procedures apply to any business confidential information (BCI) that a party\nwishes to submit to the Panels. For the purposes of these procedures, BCI is defined\nas any information that has been designated as such by the Party submitting the\ninformation, that is not available in the public domain, and the release of which could\nseriously prejudice an essential interest of the person or entity that supplied the\ninformation to the Party. In this regard, BCI shall include information that was\npreviously submitted to China's Ministry o f C o m m e r c e ( \" M O F C O M \" ) a s B C I i n t h e\nanti-dumping investigation at issue in these disputes . However, these procedures do\nnot apply to information that is available in the public domain. In addition, these\nprocedures do not apply to any BCI if the person who provided the information in the\ncourse of the aforementioned investigation agrees in writing to make the information\npublicly available.\n(2) The first time that a party submits to the Panels BCI as defined above from an\nentity that submitted that information in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in\nthese disputes, the party shall also provide, with a copy to the other parties, an\nauthorizing letter from the entity . That letter shall authorize China, the\nEuropean Union and Japan to submit in these disputes, in accordance with these\nprocedures, any confidential information submitted by that entity in the course of the\ninvestigation at issue.\n614\n5.301. The European Union objected to two aspects of the BCI Procedures adopted by the\nPanel.615 First, the European Union took issue with the language in paragraph 1, quoted above,\naccording to which BCI, in the WTO panel proceedings, \"shall include information that was\npreviously submitted to … MOFCOM[] as BCI in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in these\ndisputes.\"\n616 The European Union argued that the effect of this language was to delegate, in\nabsolute terms, to non-WTO entities or persons (i.e. the parties involved in a domestic anti-\ndumping investigation) the issue of whether or not certain information should be granted\nadditional protection in the context of WTO dispute settlement.\n617 Disagreeing with this\nproposition, the European Union claimed that it is for WTO Members to request, or not, additional\nprotection for information that they submit in the context of WTO panel proceedings, and for WTO\npanels to rule on such requests. The European Union observed, in this regard, that a WTO Member\nmay indicate to a panel, for example, that certain information that was previously treated as\nconfidential by an investigating authority is no longer sensitive, or, conversely, that information\nsubmitted by another WTO Member to a panel should be designated as confidential.\n618\n\n612 Panel Reports, para. 1.10. No request for BCI procedures was made in these appellate proceedings.\n613 Panel Reports, para. 1.10.\n615 Japan did not challenge separately the BCI Procedures adopted by the Panel. However, in response\nto the Panel's questioning, Japan indicated that it generally agreed with the European Union's request to\nmodify paragraphs 1 and 2 of the BCI Procedures. (Panel Reports, para. 7.14; Japan's response to Panel\nquestion No.1)\n617 See Panel Reports, para. 7.12.\n618 European Union's first written submission to the Panel, paras. 56-57.\n\n5.302. The European Union also objected to the language in paragraph 2 of the Panel's\nBCI Procedures, whereby a WTO Member providin g information to the panel that had been\npreviously submitted to the authority in the underlying anti-dumping investigation as confidential\nwas required to obtain and provide to the panel evidence of prior written authorization from the\nentity that had originally submitted that information to the domestic investigating authority. The\nEuropean Union argued that such a requirement wo uld mean that a particular firm, or submitting\nentity involved in a domestic anti-dumping proceeding, could \"simply withhold the authorization\nand effectively limit the information that may be submitted in WTO dispute settlement\".\n619 The\nEuropean Union submitted that Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement makes clear that a\nMember is not required to obtain authorization before providing confidential information to WTO\npanels.\n620\n5.303. China responded that the aspects of the Panel's BCI Procedures challenged by the\nEuropean Union added to, rather than detracted from, the protection provided by the DSU, and\nthat the additional protection provided by th e Panel for information previously submitted to\nMOFCOM as BCI was in consonance with the conf identiality requirements in Article 6.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement. China further submitted that \"an authorizing letter is a necessary\ninstrument to ensure compliance by the investigating authority with its obligations under\nArticle 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\"\n621, and that it is not uncommon to require the\npresentation of such a letter in WTO dispute settlement proceedings concerning trade remedies.\n5.304. The Panel agreed with the European Union that the original wording of the first paragraph\nof the BCI Procedures suggested that BCI designat ion is determined by the entity submitting the\ninformation to MOFCOM. The Panel therefore amended paragraph 1 of the BCI Procedures to read,\nin relevant part, that \"BCI shall include information that was previously treated by … MOFCOM …\nas BCI in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in these disputes.\" 622 However, insofar as the\nEuropean Union had argued that the designation of BCI should not depend on the investigating\nauthority's determination to treat information as confidential in the underlying anti-dumping\nproceedings, the Panel considered that the procedures it had adopted did not detract from the\nability of WTO Members to designate information as confidential under Article 18.2 of the DSU. The\nPanel considered that, even though the designation of confidential information in anti-dumping\nproceedings under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement is distinct from the designation of\nBCI for purposes of DSU proceedings, as contemplated in Article 18.2 of the DSU, these\ndesignations are \"closely related\".\n623 According to the Panel, this relationship finds support in the\ntext of Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 624, which, as a special or additional rule and\nprocedure in Appendix 2 to the DSU, prevails over the DSU to the extent that there is a difference\nbetween these two sets of provisions. 625 The Panel further stated that it understood the term\n\"confidential information\" in Article 17.7 to refer to \"the confidential information previously\nexamined by the investigating authority and treate d as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5\" and\nsubsequently provided to a dispute settlement panel pursuant to Article 17.7.\n626 The Panel\nconsidered, therefore, that \"Article 17.7 envi sages that confidential information on the\ninvestigating authority's record – obtained from a 'person, body or authority' – may be provided to\na panel, and imposes on the panel a non-disclosure obligation similar to that imposed on the\n\n619 Panel Reports, para. 7.13.\n620 Panel Reports, para. 7.13 and fn 33 thereto.\n621 Panel Reports, para. 7.15 (quoting China's response to Panel question No. 3, para. 13).\n622 Panel Reports, para. 7.18. (emphasis added by the Panel) The Panel noted that China did not oppose\nthis amendment. (Ibid., fn 46 to para. 7.18 (referring to China's response to Panel question No.1, paras. 3-5))\n623 Panel Reports, para. 7.20.\n624 Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement provides:\nConfidential information provided to the panel shall not be disclosed without formal authorization\nfrom the person, body or authority providing such information. Where such information is\nrequested from the panel but release of such information by the panel is not authorized, a non-\nconfidential summary of the information, authorized by the person, body or authority providing\nthe information, shall be provided.\n625 Panel Reports, para. 7.21 (referring to Article 1.2 and Appendix 2 to the DSU; and Appellate Body\n626 Panel Reports, para. 7.21.\n\nauthority by the last sentence of Article 6.5.\" 627 Based on this reasoning, the Panel declined to\nmodify further paragraph 1 of the BCI Procedures in the manner proposed by the European Union.\n5.305. With regard to paragraph 2 of the orig inal BCI Procedures, the Panel found that the\nprovision of confidential information to the Panel did not amount to its disclosure to the public, and\nrejected, on this basis, China's argument that WTO Members must provide an authorizing letter\nfrom the entity that submitted the confidenti al information in the underlying anti-dumping\nproceedings before they can \"provide\" such information to a WTO panel in the context of a dispute\nunder the Anti-Dumping Agreement.628 The Panel therefore accepted the European Union's request\nto delete paragraph 2 of the BCI procedures, which set out a requirement for parties to provide an\nauthorizing letter from the entity that submitted confidential information in the underlying\nproceedings, when submitting such informat ion to the Panel. The Panel communicated the\namended BCI Procedures to the parties on 22 May 2014.\n629\n5.6.2 Arguments\n5.306. Although the Panel agreed to make certain amendments to its original BCI Procedures, on\nappeal, the European Union submits that the Panel nonetheless erred in its interpretation and\napplication of Articles 6.5 and 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.\n630 The European Union\nconsiders, in particular, that the Panel delegated, \"in absolute terms\", to MOFCOM the power to\ndecide what information will be granted additi onal protection in the context of WTO dispute\nsettlement proceedings \"without any possibility of review by the Panel\". 631 In doing so, the Panel\neffectively found that designation of information as confidential by an investigating authority in the\ncontext of municipal anti-dumping proceedings pursuant to Article 6.5 is determinative of\ndesignation pursuant to Article 17.7 in the context of WTO panel proceedings.\n632 The\nEuropean Union submits, in this regard, that the principles articulated by the panel and the\nAppellate Body in EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft , according to which the\nquestion of designation is to be settled by the WT O adjudicator, are grounded in the provisions of\nthe DSU and \"do not vary according to the particular covered agreement that is under\nconsideration\".\n633 The European Union also maintains that, contrary to the Panel's suggestion that\nthere may be a difference between Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 18.2 of\nthe DSU such that the special or additional rule in Article 17.7 prevails, the phrase \"person, body\nor authority\" in Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the term \"Member\" in Article 18.2\nof the DSU do not mean that there is a difference or conflict between these provisions. For the\nEuropean Union, \"[t]hese terms are simply consistent with the fact that, pursuant to Article 13.1 of\nthe DSU, a panel has the authority to seek information or technical advice from any individual or\nbody which it deems appropriate.\"\n634 The European Union further contends that the Panel acted\ninconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU insofar as it foreclosed, through the adoption of the BCI\nProcedures, \"the possibility for the Panel to make an objective assessment of a relevant matter,\nwithin the meaning of that provision.\"\n635\n\n627 Panel Reports, para. 7.21. (fn omitted) The Panel further considered that, since a panel's review is\nlimited to the investigating authority's record, in practice, the designation of information under Article 18.2 of\nthe DSU should generally not arise in a case brought under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because this issue is\nalready addressed by Articles 6.5 and 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (Ibid.)\n628 Panel Reports, para. 7.28. See also para. 7.27 (referring to China's response to Panel question No. 4,\nparas. 25-30).\n629 Panel Reports, para. 1.10. The amended Additional Working Procedures of the Panels Concerning\nBusiness Confidential Information can be found in Annex A-2 of the Addendum to the Panel Reports.\n630 In particular, the European Union takes issue with the Panel's statement that \"the phrase\n'confidential information' in Article 17.7 refers to the confidential information previously examined by the\ninvestigating authority and treated as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5 – and which is now provided to a\ndispute settlement panel pursuant to Article 17.7.\" (European Union's Notice of Other Appeal, fn 2 to para. 1)\n631 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 40. See also para. 35 (referring to\nAppellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, Annex III, Procedural Ruling of\n10 August 2010, paras. 7-11 and 13).\n632 European Union's other appellant's submission, paras. 41 and 43.\n633 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 57.\n634 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 55.\n635 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 59. The European Union also submits that it\nsought certain specific rulings on designation from the Panel, which the Panel did not give. (Ibid.)\n\n5.307. The European Union also objects to the Panel's analysis of the requirement set out in\nparagraph 2 of the Panel's original BCI Procedur es regarding the requirement that a WTO Member\nprovide an authorizing letter from the entity that submitted confidential information in the\nunderlying anti-dumping proceedings when su bmitting such information to the panel.\n636 Even\nthough the Panel deleted this requirement from its original BCI Procedures, the European Union\nsubmits that the Panel's reasoning effectively implies that, in order for a WTO Member to\ndesignate information previously found to be confidential within the meaning of Article 6.5 as\nnon-confidential, within the meaning of Article 17.7, a prior written authorizing letter would be\nnecessary.\n637\n5.308. China responds that the term \"confidential information\" under Article 17.7 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement \"refers to information submitted as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement\" 638, and that, regardless of whether or not \"good cause\" is shown\nwithin the meaning of Article 6.5, an investigating authority may not disclose any information\nprovided on a confidential basis by a party to an investigation without its authorization.\n639\nTherefore, in China's view, \"as a matter of WTO law\" and \"regardless of whether or not this is\nconfirmed in a panel's BCI Procedures\", information submitted as confidential to an investigating\nauthority should be designated as confidential before the panel examining the underlying\nanti-dumping proceedings, and should not be di sclosed without \"specific permission or formal\nauthorization\" from the party that submitted such information in the underlying anti-dumping\nproceedings.\n640\n5.309. China further submits that the BCI Procedur es did not preclude the possibility to have a\nreview of the question of designation by a WTO adjudicator on the basis of objective criteria. 641\nChina observes that a WTO adjudicator can review whether it is information that is designated as\nconfidential, rather than arguments, claims, or reasoning, and whether additional protection is\nwarranted for that information. China, however, does not consider that the question of\n\"designation of information as confidential is subject to review by a WTO adjudicator\" 642, in\nparticular, given the absence of a reference to a showing of \"good cause\" in either Article 17.7 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement, or Articles 18.2 an d 13.1 of the DSU. China also argues that the\nbalance between competing interests in the context of designation of information is struck by:\n(i) the ability to designate information as confidential; and (ii) the obligation to provide a\nnon-confidential summary of such information.\n5.6.3 Analysis\n5.310. As a preliminary matter, we note China's argument that it may not be necessary for us to\nexamine the issues raised by the European Un ion on appeal as such examination would not\ncontribute to the prompt and satisf actory settlement of this dispute.\n643 Article 17.12 of the DSU\nstipulates that the Appellate Body shall address each of the issues of law and legal interpretations\nraised during the appellate proceedings. As we see it, the Panel's analysis of the meaning and\nscope of Articles 6.5 and 17.7 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement and Article 18.2 of the DSU are\nclearly issues of law, which, if properly raised on appeal, we are required to address. We consider\nthe Panel's finding that \"the phrase 'confidential information' in Article 17.7 refers to the\nconfidential information previously examined by the investigating authority and treated as\nconfidential pursuant to Article 6.5 – and whic h is now provided to a dispute settlement panel\npursuant to Article 17.7\"\n644 – to be a core element of the Panel's interpretation of Articles 6.5\n\n636 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 61 (referring to Panel Reports, paras. 7.21\nand 7.26-7.29, particularly the finding that \"the phrase 'confidential information' in Article 17.7 refers to the\nconfidential information previously examined by the investigating authority and treated as confidential\npursuant to Article 6.5 – and which is now provided to a dispute settlement panel pursuant to Article 17.7\";\nand the interpretation of the terms \"person, body or authority\").\n637 European Union's other appellant's submission, para. 67 (referring to Panel Reports, fn 50 to\npara. 7.21).\n638 China's appellee's submission, para. 367.\n639 China's appellee's submission, para. 369.\n640 China's appellee's submission, para. 371.\n641 China's appellee's submission, para. 374 (referring to European Union's other appellant's submission,\npara. 42).\n642 China's appellee's submission, para. 374. (emphasis original)\n643 China's appellee's submission, paras. 361-362.\n644 Panel Reports, para. 7.21.\n\nand 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. As such, it is a \"legal interpretation developed by the\nPanel\" in the sense of Article 17.6 of the DSU and, therefore, can be subject to appellate review.\n5.311. Turning to our analysis of the issues raised by the European Union on appeal, we recall the\ngeneral rule in Article 18.2 of the DSU that provides, inter alia, that written submissions to the\nAppellate Body \"shall be treated as confidential\". We further note that, under Article 12.1 of the\nDSU, WTO panels are required to follow the Working Procedures in Appendix 3 to the DSU, unless\nthey decide otherwise \"after consulting the pa rties to the dispute\". Panels may decide that\nadditional procedures are appropriate in a given case and adopt, for example, procedures\nproviding for additional protection of sensitive business information in order to allow a participant\nto present its arguments and evidence without undu e risk of disclosure of such information. In\ndetermining the scope and content of such proced ures, the panel must consider the effect they\nmay have on the exercise by the panel of its adjudicative duties under the DSU and other covered\nagreements, the parties' rights to due process, th e rights of the third parties, and the rights and\nsystemic interests of other WTO Members.\n645 Any additional procedures adopted by a panel to\nprotect the confidentiality of sensitive business information should go no further than necessary to\nguard against a determined risk of harm (actual or potential) that could result from disclosure, and\nmust be consistent with the relevant provisions of the DSU and other covered agreements\n(including the Anti-Dumping Agreement). 646 The obligation rests upon the panel to adjudicate any\ndisagreement or dispute that may arise under those procedures regarding the designation or the\ntreatment of information as business confidential. In addition, where necessary, a panel must draw\nappropriate inferences from a party's failure to provide requested information to the panel.\n5.312. Having said that, we note that the framew ork for the treatment of confidential information\nin municipal anti-dumping proceedings is set ou t in Articles 6.5, 6.5.1, and 6.5.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement.\n647 In the context of such domestic proceedings, it is for the\ninvestigating authorities to assess objectively whether a submitting party has adequately\nsubstantiated a request to treat certain information as \"confidential\" within the meaning of\nArticle 6.5. If the investigating authority determines that an interested party has made a proper\nshowing of \"good cause\", the information at issue \"shall not be disclosed without specific\npermission of the party submitting it\". Footnote 17 to Article 6.5 further clarifies that \"Members\nare aware that in the territory of certain Members disclosure pursuant to a narrowly-drawn\nprotective order may be required.\"\n5.313. A different set of rules regulates conf idential treatment of information provided by a WTO\nMember to a panel or the Appellate Body in the context of WTO dispute settlement proceedings. As\nnoted, Article 18.2 of the DSU specifically provides that \"[w]ritten submissions to the panel or the\nAppellate Body shall be treated as confidential, but shall be made available to the parties to the\ndispute.\" Parties to a dispute are free to disclose statements of their own positions to the public,\nbut \"shall treat as confidential information submitted by another Member to the panel or the\nAppellate Body which that Member has designated as confidential\".\n648\n5.314. Article 13.1 of the DSU further provides that \"[a] panel shall have the right to seek\ninformation and technical advice from any individual or body which it deems appropriate\". WTO\nMembers \"should respond promptly and fully to any request by a panel for such information as the\npanel considers necessary and appropriate\". Confidential information that is provided to a panel\nunder Article 13.1 \"shall not be revealed without fo rmal authorization from the individual, body, or\nauthorities of the Member providing the information\". These provisions apply generally in WTO\ndispute settlement proceedings.\n\n645 See Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, Annex III,\nProcedural Ruling of 10 August 2010, paras. 8-9.\n646 See Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, Annex III,\n647 See section 5.3 of these Reports.\n648 Article 18.2 of the DSU.\n\n5.315. In EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft , the Appellate Body observed that\nthe confidentiality requirements in Articles 17.10 and 18.2 of the DSU, as well as in\nparagraph VII:1 of the Rules of Conduct for the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing\nthe Settlement of Disputes\n649, are set out \"at a level of generality that may need to be\nparticularized in situations in which the nature of the information provided requires more detailed\narrangements to protect adequately the confidentiality of that information.\" 650 Whether a panel\nwould consider that there is a need to adopt, based on the authority it enjoys under Article 12 of\nthe DSU, special procedures for the additional protec tion of BCI, will therefore vary from case to\ncase. Nevertheless, it is important to distinguish between the general layer of confidentiality that\napplies in WTO dispute settlement proceedings, as foreseen in Articles 18.2 and 13.1 of the DSU,\nand the additional layer of protection of sensitive business information that a panel may choose to\nadopt, usually at the request of a party. In the context of WTO disputes brought under the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, Article 17.7 of that Agreement stipulates that \"[c]onfidential information\nprovided to the panel shall not be disclosed without formal authorization from the person, body or\nauthority providing such information.\"\n651 Thus, while Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\nregulates the issue of designation of information in domestic anti-dumping duty proceedings,\nArticle 17.7 deals with the issue of confidentiality in an anti-dumping proceeding before a WTO\npanel.\n5.316. As we see it, in its reasoning, the Panel conflated: (i) the confidentiality obligations under\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement setting the framework for confidential treatment of information that\nis applicable in the context of domestic anti-dumping proceedings; and (ii) the confidentiality\nobligations applicable in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. In addition, the Panel also\nconflated: (i) confidentiality requirements generally applicable in WTO proceedings or in\nanti-dumping proceedings as foreseen in the above-mentioned provisions of the DSU and the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement; and (ii) the additional layer of protection of sensitive business\ninformation provided under special procedures adopted by a panel for the purposes of a particular\ndispute.\n652 Contrary to what the Panel appears to have suggested, whether information treated as\nconfidential pursuant to Article 6.5 of the Anti-D umping Agreement, and submitted by a party to a\nWTO panel under the confidentiality requirements generally applicable in WTO dispute settlement,\nshould receive additional confiden tial treatment as BCI is to be determined in each case by the\nWTO panel.\n5.317. For these reasons, we declare moot and of no legal effect the Panel's findings and legal\nreasoning developed in paragraphs 7.21-7.25 and 7.27-7.29 of the EU Panel Report. We do not\nconsider it necessary to make further findings on this matter in order to resolve the present\ndispute.\n\n649 The Rules of Conduct, as adopted by the DSB on 3 December 1996 (WT/DSB/RC/1), are directly\nincorporated into the Working Procedures for Appellate Review (WT/AB/WP/6), as Annex II thereto. (See\nWT/DSB/RC/2, WT/AB/WP/W/2)\n650 Appellate Body Report, EC and certain member States – Large Civil Aircraft, Annex III, Procedural\nRuling of 10 August 2010, para. 8.\n651 We note that Article 17.7 is a special or additional rule that prevails to the extent that there is a\ndifference between the rules and procedures in the DSU (such as Articles 13 and 18 thereof) and Article 17.7 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement. (See Article 1.2 and Appendix 2 to the DSU)\n652 We note, in particular, the Panel's finding that \"the phrase 'confidential information' in Article 17.7\nrefers to the confidential information previously examined by the investigating authority and treated as\nconfidential pursuant to Article 6.5.\" (Panel Reports, para. 7.21) The Panel's conflation of the two regimes for\nthe protection of confidential information is also reflected in its statement that \"the European Union has not\nexplained how another type of 'disagreement about designation' under the BCI Procedures could occur when\ninformation was properly treated as confidential in the underlying anti-dumping proceedings.\"\n (Panel Reports,\n\n- JPN-103 -\n\n6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS454/AB/R\n6.1. In the appeal of the Panel Report, China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on\nHigh-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from Japan , WT/DS454/R and\nAdd.1 (Japan Panel Report), for the reasons set out in this Report:\na. with respect to the Panel's findings under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,\nthe Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of Article 6.5 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement;\nii. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and\nArticle 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and, consequently,\niii. upholds the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.290, 7.297-7.303, and 8.1.b. of the\nJapan Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently with Article 6.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM permitted the full text of the reports\ncontained in appendix V and appendix VIII to the petition, appendix 59 to the\npetitioners' supplemental evidence of 1 March 2012, and the appendix to the\npetitioners' supplemental evidence of 29 Ma rch 2012 to remain confidential without\nobjectively assessing the petitioners' showing of \"good cause\";\nb. with respect to the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, the Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement in finding that, in its consideration of whether there has\nbeen a significant price undercutting, an investigating authority may simply consider\nwhether dumped imports sell at lower prices than comparable domestic products;\nii. reverses the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.130, 7.144, and 8.2.a.i of the Japan\nPanel Report, rejecting Japan's claim that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with\nArticles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to consider whether\nGrade C dumped imports had any price undercutting effect on domestic Grade C\nproducts, in the sense of placing downward pressure on those domestic prices by being\nsold at lower prices; and\niii. completes the legal analysis and finds that MOFCOM's assessment of whether there\nhad been a significant price undercutting by Grade C imports, as compared with the\nprice of domestic Grade C, is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement;\nc. with respect to the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, the Appellate Body:\ni. finds that Japan's argument, that MOFCOM failed to examine whether dumped\nimports provided explanatory force for the state of the domestic industry, did not\nconstitute a separate claim under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement; and consequently declares moot and of no legal effect the Panel's\nfindings in paragraphs 6.29-6.31 and footnote 274 of the Japan Panel Report; and\nii. finds that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement to the extent it found that the results of the inquiries under\nArticle 3.2 are not relevant to the impact analysis under Article 3.4; and\nconsequently reverses the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.170 and 8.2.a.ii of the\nJapan Panel Report;\nWT /DS454/ AB/R\n- JPN-104 -\nd. with respect to the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, the Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 6.2 of the DSU by\naddressing Japan's claims under Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\nregarding \"MOFCOM's reliance on the market share of subject imports\", in\nparagraphs 7 .180-7 .188 of the Japan Panel Report;\nii. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently w ith Article 11 of the DSU by ruling on\na matter that was not before it, or making the case for Japan;\niii. upholds the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.188, 7.205, and 8.1.a.iii of the Japan\nPanel Report, that Ch ina acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM improperly relied on the market share of\ndumped imports, and its flawed price effects and impact analyses, in determining a\ncausal link between dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry,\nand made no finding of cross-grade price effects whereby price undercutting by\nGrade Band C imports might be shown to affect the prices of domestic Grade A\nHP-SSST;\niv. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.204, 7.205, and 8.1.a.iv of the Japan\nPanel Report, that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM failed to ensure that the injury caused\nby the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase in domestic production\ncapacity was not attributed to the dumped imports; and\nv. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, in\nconcluding, in paragraph 7.192 of the Japan Panel Report, that Japan had not\nadvanced independent Article 3.5 claims - other than those regarding MOFCOM's\nreliance on market shares and MOFCOM 's non-attribution analysis - concerning\nMOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses.\n6.2. The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB request China to bring its measures found in\nthis Report, and in the Japan Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994, into conformity with its obligations under those\nAgreements.\nSigned in the original in Geneva this 25th day of September 2015 by:\nPeter Van d ossche\nPresiding Member\nG:~~\nRicardo Ramirez-Hernandez\nMember\n\n- EU-105 -\n\n6 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE APPELLATE BODY REPORT WT/DS460/AB/R\n\n6.1. In the appeal of the Panel Report, China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on\nHigh-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union ,\nWT/DS460/R and Add.1 (EU Panel Report), for the reasons set out in this Report:\na. with respect to the Panel's findings under Articles 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, the Appellate Body:\ni. upholds the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.49 and 7.51 of the EU Panel Report,\nthat the European Union's panel request complies with the requirement in Article 6.2\nof the DSU to provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient\nto present the problem clearly in respect of the European Union's claims under\nArticles 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and that these claims were\nthus within the Panel's terms of reference;\nii. finds that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of Article 2.2.2 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement;\niii. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Articles 11 and 12.7 of the DSU\nand Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and consequently\niv. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.66 and 8.6.a. of the EU Panel Report,\nthat China acted inconsistently with Articl e 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by\nfailing to determine an SG&A amount for SMST on the basis of actual data pertaining\nto production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product;\nb. with respect to the Panel's findings under Article 6.7 and paragraph 7 of Annex I to the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's finding, in\nparagraphs 7.101 and 8.6.c. of the EU Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently with\nArticle 6.7 and paragraph 7 of Annex I by rejecting SMST's request for rectification only\non the basis that it was not provided prior to verification;\nc. with respect to the Panel's findings under Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,\nthe Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel did not err in its interpretation and application of Article 6.5 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement;\nii. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU and\nArticle 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and consequently\niii. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.290, 7.297-7.303, and 8.6.e. of the\nEU Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement because MOFCOM permitted the fu ll text of the reports contained in\nappendix V and appendix VIII to the petition, appendix 59 to the petitioners'\nsupplemental evidence of 1 March 2012, an d the appendix to the petitioners'\nsupplemental evidence of 29 March 2012 to remain confidential without objectively\nassessing the petitioners' showing of \"good cause\";\nd. with respect to the Panel's findings under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,\nthe Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement; and consequently reverses the Panel's findings, in\nparagraphs 7.235, 7.236, and 8.7.d.i. of the EU Panel Report, rejecting the\nEuropean Union's claim that China acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM failed to disclose adequately the\nessential facts in connection with the data underlying MOFCOM's determination of\ndumping concerning SMST and Tubacex; and\n\n- EU-106 -\n\nii. completes the legal analysis and finds that China acted inconsistently with Article 6.9\nof the Anti-Dumping Agreement because MOFC OM failed to disclose adequately the\nessential facts in connection with the data underlying MOFCOM's determination of\ndumping concerning SMST and Tubacex;\ne. with respect to the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, and in connection with MOFCOM's price effects analysis, the Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement in finding that, in its consideration of whether there has\nbeen a significant price undercutting, an investigating authority may simply consider\nwhether dumped imports sell at lower prices than comparable domestic products;\nii. reverses the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.130, 7.144, and 8.7.b.i. of the\nEU Panel Report, rejecting the European Union's claim that MOFCOM acted\ninconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 by failing to consider whether Grade C\ndumped imports had any price undercutting effect on domestic Grade C products, in\nthe sense of placing downward pressure on those domestic prices by being sold at\nlower prices;\niii. completes the legal analysis and finds that MOFCOM's assessment of whether there\nhad been a significant price undercutting by Grade C imports, as compared with the\nprice of domestic Grade C, is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement; and\niv. reverses the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.143, 7.144, and 8.7.b.i. of the EU\nPanel Report; and finds instead that MOFCOM's assessment of whether there had\nbeen a significant price undercutting by th e dumped imports, as compared with the\nprices of the domestic like product, is inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement;\nf. with respect to the Panel's findings under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, and in connection with MOFCOM's impact analysis, the\nAppellate Body finds that the Panel erred in it s interpretation of Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of\nthe Anti-Dumping Agreement to the extent it found that the results of the inquiries\nunder Article 3.2 are not relevant to the impact analysis under Article 3.4; and\nconsequently reverses the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.170 and 8.7.b.ii of the\nEU Panel Report;\ng. with respect to the Panel's finding that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1\nand 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Appellate Body:\ni. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by ruling on\na matter that was not before it, or, making the case for the European Union;\nii. upholds the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 7.188, 7.205, and 8.6.d.iii of the\nEU Panel Report, that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM improperly relied on the market share of\ndumped imports, and its flawed price effects and impact analyses, in determining a\ncausal link between dumped imports and material injury to the domestic industry,\nand made no finding of cross-grade price effects whereby price undercutting by\nGrade B and C imports might be shown to affect the price of domestic Grade A\nHP-SSST;\niii. upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.204, 7.205, and 8.6.d.iv of the EU Panel\nReport, that China acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because MOFCOM fa iled to ensure that the injury caused\nby the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase in domestic production\ncapacity was not attributed to the dumped imports; and\nWT /DS460/ AB/R\n- EU-107 -\niv. finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, in\nconcluding, in paragraph 7.192 of the EU Panel Report, that the European Union had\nnot advanced independent Article 3.5 claims - other than those concerning\nMOFCOM's reliance on market shares and MOFCOM's non-attribution analysis -\nconcerning MOFCOM's price effects and impact analyses; and\nh. with respect to the Panel's designation of business confidential information (BCI) and its\nadoption of BCI Procedures, the Appellate Body declares moot and of no legal effect the\nPanel's findings and legal reasoning developed in paragraphs 7.21-7.25 and 7.27-7.29 of\nthe EU Panel Report, and does not find it necessary to make further findings on this\nmatter in order to resolve the present dispute.\n6.2. The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB request China to bring its measures found in\nthis Report, and in the EU Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement and the, GATT 1994, into conformity with its obligations under those\nAgreements. .\nSigned in the original in Geneva this 25th day of September 2015 by:\nTI---~\nRicardo Ramirez-Hernandez\nMember"},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.533092"}}},{"rowIdx":7473,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_For_Consultations"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"18 June 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/1; G/L/1030; G/ADP/D97/1"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":"Anti-Dumping Practices (ADP); General Council"},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nREQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION\n The following communication, dated 13 June 2013, from the delegation of the\nEuropean Union to the delegation of China and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body,\nis circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.\n\nMy authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the\nPeople's Republic of China (\"China\") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules\nand Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (\"DSU\"), Article XXII:1 of the General\nAgreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (\"GATT 1994\") and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement\non Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (\"AD\nAgreement\") with respect to China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-\nperformance stainless steel seamless tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union, as set forth in\nMinistry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (\"MOFCOM\") Notice No. 21 [2012] (the\n\"Preliminary Determination notice\") and Notice No. 72 [2012] (the \"Final Determination notice\"),\nincluding any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with China's obligations under the following\nprovisions of the GATT 1994 and the AD Agreement:\n1. Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement because China did not determine the costs of production\nand the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs on the basis of records and actual\ndata by the exporters or producers under investigation.\n2. Article 2.4 and Article 2.4.2 of the AD Ag reement because China did not establish the\nexistence of margins of dumping on the basis of a fair comparison between the export price and\nthe normal value.\n3. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the AD Agreement because China's injury determination was not\nbased on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of the\ndumped imports under investigation and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic\nmarket for like products.\n4. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement because China's injury determination was not\nbased on positive evidence, did not involve an ob jective examination of the consequent impact of\nthese imports on domestic producers of such products and improperly failed to evaluate or\ndisregarded relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry\nindicating that the domestic industry did not suffer injury.\n5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement because China failed to conduct an objective\nexamination, based on positive evidence, of th e causal relationship between the imports under\ninvestigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry. China also failed to conduct an\nobjective examination, based on positive evid ence, of factors other than the imports under\nWT/DS460/1 • G/L/1030 • G/ADP/D97/1\n\ninvestigation which at the same time are injuring the domestic industry, and therefore improperly\nattributed the injuries caused by these other factors to the imports under investigation.\n6. Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement because China failed to disclose to the interested parties all\ninformation that is relevant to the presentation of their cases used to establish the margins of\ndumping and the effect of imports under investigation on prices of domestic market for like\nproducts.\n7. Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement because Chin a treated as confidential, without showing\ngood cause, information supplied by the applicants.\n8. Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement because China failed to require the applicants to furnish\nnon-confidential summaries which provided sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding\nof the substance of the information submitted in confidence by the applicants.\n9. Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement and paragrap h 7 of Annex I to the AD Agreement because\nChina refused to take into account information provided during the on-the-spot investigation.\n10. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragrap h 3 of Annex II to the AD Agreement because\nChina failed to take into account all information pertaining to the determination of the margins of\ndumping which was verifiable, which was appropriately submitted so that it could have been used\nin the investigation without undue difficulties and which was supplied in a timely fashion.\n11. Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragrap h 1 of Annex II to the AD Agreement because\nChina improperly relied on facts available to determine the margin of dumping for all European\nUnion companies other than those for which individual margins of dumping were determined.\n12. Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement because China failed to inform the interested parties of\nthe essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision to impose definitive\nanti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying the determinations of the\nexistence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of dumping and the determinations of\ninjury and causation.\n13. Article 7.4 of the AD Agreement because China applied provisional measures for a period\nexceeding four months.\n14. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement be cause China failed to provide in sufficient\ndetail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered material by the\ninvestigating authorities, as well as all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and\nreasons which have led to the imposition of final measures.\n15. China's anti-dumping measures on HP-SSST from the European Union also appear to be\ninconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence\nof the breaches of the AD Agreement described above.\nChina's measures, therefore, appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the European\nUnion directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.\nThe European Union reserves the right to address additional measures and claims regarding\nthe above matters in the course of the consultations.\nThe European Union looks forward to receiving China's reply in due course to this request for\nconsultations. The European Union is ready to consider with China mutually convenient dates and\nmodalities for organising the consultations."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.828697"}}},{"rowIdx":7474,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication from Japan"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"1 July 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/2"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nREQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS\nCommunication from Japan\n The following communication, dated 27 June 2013, from the delegation of Japan to the\ndelegation of China, the delegation of the European Union and to the Chairperson of the Dispute\nSettlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.\n\n I wish to refer to the consultations requested by the European Union pursuant to\nArticle XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tari ff and Trade 1994 and Article 17.2 of the Anti-\nDumping Agreement in the communication circulated to WTO Members on 18 June 2013\n(WT/DS460, , ) titled \"China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on\nCertain High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes from the European Union\" . My\nauthorities have instructed me to notify the consulting Member and the Dispute Settlement Body\nof the desire of Japan to be joined in these consultations, pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of\nthe Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.\n\n Japan has a substantial trade interest in these consultations. The products subject to the\nmeasure at issue are \"high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes\" which Japan also exports\nto the People's Republic of China\n1. These consultations further concern insufficient explanation and\nunfulfilled obligation of transparency and procedures in the same anti-dumping measures by China\nas set out in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China Notice No. 21 [2012] and\nNotice No. 72 [2012] which Japan has challenged in the dispute \"China – Measures Imposing Anti-\nDumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes from Japan(DS454)\".\n\nChina amounts to 72 million US dollars in 2011."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.829487"}}},{"rowIdx":7475,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_To_Join_Consultations"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"ACCEPTANCE BY CHINA OF THE REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION ACCEPTANCE BY CHINA OF THE REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"11 July 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/3"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nACCEPTANCE BY CHINA OF THE REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS\n Japan notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of its desire to be joined in the\nconsultations requested by the European Union, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU.\n\n The delegation of China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join\nthe consultations.\n\nSANS SOUDURE, EN ACIER INOXYDABLE HAUTE PERFORMANCE\n(\"HP-SSST\") EN PROVENANCE DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE\nAUX CONSULTATIONS\n Le Japon a fait savoir à l'Organe de règlement des différends (ORD) qu'il désirait être admis\nà participer aux consultations demandées par l'Union européenne, conformément à l'article 4:11\n\nINOXIDABLE PARA ALTAS PRESTACIONES\nUnión Europea.\n\n La delegación de China ha informado al OSD de que ha aceptado la solicitud de asociación a"},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.830212"}}},{"rowIdx":7476,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ04_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ04_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"20 August 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/4"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nREQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION\n The following communication, dated 16 Au gust 2013, from the delegation of the\nEuropean Union to the Chairperson of the Disput e Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to\nArticle 6.2 of the DSU.\n\n On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with the Government of the\nPeople's Republic of China (\"China\") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules\nand Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (\"DSU\"), Article XXII:1 of the General\nAgreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (\"GATT 1994\"), and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement\non Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994\n(\"Anti-Dumping Agreement\") with regard to China's measures imposing anti-dumping duties on\ncertain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union.\n1\nThese measures are set out in Ministry of Commerce of China (\"MOFCOM\") Notice No. 21 [2012]\n(the \"Preliminary Determination notice\") and Notice No. 72 [2012] (the \"Final Determination\nnotice\"), including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\n\nThe European Union held consultations with China on 17 and 18 July 2013. These\nconsultations did not resolve the dispute.\n\nThe European Union considers that the measures at issue are inconsistent with China's\nobligations under the following provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement:\n\n1. Articles 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not\ndetermine the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits on the basis of\nrecords and actual data by the exporters or producers under investigation. In particular, the\namounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits as constructed by China do\nnot reflect the records and the actual data of the exporters or producers under investigation.\n\n2. Article 2.4 and Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China did not establish\nthe existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a fair comparison between the export price\nand the normal value. In particular, China did not establish the existence of margins of dumping\non the basis of a comparison of prices of comparable export transactions.\n\n3. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's injury determination\nwas not based on positive evidence and did not involve an objective examination of the volume of\nthe dumped imports under investigation and the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic\nmarket for like products. In particular, in its price effects analyses, China failed to conduct proper\nanalyses with respect to the three different types of HP-SSST products under investigation and the\nHP-SSST products as a whole. China improperly concluded that the imports under investigation\nhad an overall significant effect on the prices of like domestic products.\n\n1 WT/DS460/1.\n\n4. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China's analysis of the impact\nof the dumped imports on the domestic industry: (i) failed to make an objective examination,\nbased on positive evidence, of the impact of su bject imports on the domestic industry based on\nthe volume of such imports and their effect on prices; (ii) failed to evaluate factors affecting\ndomestic prices and the magnitude of the margin of dumping; and (iii) failed to objectively\ndetermine the relative importance and weight to be attached to the relevant economic factors and\nindices, and improperly disregarded the majority of those factors and indices indicating that the\ndomestic industry did not suffer injury.\n\n5. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to conduct an\nobjective examination, based on positive evidence , of the causal relationship between the imports\nunder investigation and the alleged injury to the domestic industry. China determined that the\nallegedly dumped imports are causing injury despite an absence of a significant increase in the\nvolume of dumped imports, based on improper pr ice effects analyses and based on flawed impact\nanalyses, including improper evaluation of or failure to consider relevant economic factors and\nindices having a bearing on the state of the do mestic industry. Furthermore, China failed to\nconduct an objective examination, based on positive evidence, of factors other than the imports\nunder investigation which are at the same time injuring the domestic industry, and therefore\nimproperly attributed the injuries caused by these other factors to the imports under investigation.\n\n6. Article 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to disclose to the interested\nparties all information that is relevant to the presentation of their cases and that is used by the\nauthorities in an anti-dumping investigation, in particular used to establish the margins of\ndumping, including the calculation of the margin of dumping, and the effect of imports under\ninvestigation on prices of domestic market for like products.\n\n7. Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China treated as confidential, without\ngood cause shown, information supplied by the applicants.\n\n8. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to require the applicants\nto furnish (i) non-confidential summaries of information that was treated as confidential which\nprovided sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information\nsubmitted in confidence; or (ii) explanations as to why furnishing such summaries was not\npossible.\n\n9. Article 6.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and paragraph 7 of Annex I to the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement because China refused to take into account information relevant for the determination\nof the margins of dumping provided during the on-the-spot investigation.\n\n10. Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t and paragraphs 3 and 6 of Annex II to the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to take into account all information pertaining to\nthe determination of the margins of dumping which was verifiable, which was appropriately\nsubmitted so that it could have been used in the investigation without undue difficulties and which\nwas supplied in a timely fashion.\n\n11. Article 6.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and paragraph 1 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement because China improperly relied on facts available to determine the margin of dumping\nfor all European Union companies other than those for which individual margins of dumping were\ndetermined.\n\n12. Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to inform the interested\nparties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision to impose\ndefinitive anti-dumping measures, including the essential facts underlying the determinations of\nthe existence of dumping and the calculation of the margins of dumping, including relevant data,\nand the determinations of injury and causation, including the import prices and domestic prices\nused therein.\n\n13. Article 7.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China applied provisional measures on\nthe imports under investigation for a period exceeding four months.\n\n14. Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because China failed to provide in\nsufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered\n\nmaterial by the investigating authorities, as well as all relevant information on the matters of fact\nand law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures.\n\n15. China's anti-dumping measures on HP-SSST from the European Union also appear to be\ninconsistent with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a\nconsequence of the breaches of the Anti-Dumping Agreement described above.\n\nChina's measures, therefore, nullify and impair benefits accruing to the European Union\nunder the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.\n\nAccordingly, the European Union respectfully requests that, pursuant to Article XXIII of the\nGATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the\nDispute Settlement Body establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of\nreference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.\n\nThe European Union asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the\nDispute Settlement Body to be held on 30 August 2013."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.832271"}}},{"rowIdx":7477,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ05_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ05_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Note_By_Secretariat"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Note by the Secretariat"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"11 September 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/5; WT/DS460/4"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\n\nCONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nNote by the Secretariat\n1. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB ) established a panel\npursuant to the request of the European Union in document , in accordance with\nArticle 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.\n\n2. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:\n\nTo examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by\nthe parties to the dispute, the matter referred t o the DSB by the European Union in\ndocument and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making\nthe recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.\n3. Following the agreement of the parties, the Panel was composed on 11 September 2013 as\nfollows:\n\n Chairperson: Mr Miguel Rodríguez Mendoza\n\n Members: Ms Stephanie Sin Far Lee\n Mr Gustav Francois Brink\n\n4. India; Japan; Korea; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Turkey and the United States have reserved\ntheir rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.832791"}}},{"rowIdx":7478,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ06_Note_By_Secretariat_Rev.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ06_Note_By_Secretariat_Rev.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Note_By_Secretariat"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT Revision"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"string","value":"Rev"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"25 September 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/5/Rev.1; WT/DS460/4"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nCONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE\nREQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION\nNOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT\nRevision\n1. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the Disp ute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel\npursuant to the request of the European Union in document , in accordance with\nArticle 6 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.\n\n2. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:\n\nTo examine, in the light of the relevant pr ovisions of the covered agreements cited by\nthe parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Union in\ndocument and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making\nthe recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.\n3. Following the agreement of the parties, the Panel was composed on 11 September 2013 as\nfollows:\n\n Chairperson: Mr Miguel Rodríguez Mendoza\n\n Members: Ms Stephanie Sin Far Lee\n Mr Gustav Francois Brink\n\n4. India; Japan; Korea; Russian Federation\n1; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Turkey and the\nUnited States have reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.833471"}}},{"rowIdx":7479,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ07_Working_Procedures_00.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ07_Working_Procedures_00.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Working_Procedures"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE17 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"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"22 May 2015"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/7"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE\nSTAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nNOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND\nARTICLE17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE\nSETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR\nAPPELLATE REVIEW\nThe following communication, dated 20 May 2015, from the delegation of the People's Republic of\nChina, is being circulated to Members.\n\nDuties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union\n() (Panel Report).\n2. Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, China is simultaneously filing\nthis Notice of Appeal and its Appellant Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.\n3. The measure at issue in this dispute concerns anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of\nHigh-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tube s (\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union. The\nMinistry of Commerce of China (MOFCOM) issued a final determination finding the existence of\ndumping that caused injury to the domestic industry by means of MOFCOM Notice No. 72 [2012].\n4. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii), the present Notice of Appeal provides an indicative list of the\nparagraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors of law and legal interpretation by the\nPanel in its report, without prejudice to the ability of China to refer to other paragraphs of the\nPanel Report in the context of its appeal.\n5. China seeks review by the Appellate Body of, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse,\nthe following findings and conclusions of the Panel, with respect to the following errors of law and\nlegal interpretation contained in the Panel Report:\na. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's\ndetermination of the amount for selling, general and administrative expenses with\nChina's obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including Article 2.2.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, as contained inter alia in paras. 7.49, 7.51, 7.64-7.66 and\n8.6(a), because of the following errors of law and legal interpretation:\ni. the Panel acted contrary to Articles 6.2, 7.1 and 11 of the DSU when finding that the\nEuropean Union's request for the establishment of a panel complied with the\nrequirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU in respect of the European Union's claim that\nChina acted inconsistently with Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by\nfailing to determine an amount for selling, general and administrative expenses on\nthe basis of data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of\nthe like product. The Panel erred in concluding that this claim was within its terms of\nreference and by reaching any findings and conclusions on this claim that was\n\noutside its terms of reference. The Panel similarly erred when finding that the\nArticle 2.2.1 arguments in the European Union's submissions relate to a claim that\nwas within its terms of reference;\nii. the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 2.2.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement and violated Articles 11 and 12.7 of the DSU and\nArticle 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when reaching those findings and\nconclusions, including when finding that \"China acted inconsistently with Article 2.2.2\nof the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to determine an SG&A amount for SMST\non the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course\nof trade of the like product\";\nb. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's conduct\nwith Article 6.7 and Paragraph 7 of Annex I of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as\ncontained inter alia in paras. 7.98-7.101 and para. 8.6(c), including that \"China acted\ninconsistently with Article 6.7 and Para graph 7 of Annex I of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement by rejecting SMST's request for rectification only on the basis that it was not\nprovided prior to verification\", because the Panel erred in its interpretation and\napplication of Article 6.7 and Paragraph 7 of Annex I of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\nwhen reaching those findings and conclusions;\nc. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's reliance on\nthe market share in the causation analysis with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, as contained inter alia in paras. 6.106, 7.181-7. 188, 7.205 and 8.6(d)(iii),\nincluding that \"MOFCOM improperly relied on the market share of subject imports […] in\ndetermining a causal link between subject imports and material injury to the domestic\nindustry, contrary to Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\", because of\nthe following errors of law and legal interpretation:\ni. in reaching those findings and conclusions the Panel erred in considering that the\nEuropean Union in its submissions \"referred to the relevance of market share data in\nthe context of price effects\" and ruled on a matter that was not before it, contrary to\nArticle 11 of the DSU, or in the alternative, made the case for the complainant and\nacted in violation of the principles gove rning the burden of proof, the due process\nrequirements, Paragraph 7 of the Joint Wo rking Procedures and Article 11 of the\nDSU;\nii. the Panel erred in the interpretation and a pplication of Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement and acted contrary to Article 11 of the DSU when reaching\nthose findings and conclusions, including when finding that MOFCOM's reliance on\nthe market shares is not sufficient to establish that subject imports, through price\nundercutting, had a relatively big impact on the price of the domestic industry, and a\nconsequent finding of causation consistent with Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement;\nd. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's\nnon-attribution analysis with Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as\ncontained inter alia in paras. 7.200-7.205 and 8.6(d)(iv), including that \"MOFCOM failed\nto ensure that injury caused by the decrease in apparent consumption and the increase\nin production capacity was not attributed to subject imports, contrary to Articles 3.1 and\n3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\", becaus e these are entirely based on the Panel's\nfindings and conclusions contained in paras. 6.106, 7.181-7.188, 7.205 and 8.6(d)(iii)\n(including the Panel's erroneous rejection of China's reliance on MOFCOM's price\ncorrelation finding) that have to be reversed for the reasons set out in subparagraph (c)\nabove;\ne. the Panel's findings and conclusions concerning the consistency of MOFCOM's treatment\nof confidential information with Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as contained\ninter alia in paras. 7.290, 7.297-7.303 and 8.6(e), including that \"MOFCOM allowed\ncertain information supplied by the petitioners to remain confidential without objectively\nassessing \"good cause\" or scrutinizing the petitioners' showing of \"good cause\", contrary\n\nto Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement\", because of the following errors of law\nand legal interpretation:\ni. the Panel erred in the interpretation and application of Article 6.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement when reaching those findings and conclusions;\nii. the Panel applied an erroneous standard of review and failed to make an objective\nassessment of the facts before it and acted contrary to Article 11 of the DSU and\nArticle 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when reaching those findings and\nconclusions;\niii. the internally inconsistent reasoning as regards the consistency of the measure at\nissue with Article 6.5 and Article 6.5.1 cannot be reconciled with the Panel's duty to\nmake an objective assessment of the facts under Article 11 of the DSU and the Panel\ndisregarded Paragraph 7 of the Joint Working Procedures when reaching those\nfindings and conclusions."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.835335"}}},{"rowIdx":7480,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ08_Working_Procedures_01.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ08_Working_Procedures_01.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Working_Procedures"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 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":{"kind":"string","value":"2 June 2015"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/8"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE\nSTAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nNOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION\nUNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES\nAND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),\nAND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW\nThe following communication, dated 26 May 2015, fr om the Delegation of the European Union, is\nbeing circulated to Members.\n\nPursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the DSU, the European Union hereby notifies to the\nDispute Settlement Body its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered\nin the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in the dispute China –\nMeasures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes\n(\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union (WT/DS460) (AB-2015-5). Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the\nWorking Procedures for Appellate Review , the European Union simultaneously files this Notice of\nAppeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.\n\nFor the reasons to be further elaborated in its submissions to the Appellate Body, the\nEuropean Union appeals, and requests the Appellate Body to reverse, modify or declare moot and\nof no legal effect the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Panel, with respect to the\nfollowing errors of law and legal interpretations contained in the Panel Report, and where indicated\nto complete the analysis\n1:\n\nI. ADDITIONAL WORKING PROCEDURES ON BCI\n1. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal\nfindings and conclusions concerning the designation of Business Confidential Information (BCI). 2\nThe Panel erred in its interpretation and applic ation of Articles 18.2 and 13.1 of the DSU and\nArticles 17.7 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erroneously found that\ninformation designated as confidential within the meaning of Article 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement is automatically confidential within the meaning of Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement and Article 18.2 of the DSU and may be automatically designated as BCI within the\nmeaning of BCI Procedures. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to complete the\nanalysis.\n\n1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review this Notice of Appeal\nincludes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice\nto the ability of the European Union to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its\nappeal.\n2 Panel Report, paras. 7.18-7.25, particularly paras. 7.21 (\"… the phra se \"confidential information\" in\nArticle 17.7 refers to the confidential information previously examined by the investigating authority and\ntreated as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5 – and which is now provided to a dispute settlement panel\npursuant to Article 17.7.\") and 7.25 (\"… we have decided not to modify paragraph 1 of the BCI Procedures in\nthe manner proposed by the European Union.\").\n\n2. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal\nfindings and conclusions concerning the provision of an authorizing letter. 3 The Panel erred in its\ninterpretation and application of Articles 18.2 and 13.1 of the DSU and Articles 17.7 and 6.5 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel erroneously found that information designated as confidential\nwithin the meaning of Article 6.5 of the Anti-D umping Agreement is automatically confidential\nwithin the meaning of Article 17.7 of the Anti-D umping Agreement and Article 18.2 of the DSU,\nand that it may only be disclosed within the meaning of Article 17.7 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement on the basis of a formal authorization from the person, body or authority providing such\ninformation to the investigating authority in the municipal anti-dumping proceeding. The\nEuropean Union requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis.\nII. ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE DSU\n3. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal\nfindings and conclusions that, with respect to the European Union's claim under Article 2.2, the\npanel request did not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, because it allegedly did not \"provide a\nbrief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly\".\n4 The\nPanel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.2 of the DSU. The European Union\nrequests the Appellate Body to complete the anal ysis. However, if the Appellate Body upholds the\nPanel's findings concerning the European Union' s claim under Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement5, or completes the analysis by confirming that claim, then it need not consider this\nappeal point.\n4. The European Union appeals and seeks the revers al and/or modification of the Panel's legal\nfindings and conclusions that, with respect to the European Union's claim under Article 2.2.1.1, the\npanel request did not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU, because it allegedly did not \"provide a\nbrief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly\".\n6 The\nPanel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 6.2 of the DSU. The European Union\nrequests the Appellate Body to complete the anal ysis. However, if the Appellate Body upholds the\nPanel's findings concerning the European Union' s claim under Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement7, or completes the analysis by confirming that claim, then it need not consider this\nappeal point.\nIII. DUMPING\n5. If the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's lega l findings and conclusions to the effect that\nChina acted inconsistently with Article 6.7 and Annex I, paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement8, and does not complete the analysis by finding that China acted inconsistently with\nthese provisions, then the European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions with\nrespect to Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 3 and 6. 9 The European Union requests the\nAppellate Body to reverse and/or modify these le gal findings and conclusions. The Panel erred in\nits interpretation and application of Article 6.8 and Annex II, paragraphs 3 and 6. Investigating\n\n3 Panel Report, paras. 7.26-7.29, and para. 7.21, particularly the finding that (\"… the phrase\n\"confidential information\" in Article 17.7 refers to the confidential information previously examined by the\ninvestigating authority and treated as confidential pursuant to Article 6.5 – and which is now provided to a\ndispute settlement panel pursuant to Article 17.7.\") and the interpretation of the phrase \"person, body or\nauthority\".\n4 Panel Report, para. 8.9, first sentence. The Panel Report contains a typographical error insofar as\npara. 8.9 refers to Article 2.2.1 (found within the terms of reference in para. 7.49 of the Panel Report), when it\nshould refer to Article 2.2 (found outside the terms of reference in para. 7.48 of the Panel Report). The\nEuropean Union also appeals para. 7.48 of the Panel Report, particularly the final sentence. The European\nUnion does not appeal para. 7.47 of the Panel Report.\n5 China's Notice of Appeal, paras. 5(a)(i) and (ii).\n6 Panel Report, para. 8.9, second sentence, insofar as it contains the phrase: \"did not reasonably reflect\nthe costs associated with the product under consideration\". The European Union also appeals the eighth\nsentence of para. 7.50 of the Panel Report (\"We also note that China accepts …\"), insofar as it does not include\nthe phrase \"reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under\nconsideration\", and the final sentence of para. 7.50, insofar as the term \"such obligations\" does not include\nthat phrase.\n7 China's Notice of Appeal, paras. 5(a)(i) and (ii).\n8 Panel Report, para. 8.6(c) and paras. 7.98-7.101; China's Notice of Appeal, para. 5(b).\n\nauthorities are not permitted to disregard rectified data only because it is provided at verification,\nwholly failing in this respect to exercise their discretion, and base their determinations instead on\nfacts available. The European Union requests the Appellate Body to complete the analysis.\nIV. INJURY\n6. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the\ninterpretation and application of Article 3.1 an d the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, specifically with respect to the obligation to consider the effect of the\nprice of the dumped imports on the price of the domestic product being compared – and\nparticularly with respect to the question of whether the price of Grade C imports had any\nsignificant price undercutting effect on domestic Grade C products. 10 The European Union submits\nthat these legal findings and conclusions of the Panel are legally erroneous and requests that the\nAppellate Body reverse and/or modify them, and complete the analysis.\n7. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the\ninterpretation and application of Article 3.1 an d the second sentence of Article 3.2 of the\nAnti-Dumping Agreement, specifically with respec t to the question of whether MOFCOM's findings\nof price undercutting in respect of Grades B and C were sufficient to comply with MOFCOM's\nobligation to consider whether or not the price of the dumped imports had a significant effect on\nthe price of the domestic product.\n11 The European Union submits that these legal findings and\nconclusions of the Panel are legally erroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse and/or\nmodify them, and complete the analysis.\n8. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the\ninterpretation and application of Articles 3.1 and Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,\nspecifically with respect to the assessment of th e impact of the dumped imports on the domestic\nindustry.12 In effect, the Panel erroneously concluded that MOFCOM's failure to comply with the\nrequirements of Article 3.2, as properly understood, and Article 3.5, had no implications for the\nconsistency of the measure at issue with Article 3.4, and that, in this respect, there were no\nindependent claims under Article 3.5. The Euro pean Union submits that these findings and\nconclusions of the Panel are legally erroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse and/or\nmodify them, and complete the analysis.\n9. The European Union appeals – pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU – certain of the Panel's\nlegal findings and conclusions concerning Articles 3.1 and Article 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping\nAgreement, specifically with respect to the assessment of causation. 13 The European Union\nsubmits that, in this respect, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter\nbefore it, as required by Article 11 of the DSU. It wrongly concluded that the European Union had\nnot made relevant independent claims under Article 3.5, and it failed to assess those claims and\narguments. The European Union requests that the Appellate Body reverse and/or modify these\nlegal findings and conclusions, and complete the analysis.\nV. PROCEDURAL ISSUES\n10. The European Union appeals the Panel's legal findings and conclusions concerning the\ninterpretation and application of Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, specifically with\nrespect to the obligation to adequately disclose essential facts – and particularly with respect to\nthe data underlying MOFCOM's determination of dumping with respect to SMST and Tubacex.14 The\nEuropean Union submits that these legal findings and conclusions of the Panel are legally\nerroneous and requests that the Appellate Body reverse or modify them, and complete the\nanalysis."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.838003"}}},{"rowIdx":7481,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ09_DSB_Action.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ09_DSB_Action.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":9,"string":"9"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"DSB_Action"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"Action by the Dispute Settlement Body"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"30 October 2015"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/12; WT/DS460/AB/R; WT/DS460/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS460/R; WT/DS460/R/Add.1"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE\nSTAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nAPPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT\nAction by the Dispute Settlement Body\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the Disput e Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body\nreport on China – Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel\nSeamless Tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the Europen Union ( and\n) and the Panel report ( and ), as modified\nby the Appellate Body report. The Panel report sh ould be read in conjunction with the Appellate\nBody report.\n\nSOUDURE, EN ACIER INOXYDABLE HAUTE PERFORMANCE (\"HP SSST\")\nEN PROVENANCE DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE\nRAPPORT DE L'ORGANE D'APPEL ET RAPPORT DU GROUPE SPÉCIAL\nÀ sa réunion du 28 octobre 2015, l'Organe de règlement des différends a adopté le rapport de\nsoudure, en acier inoxydable haute performance (\"HP SSST\") en provenance de\nGroupe spécial doit être lu conjointement avec celui de l'Organe d'appel.\n\nActuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias\nEn su reunión de 28 de octubre de 2015, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias adoptó el informe\nprocedentes de la Unión Europea (WT/DS460/AB/R y WT/DS460/AB/R/Add.1) y el informe del\nApelación."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.838717"}}},{"rowIdx":7482,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ10_Communication_01.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ10_Communication_01.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":10,"string":"10"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"COMMUNICATION FROM"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP\"/SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION CONCERNING ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"11 December 2015"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/13"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE\nSTAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP\"/SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nCOMMUNICATION FROM CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION CONCERNING\nARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU\nThe following communication, dated 9 December 2015, from the delegation of China and the\ndelegation of the European Union to the Chairper son of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated\nat the request of these delegations.\n\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (\"DSB\") adopted its\nrecommendations and rulings in the dispute China — Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on\nHigh-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (\"HP/SSST\") from the European Union (DS460).\nAt the meeting of the DSB held on 25 November 2015, China announced its intention to implement\nthe DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute and stated that it would need a reasonable\nperiod of time in which to do so.\nArticle 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of\nDisputes (\"DSU\") provides that, in the absence of an agreement between the parties on a period of\ntime, the reasonable period of time shall be de termined \"through binding arbitration within 90\ndays after the date of adoption of the recommendations and rulings.\"\nIn order to allow sufficient time for the parties to discuss a mutually agreed period, China and the\nEuropean Union (i) agree that, in the event an arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU is\nrequested, it shall be completed no later than 60 days after the date of the appointment of an\narbitrator, unless the arbitrator, following consultation with the parties, considers that additional\ntime is required; and (ii) hereby confirm that an y award of the arbitrator (including an award not\nmade within 90 days after the date of adoption of the DSB recommendations and rulings) shall be\ndeemed to be an award of the arbitrator for the purposes of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in\ndetermining the reasonable period of time for China to implement the recommendations and\nrulings of the DSB.\nWe respectfully request that you circulate this notification to the Members of the DSB."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.839568"}}},{"rowIdx":7483,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ11_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ11_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":11,"string":"11"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Agreement_Art_21_3"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"23 February 2016"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/14"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE\nSTAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nAGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU\nThe following communication, dated 19 February 2016, from the delegation of China and the\ndelegation of the European Union to the Chairper son of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated\nin accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.\n\nWe wish to inform you that, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and\nProcedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (\"DSU\"), China and the European Union have\nagreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the recommendations and\nrulings of the Dispute Settlemen t Body (\"DSB\") in the dispute China – Measures Imposing\nAnti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stai nless Steel Seamless Tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the\nEuropean Union (WT/DS460) shall be 9 months and 25 days from the 28 October 2015 date of\nadoption of the DSB recommendations and rulings. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time\nexpires on 22 August 2016.\n\nWe request that you circulate this notification to the Members of the DSB."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.840174"}}},{"rowIdx":7484,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"460"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ12_Report_Of_Panel.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS460_SEQ12_Report_Of_Panel.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":12,"string":"12"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Report_Of_Panel"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"panel report"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"PANEL_REPORT"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION JOINT REQUEST BY CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR A DECISION BY THE DSB"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"13 March 2015"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS460/6"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['EU']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['China']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Appellate Body"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 12 April 2016\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)\nOn 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certain high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union, as set forth in Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2012] and Notice No. 72 [2012], including any and all annexes and any amendments thereof.\nThe European Union claims that the measures are inconsistent with:\nOn 27 June 2013, Japan requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations. On 16 August 2013, the European Union requested the establishment of a panel.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 13 February 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members.\nOn 12 March 2015, China and Japan requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the 60‑day time period stipulated in Article 16.4 of the DSU to 20 May 2015. At its meeting on 25 March 2015, the DSB agreed that, it shall no later than 20 May 2015, adopt the panel report unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or (ii) China or Japan notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal the panel report.\nOn 20 May 2015, China notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report. On 26 May 2015, the European Union also notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report.\nOn 28 July 2015, upon expiry of the 60-day period provided for in Article 17.5 of the DSU, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body Reports in these appeal proceedings as well as in those of DS454, would be circulated to WTO Members no later than Wednesday, 14 October 2015.\nOn 14 October 2015, the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.\nAt its meeting on 28 October 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.\n\nReasonable period of time\nAt the DSB meeting on 25 November 2015, China stated that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 19 February 2016, the European Union and China informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for China to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be 9 months and 25 days from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and panel reports. Accordingly, the reasonable period of time is set to expire on 22 August 2016."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON\nHIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES (\"HP-SSST\")\nFROM THE EUROPEAN UNION\nJOINT REQUEST BY CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION\nFOR A DECISION BY THE DSB\nThe following communication, dated 12 March 2015, from the delegation of China and the\ndelegation of the European Union to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is\ncirculated at the request of those delegations.\n\nTaking into account the current workload of the Appellate Body, the European Union and the\nPeople's Republic of China would like to reques t the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to adopt the\ndraft decision attached to this letter with respect to the dispute China — Measures Imposing Anti-\nDumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (\"HP-SSST\") from the\nEuropean Union (WT/DS460). We consider that the draft DSB decision, if adopted, would provide\ngreater flexibility in scheduling any possible appeal of the panel report in this dispute, which was\ncirculated to WTO Members on 13 February 2015. Attached to the letter you will also find the text\nof the procedural agreement between the parties to the dispute.\n\nWe would be grateful if you could circulate this notification including its attachments to the\nMembers of the DSB.\n\nDraft Decision of the DSB\n\nThe DSB agrees that, upon a request by the European Union or the People's Republic of China, the\nDSB shall no later than 20 May 2015 adopt the report of the panel in the dispute China —\nMeasures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes\n(\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union (WT/DS460) unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to\ndo so or (ii) either party to the dispute notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to\nArticle 16.4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.\n\nConfirmed Procedures between the European Union and the People's Republic of China regarding\nthe Time Period under Article 16.4 of the DSU\n\n1. In order to take into account the current workload of the Appellate Body, the above parties\nhave decided that the 60-day time period in Article 16.4 of Understanding on Rules and Procedures\nGoverning the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), as app licable to the above dispute, will be extended\nto 20 May 2015, and that a decision of the Disput e Settlement Body (DSB) on this extension will\nbe sought at the meeting of the DSB to be held on 25 March 2015.\n\n2. The parties decide to seek this extension on the understanding that the rights of the parties\nto the dispute with respect to adoption or a ppeal of the panel report panel in the dispute China —\nMeasures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes\n(\"HP-SSST\") from the European Union (WT/DS460) are preserved, as if such adoption or appeal\nhad been requested within the 60-day time period specified in Article 16.4 of the DSU.\n\n3. Neither party will file a notice of appeal of the panel report before 20 May 2015, provided\nthe DSB decision set out in paragraph 1 is obtained.\n\n4. If for any reason neither party files a notice of appeal and appellant submission on\n20 May 2015, the report would be presented for adoption at the DSB meeting to be held on that\ndate.\n\nFor the People's Republic of China\n\nH.E. Mr YU Jianhua\nAmbassador\nPermanent Representative of China\nto the WTO\n\nFor the European Union\n\nH.E. Mr Angelos PANGRATIS\nAmbassador\nPermanent Representative of\nthe European Union to the WTO"},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:29.841329"}}},{"rowIdx":7485,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations_00.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations_00.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_For_Consultations"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY PANAMA"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"20 June 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/1; G/L/1031"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":"General Council"},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF\nTEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nREQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY PANAMA\n The following communication, dated 18 June 2013, from the delegation of Panama\nto the delegation of Colombia and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated\nin accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.\n\nMy authorities have instructed me to request consultations with Colombia pursuant\nto Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes\n(DSU) and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994)\nwith respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation\nof textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama.\n\nPursuant to Article 4.4 of the DSU, I shall proceed to describe the reasons for this request,\nincluding identification of the measure at issue and an indication of the legal basis\nfor the complaints.\n\n1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE\n The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has imposed by Decree\nof the President of the Republic No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013) on the importation\nof certain textiles, apparel and footwear. It is Panama's understanding that the compound tariff\nhas the following characteristics:\n(i) It is composed of an ad valorem levy, expressed as a percentage of the customs\nvalue of the goods, and a specific levy, expressed in units of currency per unit\nof measurement, applied simultaneously at the time of importation.\n1\n(ii) It is applied to the products classified in Chapters 61, 62, 63, and 64\n(\"affected products\") of Colombia's Tariff Schedule.2\n\n1 Articles 1 and 2 of Decree 074/2013. The second preambular clause points out that the measure takes\nthe form of \"mixed tariffs composed of an ad valorem tariff and a specific tariff applied simultaneously to\nimports of the [affected] products\".\n2 The Tariff Schedule was adopted by Decree of the President of the Republic No. 4297 of\n26 December 2011 (Decree 4297/2011). According to the Tariff Schedule nomenclature, Chapter 61 includes\n\"articles of apparel and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted\"; Chapter 62 includes \"articles of apparel and\nclothing accessories not knitted or crocheted\"; Chapter 63 includes \"other made up textile articles; sets; worn\nclothing and worn textile articles; rags\"; and Chapter 64 includes \"footwear, gaiters and the like; parts of such\narticles\".\nWT/DS461/1 • G/L/1031\n\n(iii) With respect to the products classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 63\nand heading 64.063, the amount is equal to 10% of the customs value\nof the goods, plus five US dollars (US$) per gross kilo.4\n(iv) With respect to the products classified in Chapter 64, with the exception of heading\n64.06, the amount is equal to 10% of the customs value of the goods plus\nUS$5 per pair.5\n(v) It is in force for a period of one year, starting on 1 March 2013.6\n(vi) It does not apply to imports originating in the countries with which Colombia\nhas free trade agreements in force.7\n(vii) The specific levy of US$5 per gross kilo or per pair (as appropriate) is included in\nthe tax base for the value added tax (VAT).8\n Panama understands the measure at issue to be contained in: (i) Decree 074/2013;\n(ii) Decree 1497/2011 as regards the definition of the products covered by the nomenclature\nof Chapters 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the Tariff Schedule; (iii) Memorandum No. 000165\nof 30 April 2013 from the Customs Management Department of the Directorate of National Taxes\nand Customs on \"measures to control compliance with Decree 074 of 2013\".\n\n Panama hopes that Colombia will be able to provide a full and detailed explanation\nconcerning the duration, scope and operation of the compound tariff. In order to facilitate this type\nof explanation, Panama specifies that it is requesting these consultations concerning the compound\ntariff as contemplated in the aforementioned legal instruments, as well as with respect to any\nother regulation, instruction, administrative or judicial practice, method of determination\nor calculation, or guideline amending, supplementing, complementing, developing, or in any case\nrelating to the regulatory instruments expressly referred to in this request for consultations\n\n2 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT\nIn Panama's view, the compound tariff would appear to be inconsistent with Colombia's\nobligations under the Agreement Establishing th e World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement),\nand in particular:\n(i) with the first sentence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, since the compound\ntariff is an ordinary customs duty whose application results in the imposition\nof levies in excess of those resulting from the application of the ad valorem tariff\nbound in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions;\n(ii) with Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994, to th e extent that, in the light of the above,\nthe measure would appear to accord the affected imports treatment less favourable\nthan that provided for in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions;\n\n3 According to Decree 4297/2011, heading 64.06 includes \"parts of footwear (including uppers whether\nor not attached to soles other than outer soles); removable in-soles, heal cushions and similar articles; gaiters,\nleggings and similar articles, and parts thereof.\"\n4 Articles 1 and 2 of Decree 074/2013.\n5 Article 2 of Decree 074/2013.\n6 Article 3 of Decree 074/2013, in relation to Article 5 of Decree No. 074/2013.\n7 Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of Decree 074/2013.\n8 Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of Decree 074/2013.\nWT/DS461/1 • G/L/1031\n\n(iii) with the second sentence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 should the specific\nlevy of US$5 per gross kilo or per pair (as appropriate) be considered to be a duty\nor charge other than an ordinary customs duty, since it was not in force\non 15 April 1994\n9, n o r d o e s i t a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n r e q u i r e d o n t h a t d a t e\nby any mandatory provision of Colombian law; and in this case, with\nparagraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Understanding on the Interpretation\nof Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, since Colombia did not record this levy\nin its Schedule of Concessions;\n(iv) with Article VIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994, sh ould the specific levy of US$5 per gross\nkilo or per pair (as appropriate) be considered to be a duty or charge for services\nrendered upon importation, since there appears to be no link between the specific\namount of US$5 and the \"approximate cost\" of any service rendered.\nPanama advises that these consultations might give rise to other matters having legal\nimplications that are not expressly stated in this request but relate to other obligations of\nColombia under the WTO Agreement, in particular obligations relating to the administration in a\nuniform, impartial and reasonable manner of measures that affect international trade in goods, as\nset forth in Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. With a view to facilitating a wide ranging exchange of\nviews, Panama notes that, if such were to be the case, these matters would also be covered by the\nscope of this request for consultations.\n\nI look forward to your reply to this request for consultations. I propose that they be held in\nGeneva within the time-frame set forth in the DSU for that purpose."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.910204"}}},{"rowIdx":7486,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication from Guatemala"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"2 July 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/2"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF\nTEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nREQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS\nCommunication from Guatemala\nThe following communication, dated 28 June 2013, from the delegation of Guatemala\nto the delegation of Colombia, the delegation of Panama and to the Chairperson\nof the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.\n\nI wish to refer to Panama's request for consultations in Colombia - Measures Relating\nto the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS461).\n\nTextiles and apparel production is one of the most important sectors\nfor the Guatemalan economy. It generates some 90,000 direct and indirect jobs, 46% of which\nare held by women. As an economic activity, the sector accounts for 4% of domestic production\nand 21% of industrial production and is the second largest in terms of exports.\n\nIt is Guatemala's understanding that the measures questioned by Panama\ndo not affect Guatemalan exports, since Colombia excluded from the application of these measures\nany imports originating in countries with which it has existing free trade agreements.\n\nNevertheless, Guatemala has a systemic interest in this dispute and wishes to join\nthe consultations. Guatemala is interested to know Panama's and Colombia's views regarding\nthe interpretation of the provisions cited in the legal basis for the complaints.\n\nWe hope that Colombia will accord sympathetic consideration to the present representations\nmade by Guatemala. Guatemala and Colombia share the desire to enhance the rights\nof third parties and together promote increased third party participation in the dispute\nsettlement mechanism."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.910841"}}},{"rowIdx":7487,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ03_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ03_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY PANAMA"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"20 August 2013"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/3"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nREQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY PANAMA\nThe following communication, dated 19 August 201 3, from the delegation of Panama to the\nChairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.\n\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia pursuant to Article 4\nof the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)\nand Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) with respect to\nthe imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and\nfootwear from Panama.\n\nThe consultations took place in Geneva on 24 July 2013. Unfortunately, these consultations\nfailed to resolve the dispute. Consequently, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU\nand Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, Panama requests the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)\nto establish a panel in light of the measure and the legal complaint set out below.\n\nI. THE MEASURE AT ISSUE\n\nThe measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has imposed by Decree\nof the President of the Republic No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013), on the\nimportation of certain textiles, apparel and footwear. The compound tariff has the following\ncharacteristics:\n\n it is composed of an ad valorem levy, expressed as a percentage of the customs value\nof the goods, and a specific levy, expressed in units of currency per unit of\nmeasurement, applied simultaneously at the time of importation\n1;\n\n it is applied to the products classified in Chapters 61, 62, 63 and 64 (\"affected\nproducts\") of Colombia's Customs Tariff (Decree 4297/2011)2;\n\n with respect to the products classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 63 and under\nheading 64.063, the amount is equal to 10% of the customs value of the goods plus\nfive US dollars (US$) per gross kilo4;\n\n1 Articles 1 and 2 of Decree No. 0074/2013. The second preambular paragraph specifies that the\nmeasure takes the form of \"mixed tariffs composed of an ad valorem tariff and a specific tariff applied\nsimultaneously to imports of the [affected] products\".\n2 The list of products covered by Colombia's Customs Tariff is contained in Decree of the President\nof the Republic No. 4297 of 26 December 2011 (Decree 4297/2011). According to the Customs Tariff\nnomenclature, Chapter 61 includes \"articles of apparel and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted\";\nChapter 62 includes \"articles of apparel and clothing accessories not knitted and crocheted\"; Chapter 63\nincludes \" other made up textile articles; sets; worn clothing and worn textile articles\"; and Chapter 64\nincludes \"footwear, gaiters and the like; parts of such articles\".\n3 According to Decree 4297/2011, heading 64.06 includes \"parts of footwear (including uppers whether\nor not attached to soles other than outer soles); removable in-soles, heel cushions and similar articles;\nleggings and similar articles, and parts thereof\".\n\n with respect to the products classified in Chapter 64, with the exception of\nheading 64.06, the amount is equal to 10% of the customs value of the goods,\nplus US$5 per pair\n5;\n\n it is in force for a period of one year, starting on 1 March 20136;\n\n it does not apply to imports originating in the countries with which Colombia has free\ntrade agreements in force7;\n\n the specific levy of US$5 per gross kilo/pair is included in the tax base for the value\nadded tax (VAT)8;\n\n compliance is controlled in customs at the time of importation of the affected products,\nin accordance with Memorandum No. 000165 of 30 April 2013 from the Customs\nManagement Department of the Directorate of National Taxes and Customs on\n\"measures to control compliance with Decree 074 of 2013\" (Memorandum No. 000165).\n Panama understands that this measure is contained in the following rules:\n\n (i) Decree 074/2013\n\n (ii) Decree 4297/2011 of 26 December 2011 as regards the definition of the\nproducts covered by the nomenclature of Chapters 61, 62, 63 and 64 of the\nColombian Customs Tariff; and\n\n (iii) Memorandum No. 000165 as regards measures of compliance, customs control and\nadministration under Decree 074/2013 and the compound tariff.\n\nII. LEGAL COMPLAINT\n\nThe measure at issue is inconsistent with Colombia's obligations under the Agreement\nEstablishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). In particular, the measure displays\nthe following inconsistencies:\n\n(i) The compound tariff imposed by Colombia is an ordinary customs duty.\nThe application of that compound tariff to imports of the affected products results in\nthe imposition of levies, the percentage equivalent of which is greater than the bound\nad valorem tariff in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions. Consequently, in Panama's\nview, the measure in question is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article II:1(b)\nof the GATT 1994, since it subjects the affected products to ordinary customs duties in\nexcess of the levels bound in Colombia's Schedule for such products.\n\n(ii) To the extent that the compound tariff imposed on the affected products exceeds the\nbound tariff levels established in Colombia's Schedule, Colombia accords to the\ncommerce of other Members, in respect of the affected products, treatment less\nfavourable than that provided for in its Schedule of Concessions, and therefore acts in\na manner inconsistent with Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.\n\n(iii) If the specific levy of US$5 per gross kilo/pair were to be characterized as a duty or\ncharge other than an ordinary customs duty, Panama maintains that the measure in\nquestion appears to be inconsistent with the second sentence of Article II:1(b) of\nthe GATT 1994, since it was not in force at 15 April 1994\n9, nor does it appear to have\nbeen required on that date by any mandatory provision of Colombian law. In addition,\nin this case, the measure appears to be inconsistent with paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4\n\n4 Articles 1 and 2 of Decree 074/2013.\n5 Article 2 of Decree 074/2013.\n6 Article 3 of Decree 074/2013, in relation to Article 5 of Decree No. 0074/2013.\n7 Article 3, paragraph 1 of Decree 074/2013.\n8 Article 3, paragraph 2 of Decree 074/2013.\n9 Relevant date for the recording of \"other duties or charges\" in accordance with paragraph 2 of\nthe Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.\n\nof the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement\non Tariffs and Trade 1994, since Colombia did not record this levy in its Schedule\nof Concessions.\n\n(iv) In the alternative, if the specific levy of US$5 per gross kilo/pair were to be\ncharacterized as a duty or charge other than an import duty, which is imposed for\nservices rendered upon importation, Panama maintains that the measure in question\nappears to be inconsistent with Article V III:1(a) of the GATT 1994, since the specific\nlevy of US$5 per gross kilo/pair does not appear to be limited to the approximate cost\nof any type of services rendered and appears to represent an indirect protection to\ndomestic products.\n\n(v) According to Memorandum No. 000165, the affected products are subject to a\nmandatory inclusion procedure at the time of their importation. In Panama's view,\nthe administration of customs compliance and control of the compound tariff gives\ncause for serious concerns regarding its uniformity, impartiality and reasonableness\nwithin the meaning of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.\n\nPanama has identified the rules which, in its view, underpin the measure in question.\n\nNevertheless, this list is without prejudice to any other rules, administrative or legal\ndecisions, acts, practices, guidance or guidelines issued by Colombia that may be relevant in\nexamining this dispute. Accordingly, the scope of this panel request covers all the aforementioned\nrules as well as any possible amendments, extensions or additions where applicable.\n\nGiven the inconsistencies described above, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU,\nPanama considers that the measure at issue nullifies or impairs the advantages accruing\nto Panama under the provisions mentioned in this request.\n\nPanama requests that, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, the DSB establish a panel to\nexamine this matter. Panama further requests that the panel be given the standard terms of\nreference provided for in Article 7.1 of the DSU.\n\nPanama asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be included in the agenda\nof the meeting scheduled for 30 August 2013."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.913100"}}},{"rowIdx":7488,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ04_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ04_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Note_By_Secretariat"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF PANAMA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"16 January 2014"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/4; WT/DS461/3; WT/DS461/3"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nCONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF PANAMA\nNOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT\n1. At its meeting on 25 September 2013, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a\npanel pursuant to the request of Panama in document , in accordance with Article 6 of\nthe Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).1\n\n2. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:\n\nTo examine, in the light of the relevant pr ovisions of the covered agreements cited by\nthe parties to the dispute, the matter refe rred to the DSB by Panama in document\n and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the\nrecommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.\n3. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to determine the\ncomposition of the Panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:\n\nIf there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the\nestablishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in\nconsultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council\nor Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the\npanelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with\nany relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or\ncovered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties\nto the dispute. The Chairman of the DSB sh all inform the Members of the composition\nof the panel thus formed no later than 10 days after the date the Chairman receives\nsuch a request.\n4. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:\n\n Chairperson: Mr Elbio Rosselli\n\n Members: Mr Carlos Véjar Borrego\n Mr Fabián Villarroel Ríos\n\n5. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, the Philippines and\nthe United States have reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third\nparties."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.913888"}}},{"rowIdx":7489,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ05_Communication_01.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ05_Communication_01.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"COMMUNICATION FROM"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"6 November 2014"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/5"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nCOMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL\nThe following communication, dated 4 November 20 14, was received from the Chairperson of the\nPanel with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body.\n\nArticle 12.8 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of\nDisputes (DSU) provides that the period in which a panel shall conduct its examination, from the\ndate that the composition and terms of referenc e of the panel have been agreed upon until the\ndate the final report is issued to the parties to the dispute, shall, as a general rule, not exceed\nsix months.\n\nArticle 12.9 of the DSU provides that, when a panel considers that it cannot issue its report within\nsix months, it shall inform the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in writing accordingly and indicate\nthe reasons, together with an estimate of the period within which it will issue its report.\n\nThe Panel on Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and\nFootwear (WT/DS461) was established by the DSB on 25 September 2013 and composed\non 15 January 2014.\n\nThe start of the proceedings was deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers.\nThe Panel therefore expects to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.914430"}}},{"rowIdx":7490,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ06_Working_Procedures.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ06_Working_Procedures.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":6,"string":"6"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Working_Procedures"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY COLOMBIA 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"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"27 January 2016"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/6"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nNOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY COLOMBIA\nUNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES\nAND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),\nAND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW\nThe following communication, dated 22 January 2016, from the delegation of Colombia, is being\ncirculated to Members.\n\nSettlement Body (\"DSB\") of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in\nthe Panel Report in Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and\nFootwear (WT/DS461) (\"Panel Report\").\n2. Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, Colombia files this Notice of\nAppeal together with its Appellant's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.\n3. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Pr ocedures, this Notice of Appeal includes an\nindicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without\nprejudice to Colombia's ability to rely on other paragraphs of the Panel Report in its appeal.\n4. Colombia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the following errors of law and legal\ninterpretation by the Panel in its Report and requests the following findings by the Appellate Body.\nI. Review of the Panel's Findings under Article II of the GATT 1994 and Request for\nCompletion\n5. The Panel erred in interpreting and applying Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and failed to\nmake an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU in finding that \"the\ncompound tariff, as regards the examples set out in paragraphs 7.164 and 7.180, exceeds the\nlevels bound in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions and is therefore inconsistent with the\nobligation in Article II:1(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994 not to impose on the import of\nproducts of other Members 'ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth and provided' in\nColombia's Schedule of Concessions\".\n1 The Panel erred because:\n it incorrectly concluded that it was not necessary to issue a finding on whether or not the\nobligations of Article II:1 of the GATT 1994 are applicable to illicit trade. In proceeding in\nthis manner, the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under\nArticle 11 of the DSU2;\n\n1 Panel Report, paras. 7.189, 7.192-7.194, and 8.2-8.4.\n2 Panel Report, paras. 7.108 and 8.1.\n\n it improperly exercised judicial economy and violated Colombia's due process rights. By\nexercising false judicial economy and failin g to respect Colombia's due process rights,\nthe Panel failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the\nDSU\n3;\n it incorrectly found that Colombia's measure is \"structured and designed to be applied to\nall imports of the products concerned, withou t distinguishing between 'licit' and 'illicit'\ntrade\" and that \"no legal provision that ba ns the importation of goods whose declared\nprices are below the thresholds established in Decree No. 456 has been identified\". 4 In\nmaking such findings, the Panel did not comply with Article 11 of the DSU. The Panel\nerred further because such findings did not provide a valid basis for the Panel's ultimate\nconclusion that it was not necessary for it to rule on whether Article II applied only to\nlicit trade\n5;\n even on the assumption that Article II:1(b) were applicable to illicit trade, it erred in the\ninterpretation and application of Article II:1(b), and under Article 11 of the DSU, in\nfinding that it was not persuaded that Decree 456 \"incorporates a legislative ceiling\nwhich prevents the compound tariff resulting in duties that exceed the levels bound in\nColombia's Schedule of Concessions\"\n6;\n it improperly relaxed the burden of proof for Panama in establishing a prima facie case\nunder Article II.7 In proceeding in this manner, the Panel failed to comply with Article 11\nof the DSU.\n6. For the reasons provided above, Colombia re quests that the Appellate Body reverse the\nPanel's finding that \"the compound tariff, as regards the examples set out in paragraphs 7.164\nand 7.180, exceeds the levels bound in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions and is therefore\ninconsistent with the obligation in Article II:1(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994 not to impose\non the import of products of other Members' ordi nary customs duties in excess of those set forth\nand provide' in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions\".\n8 The Panel's finding under Article II:1(a) is\nbased entirely on its erroneous findings of inconsistency under Article II:1(b). Therefore, if the\nAppellate Body were to agree with Colombia's request to reverse the Panel's findings under\nArticle II:1(b), Colombia requests that the Appella te Body also reverse the Panel's finding under\nArticle II:1(a).9 And, as a result of the above, the Appellate Body must also reverse the Panel's\nconclusions in paragraph 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 of the Panel Report.\n7. If, as requested by Colombia above, the Appellate Body reverses the Panel's finding that it\nwas not necessary for the Panel to issue a finding on whether or not the obligations of Article II:1\nof the GATT 1994 can be extended to illicit trade, Colombia requests the Appellate Body to\ncomplete the legal analysis under Articles II:1(a) and (b) and make the following findings:\n Articles II:1(a) and (b) do not apply to illicit trade; and,\n because imports priced below the thresholds established in Decree 456 are imported at\nartificially low prices that do not reflect market conditions, the compound tariffs\nestablished in Decree 456 do not violate Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994.\nII. Review of the Panel's Findings under Article XX of the GATT 1994 and Request for\nCompletion\n8. The Panel erred in the interpretation and ap plication of Article XX of the GATT 1994 and\nfailed to make an objective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU in finding that\n\n3 Panel Report, paras. 7.90, 7.108 and 8.1.\n5 Panel Report, paras. 7.105-7.108 and 8.1.\n6 Panel Report, paras. 7.186, 7.189, 7.192-7.194, and 8.2-8.4.\n7 Panel Report, paras. 7.189, 7.192-7.194, and 8.2-8.4.\n8 Panel Report, paras. 7.189, 7.192-7.194, and 8.2-8.4.\n9 Panel Report, paras. 7.192 and 7.194.\n\nColombia has failed to demonstrate that its measure is justified under Article XX(a) and (d) of the\nGATT 1994.10 The Panel erred because:\n it incorrectly interpreted and applied the terms \"to protect public morals\" in\nsubparagraph (a) and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under\nArticle 11 of the DSU when it found that Colombia has failed to demonstrate that the\ncompound tariff is a measure to protect public morals,11 specifically:\no it erroneously imported elements of the \"necessity\" test to the assessment of\nwhether Decree 456 is a measure \"to protect public morals;\"\no even in the event that it was appropriate for the Panel to examine the contribution of\nthe measure, it developed and imposed an overly demanding standard of \"to protect\"\nthat is inconsistent with Article XX(a);\no it required Colombia to demonstrate that Decree 456 addressed the money\nlaundering problem in its entirety as oppose d to addressing the particular aspect of\nmoney laundering targeted by Decree 456;\no it failed to properly the assess statistical evidence provided by Colombia\ndemonstrating the existence of undervalu ation and money laundering and thereby\nacted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU;\no it misapplied \"to protect\" with regard to the text of the measure, the existence of\nexclusions, the period of validity, the legal consequences of importing goods at prices\nbelow the thresholds, and in regard to additional evidence.\n it incorrectly interpreted and applied the \"necessity\" requirement under\nsubparagraph (a) and failed to make an objective assessment of the matter under\nArticle 11 of the DSU in finding that Colombia has not demonstrated the contribution of\nthe compound tariff to the alleged objective of combating money laundering\n12 and that\nColombia has not demonstrated that its compound tariff is necessary to combat money\nlaundering.13 The Panel's errors include:\no an erroneous assessment of the contribution of Decree 456 to the fight against\nmoney laundering and, in particular, to the use of imports of apparel at artificially\nlow prices to launder money14;\no its failure to undertake a proper weighing and balancing of the factors involved in the\nanalysis of \"necessity\"; and\no failing to comply with its obligations under Article 11 of the DSU by disregarding\nqualitative and quantitative evidence that amply demonstrated the contribution of\nDecree 456 to the fighting money laundering through imports of apparel and\nfootwear at artificially low prices15;\n it incorrectly interpreted and applied subparagraph (d) of Article XX because the Panel's\nfindings under subparagraph (d) are entirely based on its erroneous findings under\nsubparagraph (a)16;\n it incorrectly interpreted and applied the chapeau of Article XX and failed to make an\nobjective assessment of the matter under Article 11 of the DSU in finding that \"because\nof the various exclusions from the application of the measure for imports originating in\ncountries with which Colombia has trade agreements in force, for imports into\n\n10 Panel Report, paras. 7.592 and 8.5-8.7.\n11 Panel Report, paras. 7.331-7.401 and 8.5.\n12 Panel Report, paras. 7.409-7.445, 7.470, 7.471 and 8.5.\n13 Panel Report, paras. 7.445, 7.470-7.471 and 8.5.\n14 Panel Report, paras. 7.409-7.437.\n15 Panel Report, paras. 7.354-7.355 and 7.414-7.430.\n16 Panel Report, paras. 7.513-7.537 and 8.6.\n\nColombia's Special Customs Regime Zones and for imports under the 'Plan Vallejo', even\nassuming that Colombia had succeeded in showing that its measure was provisionally\njustified under Article XX(a) or Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, the compound tariff is\nnot applied in a manner such that it meets the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX\nof the GATT 1994\".\n17 The Panel also erred under Articles 6.2 in finding that Colombia's\narguments concerning Article XXIV were not within its terms of reference.\n9. For the reasons provided above, Colombia requests that the Appellate Body reverse\nparagraphs 7.592 and 8.5-8.7 of the Panel Report, which find that Colombia has failed to\ndemonstrate that its measure is justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994. 18 Colombia\nadditionally requests that the Appellate Body co mplete the analysis and find that Colombia's\nmeasure is justified under Articles XX(a) and (d) of the GATT 1994."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.916892"}}},{"rowIdx":7491,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ07_Communication_02.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ07_Communication_02.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"COMMUNICATION FROM"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"29 March 2016"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/7"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nCOMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY\nThe following communication, dated 22 March 2016, from the Chair of the Appellate Body\naddressed to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members in accordance\nwith Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rule s and Procedures Governing the Settlement of\nDisputes.\n\nI am writing to you pursuant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing\nthe Settlement of Disputes (DSU), which stipulates that, as a general rule, the Appellate Body will\ncirculate its report no later than 60 days after the appellant has formally notified the Dispute\nSettlement Body (DSB) of its decision to appeal. Article 17.5 states, furthermore, that, when the\nAppellate Body considers that it cannot provide its report within 60 days, it shall inform the DSB in\nwriting of the reasons for the delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will submit\nits report.\n\nColombia notified the DSB on 22 January 2016 of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered\nin the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this case, with the result that\nday 60 in this proceeding falls on Tuesday, 22 March 2016. For the reasons expressed below, the\nAppellate Body will not be able to circulate its report by this date, or within the 90-day timeframe\nprovided for in the last sentence of Article 17.5 of the DSU.\n\nOn the date this appeal was filed, there was another ongoing proceeding already being serviced by\nthe Appellate Body Secretariat, and the Divisions in these two appeals overlap. In addition, both of\nthese appeals require Spanish-speaking staff, of which the Appellate Body Secretariat has only a\nlimited number, as well as the translation into English of documents filed in Spanish, for\nnon-Spanish-speaking Appellate Body Members and staff.\n\nThe circulation date of the Appellate Body report in this appeal will be communicated to the\nparticipants and third participants shortly after the oral hearing."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.917561"}}},{"rowIdx":7492,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ08_DSB_Action.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ08_DSB_Action.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":8,"string":"8"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"DSB_Action"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"Action by the Dispute Settlement Body"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"null"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA - MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"22 June 2016"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/10; WT/DS461/AB/R; WT/DS461/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS461/R; WT/DS461/R/Add.1"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA - MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nAPPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT\nAction by the Dispute Settlement Body\nAt its meeting on 22 June 2016, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body report\non Colombia - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear\n( and ) and the Panel report ( and\n), as modified by the Appellate Body report. The Panel report should be read in\nconjunction with the Appellate Body report.\n\nCOLOMBIE - MESURES VISANT LES IMPORTATIONS DE TEXTILES,\nVÊTEMENTS ET CHAUSSURES\nRAPPORT DE L'ORGANE D'APPEL ET RAPPORT DU GROUPE SPÉCIAL\nÀ sa réunion du 22 juin 2016, l'Organe de règlement des différends a adopté le rapport de\nl'Organe d'appel intitulé Colombie - Mesures visant les importations de textiles, vêtements et\nGroupe spécial est à rapprocher de celui de l'Organe d'appel.\n\nCOLOMBIA - MEDIDAS RELATIVAS A LA IMPORTACIÓN\nDE TEXTILES, PRENDAS DE VESTIR Y CALZADO\nActuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias\nEn su reunión de 22 de junio de 2016, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias adoptó el informe del\nprendas de vestir y calzado ( y ) y el informe del Grupo"},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.918149"}}},{"rowIdx":7493,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ09_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ09_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":9,"string":"9"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Note_By_Secretariat"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT On 30 August 2016, pursuant to the request received on 19 August 2016 from the delegation of Panama, the Director General appointed Mr Giorgio Sacerdoti to act as arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), in the matter Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS461). Mr Giorgio Sacerdoti accepted this appointment, by letter dated"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"7 September 2016"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/12"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES,\nAPPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nAPPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C)\nOF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES\nGOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES\nNOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT\nOn 30 August 2016, pursuant to the request received on 19 August 2016 from the delegation of\nPanama, the Director General appointed Mr Giorgio Sacerdoti to act as arbitrator under\nArticle 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of\nDisputes (DSU), in the matter Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles,\nApparel and Footwear (DS461). Mr Giorgio Sacerdoti accepted this appointment, by letter dated\n5 September 2016 to Colombia and Panama."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.918661"}}},{"rowIdx":7494,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ10_Communication_03.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ10_Communication_03.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":10,"string":"10"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"COMMUNICATION FROM"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"15 December 2016"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/15"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nCOMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA\nThe following communication, dated 13 December 2016, was received from the delegation of\nColombia with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).\n\nIn accordance with Article 21.6 of the Underst anding on Rules and Procedures G overning the\nSettlement of Disputes, Colombia wishes to inform Members that on 2 November 2016, the\nColombian Government issued De cree 1744 of 2016 modifying the tariffs applicable to imports of\nproducts classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 63 of the Customs Tariff, and certain items in\nChapter 64.\n\nDecree 1744 sets a n ad valorem MFN tariff of 40 % for imports of products classified in\nChapters 61 and 62 when the declared FOB import price is less than or equal to\nten (10) US dollars per gross kilogram . T his tariff is equal to the bound tariff in Colombia's\nSchedule LXXVI, Part I – Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff, Section II – Other products, annexed to the\nGATT 1994. In cases where the import price for these products exceeds ten (10) US dollars, the\nMFN tariff will be as provided in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending decree, containing the\nCustoms Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, and as such it will not exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.\n\nAs regards imports of products classified under tariff headings 6401, 6402, 6403, 6404 and 6405\nof the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, an MFN tariff of 35 % ad valorem is applied\nwhen the declared FOB import price is less than or equal to prices that vary between\nsix (6) US dollars and ten (10) US dollars per pair, in accordance with the said Decree. For imports\nof products classified under subheading 6406.10.00.00, an MFN tariff of 35 % ad valorem will be\napplied when the declared FOB price is less than or equal to five (5) US dollars per gross kilogram .\nThese tariffs are equal to the tariff bound in Colombia's S chedule LXXVI, Part I –\nMost-Favoured-Nation Tariff, Section II – Other products, annexe d to the GATT 1994 . In cases\nwhere the import price for these products exceeds the above -mentioned prices, the MFN tariff will\nbe as provided in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending decree, and as such it will not exceed\nColombia's bound tariffs.\n\nFor impor ts of the other products that were covered by the compound tariff s introduced by\nDecree 456 of 2014, including the products classified in Chapter 63 of the Customs Tariff and\nthose classified under the headings of Chapter 64 not mentioned above, the applic able tariff, as\nfrom 2 November, is the MFN ad valorem tariff set forth in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending\ndecree, and as such it will not exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.\n\nThus, Colombia has fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings ad opted on\n22 June 2016 in Colombia – Textiles (DS461)."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.919472"}}},{"rowIdx":7495,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ11_Request_For_Consultations_01.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ11_Request_For_Consultations_01.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":11,"string":"11"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_For_Consultations"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"2 March 2017"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/19"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nRECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA\nREQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS\nThe following communication, dated 2 7 February 2017, from the delegation of Colombia to the\ndelegation of Panama and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in\naccordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU.\n\nPursuant to Articles 21.5 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the\nSettlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994\n(GATT 1994), my authorities have instructed me to request consu ltations with the Government\nof Panama regarding the existence of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and\nrulings of the Dispute Settlement Body in the dispute Colombia – Measures Relating to the\nImportation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (DS461).\n\nColombia takes the view that Arti cle 21.5 of the DSU is silent with respect to the obligation to\nrequest c onsultations under Article 4 of the DSU . C onsequently, such consultations cannot be\ninterpreted as a mandatory procedural remedy, the less so since in the present case, Panama\ninitiated proceedings for the suspension of the application of concessions or ot her obligations\nto Colombia in the absence of any determination as to Colombia's compliance with the\nrecommendations and rulings of the DSB or of nullification or impairment affecting Panama.\n\nConsequently, Panama's as sertions before the Dispute Settlement Body on 2 0 February of this\nyear, which I shall revert to in this document, place Colombia in the difficult situation of having to\nrequest these consultations in the aforementioned terms in spite of the interpretation referred to\nearlier, aware of the nee d to stress its good faith in these proceedings while at the same time\navoiding the procedural and contentious hurdles posed by the opposing party.\n\nIndeed, as notified by Colombia to the WTO, the measure examined in this dispute ceased to exist\nas of 2 November 2016. Since that date, Colombia has not applied compound tariffs to imports of\napparel and footwear, and the tariffs expressed in ad valorem terms that Colombia now applies do\nnot exceed the bound level in its schedule.\n\nPursuant to Article 4.4 of t he DSU, I shall proceed to describe the reasons for this request,\nincluding identification of the measure at issue and an indica tion of the legal basis for\nthe complaints:\n\nOn 22 June 2016, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report (as modified\nby the Appellate Body) in the dispute Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles,\nApparel and Footwear (DS461).\n\nThe DSB found, for imports of products classified in Chapters 61, 62, 63 and 64 (except for\nheading 64.06 but includ ing tariff line 6406.10.00.00) of Colombia's Customs Tariff, that in the\ninstances identified in the Panel Report, the compound tariff exceeded the bound tariff rate in\n\nColombia's Schedule of Concessions, and was therefore inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b) of\nthe GATT 1994.\n\nThe DSB also found that although the measure at issue was \"designed\" to protect public morals in\nColombia within the meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994, Colombia had failed to\ndemonstrate that the compound tariff was a me asure \"necessary to protect public morals\" within\nthe meaning of Article XX(a) of the GATT 1994 . S imilarly, the DSB found that although the\nmeasure at issue was \"designed\" to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not\ninconsistent with the GA TT 1994, namely, Article 323 of Colombia's Criminal Code, within the\nmeaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994, Colombia had not demonstrated that the compound\ntariff was a measure \"necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not\ninconsistent\" with the GATT 1994, within the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.\n\nColombia replaced the compound tariff with an ad valorem tariff that does not exceed Colombia's\nWTO bound tariffs, and in that sense, it has brought t he measure subject to the\nDSB's recommendations into compliance with its WTO obligations . H owever, Panama does not\nagree with Colombia that Decree 1744 replacing the compound tariff is consistent with the covered\nagreements and brings Colombia into compliance with the GATT 1994.\n\nDecree 1744 of 2 November 2016 was issued by the Colombia Government in order to modify the\ntariffs applicable to imports of products classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 63 of the Customs Tarif f,\nand certain items in Chapter 64.\n\nThis Decree sets an ad valorem MFN tariff of 40% for imports of products classified in Chapters 61\nand 62 of the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia when the declared f.o.b. import price is\nless than or equal to ten (10) US dollars per gross kilogram . T his tariff is equal to the bound\ntariff in Colombia's Schedule LXXVI, Part I - Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff, Section II - Other\nProducts, annexed to the GATT 1994 . In cases where the import price for these products exceeds\nten (10) US dollars, the MFN tariff will be as provide d in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending\ndecree, containing the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, and as such neither of the two\nmentioned levies will exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.\n\nAs regards imports of products classified under tariff headin gs 6401, 6402, 6403, 6404 and 6405\nof the Customs Tariff of the Republic of Colombia, an MFN tariff of 35 % ad valorem is\napplied when the declared f.o.b. import price is less than or equal to pric es that vary\nbetween six (6) US dollars and ten (10) US doll ars per pair, in accordance with the said Decree .\nFor imports of products classified under subheading 6406.10.00.00, an MFN tariff of 35 %\nad valorem will be applied when the declared f.o.b. price is less than or equal to five (5) US dollars\nper gross kilog ram. T hese tariffs are equal to the tariff bound in Co lombia's Schedule LXXVI,\nPart I - Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff, Section II - Other Products, annexed to the GATT 1994 . In\ncases where the import price for these products exceeds the above -mentioned prices, the MFN\ntariff will be as provided in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending decree, and as such neither of\nthe two mentioned levies will exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.\n\nFor imports of the other products that were covered by the compou nd tariffs introduc ed by\nDecree 456 of 2014, including the products classified in Chapter 63 of the Customs Tariff and\nthose classified under the headings of Chapter 64 not mentioned above, the applicable tariff, as\nfrom 2 November, is the MFN ad valorem tariff set forth in Decree 4927 of 2011 or any amending\ndecree, and as such it will not exceed Colombia's bound tariffs.\n\nAs indicated in document WT/DS461/17, Colombia was obliged to request the establishment of a\npanel because Panama requested authorization to suspend the a pplication to Colombia of\nconcessions or other obligations without fir st referring the matter to the p anel under Article 21.5 .\nMoreover, on several occasions Colombia urged Panama to conclude a sequencing agreement,\nsomething which Panama has thus far refused to do.\n\nColombia regrets that at the DSB meeting of 20 February 2017, Panam a opposed the\nestablishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU, arguing that there had been no\nconsultations. C ertain Members described Panama's opposition as inappropriat e in that it\nprevented the establishment of a panel in these proceedings based on the premise that there had\nbeen no request for consultations by Colombia. Other Members qualified it as a procedural remedy\nthat was contrary to Article 3.10 of the DSU in th at it reflected a contentious strategy that sought\n\nto block Colombia's right to demonstrate its compliance with the recommendations and rulings of\nthe DSB.1\n\nAs already mentioned, this request is without prejudice to Colombia's position that the holding of\nconsultations prior to the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU is not a\nprerequisite when, as in this case, the complainant refuses to initiate proceedings under that\nprovision in circumstances in which there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a\ncovered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings . It is also\nwithout prejudice to Colombia's position that even if they were necessary, Colombia and Panama\nhave held extensive consultations on this matter and on Decree 1744.2\n\nI look forward to your reply to this request for consultation. I propose that they be held in Geneva,\nSwitzerland, on 1, 2 or 3 March 2017, on the WTO premises.\n\nFurthermore, on 9 February 2017, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Ministers of Trade of the\ntwo countries met in Cartagena to hold consultations on this matter. Finally, on 22 February 2017 Colombia\nformally submitted to Panama a proposal for a sequencing agreement, recognizing the specificities of the\ncurrent situation in the dispute, a proposal to which Panama has not responded."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.921425"}}},{"rowIdx":7496,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ12_Communication_04.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ12_Communication_04.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":12,"string":"12"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Communication"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"COMMUNICATION FROM"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"3 March 2017"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/20"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nCOMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA\nThe following communication, dated 2 7 February 2017, from the delegation of Colombia to the\nChairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of that delegation.\n\nWith reference to the proposal made to Panama, upon instruction from my authorities , on\n22 February of this year regarding the possibility of negotiating and concluding a sequencing\nagreement in the dispute Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and\nFootwear (DS461), my capital has instructed me to ask that th e proposal be circulated to all\nWTO Members under the symbol for this dispute, DS461.\nWe take this opportunity to reiterate our willingness to find a logical solution to this issue . At the\nsame time, we would like to thank you for your management of this dispute.\n\nAgreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the\nDispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)\n\nColombia – Measures Relating to the Importation\nof Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (WT/DS461)\n\nThe Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted its recommendations and rulings in the dispute\nColombia – Measures Relating to the Importatio n of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear (WT/DS461)\non 22 June 2016.\n\nPanama and Colombia (collectively, \"the Parties\") have agreed on the following procedures for the\nexclusive purposes of this dispute. They are designed to facilitate the resolution of the dispute and\nreduce the scope for procedural disputes and are without prejudice to either Party's views on the\ncorrect interpretation of the DSU:\n1. Panama shall inform the DSB through its Chair of its intention to immediately suspend\nits request to the DSB () for authorization to suspend the application to\nColombia of concessions or other obligations.\n2. Pursuant to the suspension of Panama's request for authorization to suspend\nconcessions and other obligations, Colombia shall ask the arbitrator to suspend the\nproceeding under Article 22.6 of the DSU . Moreover, as long as Panama's request for\nauthorization to suspend concession s or other obligations remains suspend ed,\nColombia shall refrain from requesting the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5\nof the DSU (WT/DS461/17) for a second time.\n3. Once the procedures described in points 1 and 2 above have been suspended, Panama\nshall request consultations with Colombia under Article 21.5 of the DSU . The Parties\nagree to hold such consultations within 30 days from the date of rec eipt of the\nrequest. After this 30 -day period has elapsed, Panama may at any time request the\nestablishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.\n4. The Parties shall cooperate to enable the Article 21.5 panel to circulate its report\nwithin 90 days of the panel's establishment, excluding such time during which the\npanel's work may be suspended pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.\n5. Either Party may request the DSB to adopt the report of the Article 21.5 panel at\na DSB meeting held at least 20 days after the circulation of the report to the Members\nunless either Party appeals the report.\n6. In the event of an appeal of the Article 21.5 panel report, the proceedings described in\npoints 1 and 2 above shall remain suspended and the Parties shall cooperate to enable\nthe Appellate Body to circulate its report to the Members within 90 days from the date\nof notification of the appeal to the DSB . Further, either Party may request the DSB to\nadopt the reports of the Appellate Body and of the Article 21.5 panel (as modifie d by\nthe Appellate Body report) at a DSB meeting held within 30 days of the circulation of\nthe Appellate Body report to the Members.\n7. In the event that the DSB, following a panel or Appellate Body proceeding under\nArticle 21.5 of the DSU, rules that a measu re taken to comply does not exist or is\ninconsistent with a covered agreement, Panama may reactivate its request for\nauthorization to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to Article 22 .2 of\nthe DSU . C olombia shall not assert that Panama is pr ecluded from obtaining such\nDSB authorization on the grounds that the request w as made outside the 30 -day\ntime-period specified in Article 22.6 of the DSU . T his is without prejudice to\nColombia's right to have the matter referred to arbitration by objecting in accordance\nwith Article 22.6 of the DSU.\n8. If Panama asks to reactivate its request for authorization to suspend concessions or\nother obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, Colombia shall have the right to\n\nrequest the reactivation of the arbitr ation under Article 22.6 of the DSU concerning\nthe level of suspension of concessions or other obligations and/or the fact that the\nprinciples and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU have not been followed .\ninitiated at Colombia's request (see document WT/DS461/18).\n9. The Parties sha ll cooperate to enable the arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the DSU to\ncirculate its decision within 60 days of the re-initiation of the arbitration.\n10. If any of the original panelists is not available for either the Art icle 21.5 compliance\npanel or the Article 22.6 arbitration (or both), the Parties shall promptly consult on a\nreplacement, and either Party may request the Director -General of the WTO to\nappoint, within ten days of being so requested, a replacement for the proceeding or\nproceedings in which a replacement is required. If an original panelist is unavailable to\nserve in either o f the proceedings, the Parties shall further request that, in making\nthis appointment, the Director -General seek a person who will be available to act in\nboth proceedings.\n11. The Parties shall continue to cooperate in all matters related to these agreed\nprocedures. If, during the application of these procedures, the Parties consider that a\nprocedural aspect has not been properly addressed i n these procedures, they shall\nendeavour to find a solution within the shortest time possible that will not affect the\nother aspects and steps agreed herein . Similarly, if one of the Parties fails to comply\nwith any of the commitments set forth herein, the other Party sha ll be under no\nobligation to comply with its commitments under this Agreement.\n12. These agreed procedures in no way prejudice other rights of either Party to take any\naction or procedural step to protect its rights and interes ts, including rec ourse to\nthe DSU."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.922699"}}},{"rowIdx":7497,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ13_Request_For_Consultations_02.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ13_Request_For_Consultations_02.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":13,"string":"13"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Request_For_Consultations"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY PANAMA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"16 March 2017"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/21"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":7,"string":"7"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nRECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY PANAMA\nREQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS\nThe following communication, dated 9 March 2017, from the delegation of Panama to the\ndelegation of Co lombia and the Chair person of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in\naccordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU.\n\nMy authorities have instructed me , with reference to the above -mentioned case, to accept\nColombia's request for consulta tions under Article 21.5 of the DSU , dated 27 February 2017, and\nat the same time to request joint consultations on certain implementing measures not included in\nColombia's request for consultations, pursuant to Article 21.5 and Article 4 of the Understand ing\non Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article 19 of the Agreement\non Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Customs\nValuation Agreement), and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994\n(GATT 1994).\nOn 22 June 2016, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body report\nand the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, in the case Colombia – Measures Relating\nto the Importation of Textiles, A pparel and Footwear (Colombia – Textiles).1 The Panel and the\nAppellate Body found that Colombia's compound tariff, contained in Decree No. 456/20142, was\ninconsistent with Article II:1(a) and II:1(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994 , since in certain\ninstances it exceeded the bound tariff rates in Colombia's Schedule of Concessions for imports of\ntextiles and footwear classified in Chapters 61, 62, 63 and 643 of Colombia's Customs Tariff\n(Decree No. 4297/20114). Consequently, the DSB recommended that Colombia bring the offending\nmeasure into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.5\nPursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, on 8 August 2016 Panama requested that the\nreasonable period of time for compliance be determined through binding arbitratio n.6 During that\narbitration, Colombia stated that the implementation process would consist of the joint\nimplementation of tariff measures and anti-money laundering customs measures , to be\nimplemented by issuing \"two 'mutually supportive decrees ' as part of the implementation\nprocess\".7 The Arbitrator appointed in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU determined that\n\n1 Dispute Settlement Body, minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2016 (WT/DSB/M/380), para. 9.7.\nSee also Action by the Dispute Settlement Body, adoption of the Panel report, as modified by the\nAppellate Body report, in Colombia – Textiles (WT/DS461/10).\n2 Decree of the President of the Republic of Colombia No. 456 of 28 February 2014 \"partially amending\nthe Customs Tariff\" (Decree No. 456/2014).\n3 Except for heading 64.06, but including tariff line 6406.10.00.00 (uppers).\n4 Decree of the President of the Republic of Colombia No. 4927 of 26 December 2011, \"adopting the\nCustoms Tariff and other provisions\" (Decree No. 4297/2011).\n5 Appellate Body report, Colombia – Textiles, para. 6.12.\n6 Request by Panama for Arbitration Under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU (WT/DS461/11).\n7 Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia – Textiles, (Article 21.3(c)), para. 3.34 (referring to Colombia's\nsubmission, para. 29) (emphasis added).\n\nthe \"reasonable period of time in the present dispute should include the time needed to enact both\nthe tariff measure and the customs meas ure\"8, and granted Colombia a \"reasonable period of\ntime\" for compliance of seven months from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body\nreports.9\nThe reasonable period of time for compliance expired on 22 January 2017.10 Nevertheless, in\nPanama's view, Colombia has thus far failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations and\nrulings.\nOn 2 November 2016, Colombia adopted two decrees that modify the tariff and customs\nregime for the importation of textiles and footwear : ( i) Decre e No. 1744 of 2 November 2016\n\"partially modifying the Customs Tariff \" ( Decree No. 1744/2016); a nd (ii) Decre e No. 1745 of\n2 November 2016 \" adopting measures for the prevention and control of customs fraud in\nconnection with imports of apparel and footwear\" (Decree No. 1745/2016). The adoption of these\ntwo decrees was recommended by the Committee on Customs, Tariffs and Foreign Trade of\nColombia at the same session , No. 299, of 7 October 2016.11 Moreover, both decrees refer\nexpressly to Decree No. 456/2014 containing the compou nd tariff found to be inconsistent with\nColombia's WTO obligations.12\nPanama is of the opinion that these amendments, far from bringing the measure into\nconformity with Colombia's WTO obligations, perpetuate the nullification and impairment of\nbenefits accruing to Panama directly or indirectly under the GATT 1994.\nI. MEASURES IN DISPUTE\nA. SECURITY FOR RELEASE OF GOODS\nDecree No. 1745/2016 introduces special customs controls for the importation of apparel\nand footwear classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of Col ombia's Customs Tariff when the declared\nf.o.b. value of such products is less than or equal to the thresholds established in Article 3 of that\nDecree.13 No expiry date has been set for Decree No. 1745/2016.\n\nIn order to guarantee the payment of such customs duties and penalties as may apply ,\nArticle 7 of Decree No. 1745/2016 provides that as a prerequisite for the release of the goods\nreferred to in Article 3 of the Decree, the importer shall furnish security in the form of \"a specific\nbank or insurance gua rantee of 200% of the unit 'threshold' price established in [] Article [3],\nmultiplied by the amount imported, for a period of three (3) years …\" (hereinafter the security).\n\nThe same article also provides that \"[s]hould the obligation to post a guarantee in a\nvaluation dispute coincide with the obligation mentioned in this article, the latter shall prevail and\nthe procedures provided for in the customs legislation governing the approval, control and\nsafekeeping of guarantees shall apply in determining the customs value of the imported goods and\nthe penalty\".\n\n8 Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia – Textiles, (Article 21.3(c)), para. 3.42.\n9 Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia – Textiles, (Article 21.3(c)), para. 4.1.\n10 Award of the Arbitrator, Colombia – Textiles, (Article 21.3(c)), para. 4.1.\n11 See Recital 7 of the preamble to Decree No. 1745/2016 and Recital 2 of the preamble to Decree\nNo. 1744/2016.\n12 The preamble to Decree No. 1745/2016 points out that \"the customs measures set forth in this\nDecree are applied to ensure continued compliance with the policy objective pursued by the measures\ncontained in Decree 456 of 2014 and the amendments thereto\" (Recital 8 of the preamble to Decree\nNo. 1745/2016) (emphasis added). Similarly, the preamble to Decree No. 1744/2016 mentions that \"bearing in\nmind that the implementation period stipulated in Article 5 of Decree 456 of 2014, extended by Decrees 515 of\n2016 and 1229 of 2016, expires on 1 November 2016, it is necessary to apply the exception provided for in\nArticle 2, paragraph 2 of Law 1609 of 2013, in order to ensure continued compliance with the policy objective\npursued by that measure\" (Recital 3 of the preamble to Decree No. 1744/2016) (emphasis added).\n13 Articles 2 and 3 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n\nThus, the security has the following characteristics:\n\n Its purpose is to guarantee the payment of customs dut ies and any penalties that may\napply;14\n It applies to imports of apparel and footwear classif ied in Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of\nColombia's Customs Tariff when the declared f.o.b. value of such goods is less than or\nequal to the thresholds established in Article 3 of Decree 1745/2016;15\n It consists of a specific bank or insurance guarantee of 200% of the corresponding unit\nthreshold price multiplied by the quantity imported, for a three-year period;16\n It prevails in case s where it coincides with the obligation to post a guarantee in a\nvaluation dispute;17 and\n It enters into force indefinitely as from 2 November 2016.18\nPanama understands that this measure is contained in the following legislation:\n\n(i) Decree No. 1745/2016; and\n(ii) Decree No. 4297/2011 of 26 December 2011 as regards the definition of the products\ncovered by the nomenclature of Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of the Colombian Customs\nTariff.\nB. ENTRY RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN PORTS OF ENTRY\nArticle 5 of Decree No. 1745/2016 provides that within ten days following the Decree's entry\ninto force, the National Customs and Excise Directorate (DIAN) shall determine th e locations that\nare authorized to import apparel and footwear classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of Colombia's\nCustoms Tariff whose declared f.o.b. price is less than or equal to the thresholds established in\nArticle 3 of the Decree.19 No expiry date has been set for Decree No. 1745/2016.20\n\nA DIAN Draft Resolution21 states that \"the entry and importation of apparel and footwear\nclassified in Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of the Customs Tariff and listed in Article 3 of Decree 1745 of\n2 November can only take plac e through public ports, airports and places of arrival located in the\njurisdiction of the Sectional Directorates of Buenaventura, Cartagena and Santa Marta\".22\n\nPanama understands that this measure is contained in the following legislation:\n\n(i) Decree No. 1745/2016;\n(ii) Decree No. 4297/2011 of 26 December 2011 as regards the definition of the products\ncovered by the nomenclature of Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of the Colombian Customs\nTariff; and\n\n14 Article 7 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n15 Articles 2 and 3 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n16 Article 7 of Decree No. 1745/2016. Note that this article also states that \"having provided a general\nsecurity or not having the obligation to do so shall not exempt the importer from the obligation mentioned\nherein.\"\n17 Article 7 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n18 Article 11 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n19 Articles 2 and 3 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n20 Article 11 of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n21 DIAN Draft Resolution \"adding a subparagraph to Article 39 of Resolution 4240 of 2000\". DIAN\nResolution 4240 of 2 June 2000 regulates Decree 2685 of 28 December 1999 \"amending the Customs\nLegislation\". Article 39 of Resolution 4240 refers to \"restrictions on entry of goods\".\n22 See Article 1 of the DIAN Draft Resolution (emphasis added). Although Panama understands that the\nDIAN did not issue the final resolution concerning the locations authorized to import the apparel and footwear\nin question, the DIAN Draft Resolution confirms that the ports of entry for these goods are to be established.\nAs explained further on, Panama reserves the right to challenge the DIAN's final resolution on this matter as\nwell as any amendments, extensions or additions to this measure.\n\n(iii) The DIAN Draft Resolution.23\nC. CUSTOMS TARIFF\nDecree No. 1744/2016 introdu ces a new customs regime for imports of apparel and\nfootwear classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of Colombia's Customs Tariff when the declared\nf.o.b. value of such products is less than or equal to the thresholds established in that Decree.24 In\nprinciple, Decree No. 1744/2016 is valid for one year.25\n\nArticle 1 of Decree No. 1744/2016 establishes a tariff of 40% ad valorem for imports\nclassified in Chapters 61 and 62 of Colombia's Customs Tariff whose declared f.o.b. price is less\nthan or equal to 10 US dollars per gross kilogram.\n\nArticle 2 of Decree No. 1744/2016 establishes a tariff of 35% ad valorem for imports\nclassified under the tariff headings of Chapter 64 of Colombia's Customs Tariff whose declared\nf.o.b. price is less than or equal to the thresholds established in that article.26 The paragraph under\nArticle 2 provides that imports classified under tariff heading 6406.10.00.00 (uppers) whose\ndeclared f.o.b. price is less than or equal to 5 US dollars per gross kilogram shall be subject to a\ntariff of 35% ad valorem.\n\nArticle 3 of Decree No. 1744/2016 states that \"products classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 64\nof the Customs Tariff that are not subject to the tariff s set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of this Decree\nshall be subject to the tariff provided f or in Decree 4927 o f 2011 [Colombia's Customs Tariff] and\nits amendments\". 27 Certain goods are also exempted from the application of Decree\nNo. 1744/2016.28\n\nPanama understands that this measure is contained in the following legislation:\n\n(i) Decree No. 1744/2016; and\n(ii) Decree No. 4297/2011 of 26 December 2011 as regards the determination of products\ncovered by the nomenclature of Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of Colombia's Customs Tariff.\nD. CUSTOMS AND TARIFF RE GIME APPLICABLE TO T HE GOODS WHOSE PRICE S ARE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE\nTHRESHOLDS ESTABLISHED BY COLOMBIA\nDecree No. 1745/2016 and Decree No. 1744/2016 constitute a new customs and tariff\nregime applicable to imports of apparel and footwear classified in Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of\nColombia's Customs Tariff when th e declared f.o.b. value of such products is less than or equal to\nthe thresholds established in those decrees.29\n\nUnder this regime, importers not only have to provide a security for release of the goods,\nuse specific ports of entry, and pay customs duties amounting to 40% ad valorem (apparel) or\n35% ad valorem (footwear),30 but they also have to comply with documentary, certification,\nmonitoring, and other requirements.\n\n23 DIAN Draft Resolution \"adding a subparagraph to Article 39 of Resolution 4240 of 2000\".\n24 Articles 1 and 2 of Decree No. 1744/2016.\n25 Article 6 of Decree No. 1744/2016 states that the Decree shall remain in force for one year starting\non 2 November 2016, and that once it has expired, the duties set forth in Colombia's Customs Tariff (Decree\nNo. 4927/2011 and its amendments) shall be reinstated.\n26 The thresholds established are the following: heading 6401 (6 US dollars per pair); heading 6402\n(6 US dollars per pair); heading 6403 (10 US dollars per pair); heading 6404 (6 US dollars per pair);\nheading 6405 (7 US dollars per pair).\n27 That is, a tariff of 15% ad valorem.\n28 Articles 4 and 5 of Decree No. 1744/2016 exempt the following goods from the application of the\nDecree: (i) goods from a Special Customs Regime Zone or a free zone, provided such goods do not enter other\nparts of the country's customs territory, and (ii) residues and/or waste of commercial value from the clothing\nindustry covered by the Plan Vallejo.\n29 Articles 2 and 3 of Decree No. 1745/2016, and Articles 1 and 2 of Decree No. 1744/2016.\n30 Note that Article 3 of Decree No. 1744/2016 provides that \"products classified in Chapters 61, 62 and\n64 of the Customs Tariff that are not subject to the tariff set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of this decree shall be\nsubject to the tariff provided for in Decree 4927 of 2011 [Customs Tariff of Colombia] and its amendments\".\n\nRegarding the documentary and certification requirements, Article 4 of Decree 1745/2016\nrequires that for each shipment the importer submit to the Customs Operation Management\nDivision, or whichever service is acting on behalf of the Sectional Customs and Excise Directorate\nwith jurisdiction over the place of arrival, one month in advance, five documents,31 namely:\n\n● Certification from the foreign supplier, legalized, with an official Spanish translation,\nproviding evidence of the intention to sell to the importer in Colombia and indicating,\nwhere appropriate, the type of economic relationship with the importer in accordance\nwith the Tax Code, also providing the address, telephone number and email address\nof the supplier as well as the six -digit tariff subheading containing the detailed\ndescription of the products to be exported, the quantity, and their respective prices;32\n\n● Certification of the existence of the foreign supplier, legalized, with an official Spanish\ntranslation, issued by the foreign entity that keeps the official register of producers or\ncommercial agents or, should no such entity exist, by the foreign suppl ier under\noath.33\n\n● List of distributors in Colombia of the imported goods, including their Tax\nIdentification Number (NIT), business name, address, telephone number and email\naddress.34\n\n● Declaration signed by the legal representative of the Customs Agenc y, where\nappropriate, certifying that they have conducted a background check on the customer\nfor the importer, established how long the parties have been working together, and\nacted as customs broker.35\n\n● Signed declaration by the importer or the importer's legal representative certifying the\nfollowing: (i) that the value to be declared for the imported goods corresponds to the\nprice actually paid or to be paid; (ii) the address of the storage facilities for the\nimported goods; (iii) detailed information on the distribution and marketing chain for\nthe imported goods in Colombia; (iv) that they are aware that the customs authorities\nare entitled to submit the documents related to the import transaction to the Office of\nthe Public Prosecutor and the Financial Information and Analysis Unit (UIAF).36\n\nRegarding the special monitoring requirements, Article 8 of Decree No. 1745/2016 states\nthat \"importers that declare goods … indicated in Article 3 of this Decree, at a price lower than or\nequal to the threshold esta blished in that Article, must be reported to the Operational Analysis\nManagement Sub -Directorate of the National Customs and Excise Directorate so that the\ninformation concerning such operations can be incorporated in the risk management system\".\nFurthermore, Article 6 of the same Decree provides that \"import operations observers\" shall\n\"examine the information [provided by DIAN] and alert the customs authorities, and also closely\nmonitor the inspection and valuation process with respect to the goods classi fied under the\nheadings listed in Article 3 of this Decree\".\n\nPanama understands that this measure is contained in the following legislation:\n\n(i) Decree No. 1745/2016;\n(ii) Decree No. 1744/2016;\n(iii) Decree No. 4297/2011 of 26 December 2011, as regards the definition o f the products\ncovered by the nomenclature of Chapters 61, 62 and 64 of Colombia's Customs Tariff;\nand\n\nConsequently, imports of the products in question whose f.o.b. value exceeds the established thresholds are\nsubject to a 15% ad valorem tariff.\n31 Article 4(1) of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n32 Article 4(1)(a) of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n33 Article 4(1)(b) of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n34 Article 4(1)(c) of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n35 Article 4(1)(d) of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n36 Article 4(1)(e) of Decree No. 1745/2016.\n\n(iv) the DIAN Draft Resolution.\nII. LEGAL CLAIMS\nThe implementing measures adopted by Colombia are inconsistent with its obligations under\nthe Agreement Estab lishing the World Trade Organization (WTO Agreement). Specifically, the\nmeasures display the following inconsistencies:\nA. SECURITY FOR RELEASE OF GOODS\n(i) This measure is a \"restriction[]\" on \"importation\" in violation of Ar ticle XI:1 of the\nGATT 1994 in that it imposes an unnecessary and highly onerous requirement, based\non an excessive and arbitrary coverage and applicable to each and every shipment of\nthe products in question. This is unquestionably a condition that limits the importation\nof the textile and footwear products concerned.\n(ii) Insofar as it is claimed that the security is imposed because it is \"necessary to delay\"\nthe determination of the value of the goods, the measure is inconsistent with Article 13\nof the Agreement on Customs Valuation. The mea sure is imposed in all circumstances,\neven when the customs duties have been assessed and there is no need to delay the\ndetermination of customs value. Moreover, its coverage exceeds what is necessary to\nsecure \"the ultimate payment of customs duties for which the goods may be liable\".\nB. ENTRY RESTRICTED TO SPECIFIC PORTS OF ENTRY\n(i) This measure is a \"restriction[]\" on \"importation\" in violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT\n1994 in that it limits the entry into Colombia of the textile and footwear products\nconcerned to a specific number of ports of entry among all those that are equipped for\nthe purpose.\nC. CUSTOMS DUTY\n(i) Insofar as the security provided for in Decree No. 1745/2016 covers the payment of the\nduty, which is therefore assessed following the release of the goods, the customs duty\nprovided for in Decree 1744/2016 and collected prior to the release of the goods would\nin effect be a \" duty or charge \" other than ordinary customs duties, and would be\ninconsistent with Article II:1(a) and II:1(b), second sentence, of the GATT 1994.\nD. CUSTOMS AND TARIFF RE GIME APPLICABLE TO G OODS WHOSE PRICES AR E LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE\nTHRESHOLDS ESTABLISHED BY COLOMBIA\n(i) The customs and tariff regime as a whole operates as a \"restriction []\" on \"importation\"\nin violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The joint application of excessively\nonerous customs and tariff measures to textile and footwear products whose prices are\nless than or equal to the thresholds established by Colombia limits the entry\npossibilities and has a paralyzing effect on imports of the products concerned.\n(ii) Moreover, the customs and tariff regime as a whole imposes such burdens and\nrequirements as to limit the possibility for traders to declare the value actually paid or\nto be paid for the transactions in question when they do not exceed the thresholds,\nessentially creating an incentive to increase the value of the goods artificially.\nConsequently, the regime results in a disregard for the fundamental disciplines of\ncustoms valuation contained in Articl es 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and in the introduction of a\nsystem which provides for acceptance of the higher of two alternative values, of\nminimum customs values, and of arbitrary or fictitious values , in violation of\nArticle 7.2(b), (f) and (g) of the Agreement on Customs Valuation.\n\nPanama advises that during these consultations there will be other matters it would like to\nexplore with Colombia, matters that relate to other obligations of Colombia under the WTO\nAgreement, for instance the matter of the uniform, im partial and reasonable administration of\nthese and other measures that affect international trade in goods, in the light of Article X: 3(a) of\nthe GATT 1994. With a view to facilitating a wide-ranging exchange of views, Panama would like to\nnote for the rec ord that these matters are also covered by the scope of this request for\nconsultations.\nPanama has identified the rules which, to its knowledge, underpin the measures at issue.\nHowever, it relies on Colombia's cooperation in confirming, during the consulta tions, the relevance\nof those rules, or in identifying others that may be relevant in providing a better understanding of\nthe facts. Consequently, the list contained in this request is without prejudice to any other rules,\nadministrative or legal decisions , acts, practices, guidance or guidelines issued by Colombia that\nmay be relevant in examining this dispute. Accordingly, the scope of this request covers all of the\naforementioned rules as well as any possible amendments, extensions or additions where\napplicable.\nConsidering the urgency of this matter both for Colombia and for Panama, I would suggest\nthat the missions in Geneva agree as rapidly as possible on the date, time and venue for these\nconsultations."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.927550"}}},{"rowIdx":7498,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ14_Note_By_Secretariat_02.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ14_Note_By_Secretariat_02.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":14,"string":"14"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Note_By_Secretariat"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"Note by the Secretariat"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRATOR"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"6 September 2017"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/23; WT/DS461/18"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\nRECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA\nCONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRATOR\nNote by the Secretariat\n1. At its meeting on 20 February 2017, the Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB) took note that the\nmatter raised by Colombia in document has been referred to arbitration, as required\nby Article 22.6 of the DSU.\n\n2. Article 22.6 of the DSU provides as follows:\n\nWhen the situation described in paragraph 2 occurs, the DS B, upon request, shall\ngrant authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations within 30 days of the\nexpiry of the reasonable period of time unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject\nthe request. However, if the Member concerned objects to the level of suspension\nproposed, or claims that the principles and procedures set forth in paragraph 3 have\nnot been followed where a complaining party has requested authorization to suspend\nconcessions or other obligations pursuant to paragraph 3(b) or (c), the matter shall be\nreferred to arbitration. Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if\nmembers are available, or by an arbitrator 15 appointed by the Director -General and\nshall be completed within 60 days after the date of expiry of th e reasonable period of\ntime. Concessions or other obligations shall not be suspended during the course of\nthe arbitration.\n(original footnote) 15 The expression \"arbitrator\" shall be interpreted as referring either to an\nindividual or a group.\n3. The arbitration will be carried out by the original panelists as follows:\n\n Chairperson: Mr Elbio Rosselli\n\n Members: Mr Carlos Véjar Borrego\n Mr Fabián Villarroel Ríos"},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.928179"}}},{"rowIdx":7499,"cells":{"folder_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"case_number":{"kind":"string","value":"461"},"original_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ15_Note_By_Secretariat_03.pdf"},"new_filename":{"kind":"string","value":"DS461_SEQ15_Note_By_Secretariat_03.pdf"},"doc_sequence":{"kind":"number","value":15,"string":"15"},"doc_type":{"kind":"string","value":"Note_By_Secretariat"},"doc_type_raw":{"kind":"string","value":"RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF COLOMBIA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT"},"doc_class":{"kind":"string","value":"NUMBERED"},"variant":{"kind":"null"},"part_number":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"case_title":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR"},"date":{"kind":"string","value":"6 September 2017"},"header_codes":{"kind":"string","value":"WT/DS461/24; WT/DS461/17.; WT/DS461/17"},"agreement_indicators":{"kind":"string","value":""},"complainant":{"kind":"string","value":"['Panama']"},"respondent":{"kind":"string","value":"['Colombia']"},"third_parties":{"kind":"string","value":"['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines']"},"dispute_stage":{"kind":"string","value":"Implementation & Compliance"},"agreements_cited":{"kind":"string","value":"Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994"},"case_summary":{"kind":"string","value":"The summary below was up-to-date at \n 14 March 2019\n\t\t\n\t\tSee also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute\nConsultations\nComplaint by Panama.\nOn 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of textiles, apparel and footwear from Panama. The measure at issue is a compound tariff that Colombia has allegedly imposed by Presidential Decree No. 074 of 23 January 2013 (Decree 074/2013). Panama claims that this measure at issue is contained in:\nPanama claims that the measure at issue is inconsistent with:\nOn 28 June 2013, Guatemala requested to join the consultations.\n\nPanel and Appellate Body proceedings\nOn 19 August 2013, Panama requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.\nAt its meeting on 25 September 2013, the DSB established a panel. China, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, the Philippines reserved its third-party rights. On 20 December 2013, Panama requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 15 January 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.\nOn 4 November 2014, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the start of the panel proceedings had been deferred owing to the unavailability of senior Secretariat lawyers and the panel therefore expected to issue its final report to the parties in August 2015 at the latest.\nOn 27 November 2015, the panel report was circulated to Members."},"page_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"clean_text":{"kind":"string","value":"COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION\nOF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR\n\nRECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5\nCONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF COLOMBIA\nNOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT\n1. At its meeting on 6 March 2017, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agreed, pursuant to\nArticle 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding ( DSU), to refer to the original P anel, if\npossible, the matter raised by Colombia in document\n\n2. The Panel's terms of reference are the following:\n\nTo examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by\nthe parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by Colombia in document\n and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the\nrecommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.\n3. The Panel is composed as follows:\n\n Chairperson: Mr Elbio Rosselli\n\n Members: Mr Carlos Véjar Borrego\n Mr Fabián Villarroel Ríos\n\n4. Australia, China, Ecuador, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Korea, the\nRussian Federation, Chinese Taipei and the United States have reserved their rights to participate\nin the Panel proceedings as third parties."},"processing_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2026-03-15T15:59:41.928628"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":74,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":9414,"offset":7400,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3OTU2MjU4NCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2RlYW4yMjAyOS9XVE9fRG9jcyIsImV4cCI6MTc3OTU2NjE4NCwiaXNzIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9odWdnaW5nZmFjZS5jbyJ9.6o-kIXPwCsrhE0LBRz-wR7HyuAEzAdu19LSDSRuZ-pFI-zQolRK0x84u-anxr8-d4vRjCTF-3XOZggWm1sC2Bg","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":9414,"numBytesParquet":235278256}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
folder_number stringclasses 626
values | case_number stringclasses 626
values | original_filename stringlengths 23 61 | new_filename stringlengths 23 61 | doc_sequence int32 1 277 | doc_type stringclasses 42
values | doc_type_raw stringlengths 0 1.4k | doc_class stringclasses 5
values | variant stringclasses 4
values | part_number int32 0 42 ⌀ | case_title stringlengths 0 1.38k | date stringdate 1995-01-13 00:00:00 2025-04-14 00:00:00 ⌀ | header_codes stringlengths 0 267 | agreement_indicators stringclasses 76
values | complainant stringclasses 60
values | respondent stringclasses 63
values | third_parties stringclasses 336
values | dispute_stage stringclasses 7
values | agreements_cited stringclasses 563
values | case_summary stringclasses 617
values | page_count int32 1 1.08k | clean_text stringlengths 67 4.06M | processing_date stringdate 2026-03-15 15:30:25 2026-03-15 16:10:02 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ11_Communication_06.pdf | DS456_SEQ11_Communication_06.pdf | 11 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 6 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA | 10 November 2016 | WT/DS456/14 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
COMMUNICATION FROM INDIA
The following communication, dated 8 November 2016, was received from the delegation of India
with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).
At its meeting on 14 October 2016, the Dispute Settlemen... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.774193 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ12_Communication_07.pdf | DS456_SEQ12_Communication_07.pdf | 12 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 7 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES AND INDIA CONCERNING ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU | 6 December 2016 | WT/DS456/15 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES AND INDIA CONCERNING
ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 1 December 2016 , from the delegation of the United States
and the delegation of India to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement B... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.775032 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ13_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | DS456_SEQ13_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | 13 | Agreement_Art_21_3 | AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3 | NUMBERED | null | null | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU | 20 June 2017 | WT/DS456/16 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 16 June 2017, from the delegation of India and the delegation
of the United States to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance
with Article ... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.775616 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ14_Status_Report.pdf | DS456_SEQ14_Status_Report.pdf | 14 | Status_Report | STATUS REPORT | NUMBERED | null | null | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES STATUS REPORT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DSB RECOMMENDATIONS AND RULINGS BY INDIA | 18 December 2017 | WT/DS456/17 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
STATUS REPORT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
DSB RECOMMENDATIONS AND RULINGS BY INDIA
The following communication, dated 14 December 2017, from the delegation of India to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.776267 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ15_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS456_SEQ15_Addendum_Add.pdf | 15 | Addendum | Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES REPORT OF THE PANEL | 24 February 2016 | WT/DS456/R/Add.1; WT/DS456/R. | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 70 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
REPORT OF THE PANEL
Addendum
This addendum contains Annexes A to C to the Report of the Panel to be found in document
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Working Procedures of the Panel A-1
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS ... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.823443 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ16_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | DS456_SEQ16_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | 16 | Report_Of_Panel | panel report | PANEL_REPORT | null | 0 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.2 OF THE DSU BY THE UNITED STATES | 20 December 2017 | WT/DS456/18 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.2 OF THE DSU BY THE UNITED STATES
The following communication, dated 19 December 2017, from the delegation of the United States
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.2 of the
DSU.
... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.824319 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ17_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | DS456_SEQ17_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | 17 | Report_Of_Panel | REPORT OF THE PANEL | PANEL_REPORT | null | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES | 24 February 2016 | WT/DS456/R | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 140 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
REPORT OF THE PANEL
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Working Procedures of the Panel A-1
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
UNITED STATES
Contents Page
Annex B-1 First part of the integrated ex ecutive summ... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.941686 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ18_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_00.pdf | DS456_SEQ18_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_00.pdf | 18 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Appellate Body Report | AB_REPORT | null | 0 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | 9 August 2016 | WT/DS456/11 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The following communication, dated 8 July 2016, from the Chair of the Appellate Body addressed
to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulat ed to Members in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the Understand... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.942045 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ19_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_01.pdf | DS456_SEQ19_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_01.pdf | 19 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Report of the Appellate Body | AB_REPORT | null | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | 20 September 2016 | WT/DS456/12; WT/DS456/AB/R | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The following communication, dated 16 September 2016, from the Chair of the Appellate Body
addressed to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is ci rculated to Members in accordance
with Article 17.5 of the Unde... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.942367 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ20_Appellate_Body_Report_And_Panel_Report_Corr.pdf | DS456_SEQ20_Appellate_Body_Report_And_Panel_Report_Corr.pdf | 20 | Appellate_Body_Report_And_Panel_Report | APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT Action by the Dispute Settlement Body Corrigendum The date in the first sentence in document WT/DS456/13, should read "14 October 2016" instead of "26 October 2016". INDE – CERTAINES MESURES RELATIVES AUX CELLULES SOLAIRES ET AUX MODULES SOLAIRES RAPPORT DE L'ORGANE D'APPEL ET RA... | AB_REPORT | Corr | null | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES | 19 October 2016 | WT/DS456/13/Corr.1; WT/DS456/13; WT/DS456/13 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 1 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Corrigendum
The date in the first sentence in document , should read "14 October 2016" instead
of "26 October 2016".
INDE – CERTAINES MESURES RELATIVES AUX CELLULES
RAPPORT D... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.942672 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ21_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_02.pdf | DS456_SEQ21_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_02.pdf | 21 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Appellate Body Report | AB_REPORT | null | 2 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY INDIA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL | 29 January 2018 | WT/DS456/20 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 4 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY INDIA
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
The following communication, dated 23 January 2018, from the delegation of India to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 2... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.945773 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ22_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_03.pdf | DS456_SEQ22_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_03.pdf | 22 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | AB-2016-3 Report of the Appellate Body | AB_REPORT | null | 3 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES | 16 September 2016 | WT/DS456/AB/R | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 59 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
AB-2016-3
Report of the Appellate Body
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Description
c-Si crystalline silicon
DCR measures Domestic content requirements imposed under Phase I (Batch 1),
Phase I (Batch 2), and Phase II (Batch 1-A) of India... | 2026-03-15T15:58:17.993051 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ23_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_Add.pdf | DS456_SEQ23_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_Add.pdf | 23 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Report of the Appellate Body Addendum | AB_REPORT | Add | null | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES AB-2016-3 | 16 September 2016 | WT/DS456/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS456/AB/R. | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 24 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
AB-2016-3
Report of the Appellate Body
Addendum
This Addendum contains Annexes A to D to the Report of the Appellate Body circulated as
document
The Notice of Appeal and the executive summaries of written submissions contained in this
Addendum are at... | 2026-03-15T15:58:18.004327 | |
456 | 456 | DS456_SEQ24_Recourse.pdf | DS456_SEQ24_Recourse.pdf | 24 | Recourse | RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 | RECOURSE | null | null | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS AND SOLAR MODULES RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 OF THE DSU BY INDIA | 8 January 2018 | WT/DS456/19 | ['U.S.'] | ['India'] | ['Brazil', 'Canada', 'China', 'EU', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Norway', 'Russia', 'Turkey', 'Ecuador', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Taiwan'] | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 2.1 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) | The summary below was up-to-date at
24 August 2023
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the United States.
On 6 February 2013, the United States requested consultations with India concerning certain measures of India relating to domestic content requi... | 2 | INDIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO SOLAR CELLS
AND SOLAR MODULES
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 OF THE DSU BY INDIA
The following communication, dated 3 January 2018 , from the delegation of India to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU.
Regarding the United Sta... | 2026-03-15T15:58:18.005811 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS457_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY | NUMBERED | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY GUATEMALA | 16 April 2013 | WT/DS457/1; G/AG/GEN/109; G/VAL/D/12; G/L/1024 | Agriculture (AG); Customs Valuation (VAL); General Council | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY GUATEMALA
The following communication, dated 12 April 2013, from the delegation of Guatemala to the
delegation of Peru and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of th... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.125161 |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ02_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS457_SEQ02_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 2 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL | NUMBERED | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY GUATEMALA | 14 June 2013 | WT/DS457/2 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY GUATEMALA
The following communication, dated 13 June 2013, from the delegation of Guatemala
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
On 12 April 20... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.127081 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ03_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf | DS457_SEQ03_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf | 3 | Note_By_Secretariat | NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | NUMBERED | null | 0 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF GUATEMALA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 23 September 2013 | WT/DS457/3; WT/DS457/2; WT/DS457/2 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF GUATEMALA
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
1. At its meeting on 23 July 2013, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to the request of Guatemala in document , in accordance with Arti... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.127929 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ04_Communication_00.pdf | DS457_SEQ04_Communication_00.pdf | 4 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 0 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL | 18 March 2014 | WT/DS457/4 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 17 March 2014, was received from the Chairperson of the
Panel with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body.
Article 12.8 of the Understanding on Rules and Pr ocedu... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.128452 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ05_Communication_01.pdf | DS457_SEQ05_Communication_01.pdf | 5 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL | 29 September 2014 | WT/DS457/5; WT/DS457/4 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 25 September 2014, was received from the Chairperson
of the Panel with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body.
The Panel, in its communication to the Dispute Sett... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.128703 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ06_Working_Procedures_00.pdf | DS457_SEQ06_Working_Procedures_00.pdf | 6 | Working_Procedures | AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW | NUMBERED | null | 0 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY PERU 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 | 26 March 2015 | WT/DS457/7 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY PERU
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,... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.130522 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ07_Working_Procedures_01.pdf | DS457_SEQ07_Working_Procedures_01.pdf | 7 | Working_Procedures | AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW | NUMBERED | null | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY GUATEMALA 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 | 1 April 2015 | WT/DS457/8 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY GUATEMALA
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 com... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.132546 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ08_Communication_02.pdf | DS457_SEQ08_Communication_02.pdf | 8 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 2 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | 2 June 2015 | WT/DS457/9 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The following notification, dated 22 May 2015, from the Chair of the Appellate Body addressed to
the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circul ated to Members in accordance with Article 17.5
of the Understandi... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.133253 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ09_DSB_Action.pdf | DS457_SEQ09_DSB_Action.pdf | 9 | DSB_Action | Action by the Dispute Settlement Body | NUMBERED | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT | 3 August 2015 | WT/DS457/11; WT/DS457/AB/R; WT/DS457/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS457/R; WT/DS457/R/Add.1 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 31 July 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body report on
Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products ( and
) and ... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.133846 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ10_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf | DS457_SEQ10_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf | 10 | Note_By_Secretariat | NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT On 1 October 2015, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Guatemala referred to arbitration the matter of the reasonable period of time for Peru to implemen t the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement... | NUMBERED | null | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 15 October 2015 | WT/DS457/14 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C)
OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES
GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
On 1 October 2015, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governi... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.134343 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ11_Status_Report.pdf | DS457_SEQ11_Status_Report.pdf | 11 | Status_Report | STATUS REPORT | NUMBERED | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS STATUS REPORT BY PERU | 5 April 2016 | WT/DS457/17 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
STATUS REPORT BY PERU
The following communication, dated 29 March 2016, from the delegation of Peru to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.
Status Report Regarding Implementation of the DSB
... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.135382 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ12_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS457_SEQ12_Addendum_Add.pdf | 12 | Addendum | EL PRESIDENTE DE LA REPUBLICA CONSIDERANDO: Que, mediante Decreto Supremo N° 0016-91-AG y Decreto Supremo N° 115-2001-EF se establecié el Sistema de Franja de Precios; Que, el 12 de abril de 2013, la Reptiblica de Guatemala inicié el procedimiento de solucién de diferencias ante la Organizacién Mundial del Comercio (OM... | NUMBERED | Add | null | N° 055-2016-EF | 28 March 2016 | WT/DS457/17 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 10 | 4
581720 NORMAS LEGALES
Lunes 28 de marzo de 2016 / Rew El Peruano
PODER EJECUTIVO
Modifican Decreto Supremo N° 115-2001-
de Precios aplicable a la importacién de
diversos productos agropecuarios
DECRETO SUPREMO
N° 055-2016-EF
CONSIDERANDO:
Que, mediante Decreto Supremo N° 0016-91-AG
y Decreto Supremo N° 115-200... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.140802 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ13_Understanding.pdf | DS457_SEQ13_Understanding.pdf | 13 | Understanding | UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN | NUMBERED | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND PERU REGARDING PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 22 OF THE DSU | 12 April 2016 | WT/DS457/18 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN GUATEMALA AND PERU REGARDING PROCEDURES
UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 22 OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 11 April 2016, from the delegation of Guatemala and the
delegation of Peru to the Chairperson of the Disp ute Settlement... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.142560 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ14_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS457_SEQ14_Addendum_Add.pdf | 14 | Addendum | Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS REPORT OF THE PANEL | 27 November 2014 | WT/DS457/R/Add.1; WT/DS457/R. | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 79 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS
OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
REPORT OF THE PANEL
Addendum
This addendum contains Annexes A to C to the Report of the Panel to be found in document
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A Working Procedures of the Panel A-1
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.194391 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ15_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | DS457_SEQ15_Report_Of_Panel_00.pdf | 15 | Report_Of_Panel | report of the panel | PANEL_REPORT | null | 0 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS JOINT REQUEST BY PERU AND GUATEMALA FOR A DECISION BY THE DSB | 5 December 2014 | WT/DS457/6; WT/DS457/R | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 2 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
JOINT REQUEST BY PERU AND GUATEMALA
FOR A DECISION BY THE DSB
The following communication, dated 3 December 2014, from the delegation of Peru and the
delegation of Guatemala to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated at
the r... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.195403 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ16_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | DS457_SEQ16_Report_Of_Panel_01.pdf | 16 | Report_Of_Panel | REPORT OF THE PANEL | PANEL_REPORT | null | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS REPORT OF THE PANEL | 27 November 2014 | WT/DS457/R | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 127 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
REPORT OF THE PANEL
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A Working Procedures of the Panel A-1
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
GUATEMALA
Contents Page
Annex B-1 First part of the executive su mmary of the argume... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.277979 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ17_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_00.pdf | DS457_SEQ17_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_00.pdf | 17 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Report of the Appellate Body | AB_REPORT | null | 0 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | 21 July 2015 | WT/DS457/10; WT/DS457/AB/R; WT/DS457/AB/R/Add.1. | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The following notification, dated 20 July 2015, fr om the Chair of the Appellate Body addressed to
the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circul ated to Members in accordance with Article 17.5
of the Understan... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.278329 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ18_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_01.pdf | DS457_SEQ18_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_01.pdf | 18 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Appellate Body report | AB_REPORT | null | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS COMMUNICATION FROM GUATEMALA AND PERU CONCERNING ARTICLE 21.3(B) AND 21.3(C) OF THE DSU | 17 September 2015 | WT/DS457/12 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
COMMUNICATION FROM GUATEMALA AND PERU CONCERNING
ARTICLE 21.3(B) AND 21.3(C) OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 14 Septembe r 2015, from the delegation of Guatemala and
the delegation of Peru to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body,... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.279174 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ19_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_02.pdf | DS457_SEQ19_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_02.pdf | 19 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Appellate Body Report | AB_REPORT | null | 2 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS REQUEST BY GUATEMALA FOR ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU | 5 October 2015 | WT/DS457/13 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
REQUEST BY GUATEMALA FOR ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 1 October 2015 from the delegation of Guatemala to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of that delegation.
... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.279843 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ20_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_03.pdf | DS457_SEQ20_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_03.pdf | 20 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | AB-2015-3 Report of the Appellate Body | AB_REPORT | null | 3 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS | 20 July 2015 | WT/DS457/AB/R | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 61 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
AB-2015-3
Report of the Appellate Body
5.4.3.1 Interpretation of "similar border measures" ............................................................ 52
5.4.3.2 Application of "similar border measures" ................................................. | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.326981 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ21_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_Add.pdf | DS457_SEQ21_Report_Of_Appellate_Body_Add.pdf | 21 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | Report of the Appellate Body Addendum | AB_REPORT | Add | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AB-2015-3 | 20 July 2015 | WT/DS457/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS457/AB/R. | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 31 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
AB-2015-3
Report of the Appellate Body
Addendum
This Addendum contains Annexes A to C to the Report of the Appellate Body circulated as
document
The Notices of Appeal and the executive summar ies of written submissions contained in this
Addendum are at... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.342327 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ22_Arbitration_Award.pdf | DS457_SEQ22_Arbitration_Award.pdf | 22 | Arbitration_Award | Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes Award of the Arbitrator Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández | ARBITRATION | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ARB-2015-3/30 | 16 December 2015 | WT/DS457/15 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 24 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
ARB-2015-3/30
Arbitration
under Article 21.3(c) of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Award of the Arbitrator
Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS AWARD
Abbreviation Description
Appellate Body... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.355870 | |
457 | 457 | DS457_SEQ23_Arbitration.pdf | DS457_SEQ23_Arbitration.pdf | 23 | Arbitration | Arbitration Award | ARBITRATION | null | null | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES | 17 December 2015 | WT/DS457/16 | ['Guatemala'] | ['Peru'] | ['Argentina', 'China', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'India', 'U.S.', 'Brazil', 'Ecuador', 'South Korea', 'Honduras', 'Colombia'] | Appellate Body | Art. 4.2 AgricultureArt. II:1, XI:1, X:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Customs valuationArt. 3.8 Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Guatemala.
On 12 April 2013, Guatemala requested consultations with Peru with respect to the imposition by Peru of an “additional duty” on imports of certain agricu... | 1 | PERU – ADDITIONAL DUTY ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
ARBITRATION UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
The following communication, dated 16 December 2015, from the Arbitrator,
Mr Ricardo Ramírez-Hernández, to the Chairman of the Dispute Se... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.356347 | |
458 | 434 | DS434_SEQ01_Agreed_Procedures.pdf | DS434_SEQ01_Agreed_Procedures.pdf | 1 | Agreed_Procedures | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING (WT/DS435, WT/DS441, WT/DS458, WT/DS467) PROCEDURAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND UKRAINE, HONDURAS, THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, CUBA AND INDONESIA | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING (WT/DS434) | 28 April 2014 | WT/DS434/12; WT/DS435/17; WT/DS441/16; WT/DS458/15; WT/DS467/16 | ['Ukraine'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Dominican', 'Ecuador', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Indonesia', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Oman', 'Philippines', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Turkey', 'U.S.', 'Uruguay', 'Zambia', 'Zimbabwe', 'Chile', 'China', 'Cuba', 'Egypt', 'Malaysia', 'Me... | Mutually Agreed Solution | Art. 15.1, 15.4, 1.1, 16.1, 16.3, 20, 2.1, 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. I, III:4 GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
3 December 2020
Consultations
Complaint by Ukraine. (See also DS435, DS441, DS458 and DS467)
On 13 March 2012, Ukraine requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that impose trademark restrictions and other plain packaging ... | 2 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS
AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
(WT/DS434)
AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
(WT/DS435, W... | 2026-03-15T15:58:45.374906 | |
458 | 435 | DS435_SEQ01_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS435_SEQ01_Addendum_Add.pdf | 1 | Addendum | Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REPORTS OF THE PANELS | 28 June 2018 | WT/DS435/R/Add.1; WT/DS441/R/Add.1; WT/DS458/R/Add.1; WT/DS467/R/Add.1; WT/DS435/R; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS458/R; WT/DS467/R. | ['Honduras'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'China', 'Cuba', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'India', 'Indonesia', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Nigeria', 'Norway', 'Oman', 'Panama', 'Philippines', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'Uruguay', 'Zimbabwe', 'Guatemala', 'Singapore', 'Guatem... | Appellate Body | Art. 20, 16.1, 15.4, 2.1, 24.3, 22.2(b), 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 8, 17 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 July 2020
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Honduras. (See also DS434, DS441, DS458 and DS467)
On 4 April 2012, Honduras requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations... | 225 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING
REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REPORTS OF THE PANELS
Addendum
This addendum contains Annexes A to C to the Report s of the Panels to be found in document
• • •
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WO... | 2026-03-15T15:59:23.282384 | |
458 | 435 | DS435_SEQ02_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | DS435_SEQ02_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | 2 | Report_Of_Panel | SCI redacted, as indicated [[***]] Note: These Panel Reports are in the form of a single document constituting four separate Panel Reports: WT/DS435/R, WT/DS441/R, WT/DS458/R, and WT/DS467/R. The cover page, preliminary pages, sections 1 through 7, appendices, and annexes are common to all four Panel Reports. The page... | PANEL_REPORT | null | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REPORTS OF THE PANELS | 28 June 2018 | WT/DS435/R; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS458/R; WT/DS467/R; WT/DS435/R; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS458/R; WT/DS467/R.; WT/DS435/R; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS458/R; WT/DS467/R | ['Honduras'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'China', 'Cuba', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'India', 'Indonesia', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Nigeria', 'Norway', 'Oman', 'Panama', 'Philippines', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'Uruguay', 'Zimbabwe', 'Guatemala', 'Singapore', 'Guatem... | Appellate Body | Art. 20, 16.1, 15.4, 2.1, 24.3, 22.2(b), 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 8, 17 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 July 2020
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Honduras. (See also DS434, DS441, DS458 and DS467)
On 4 April 2012, Honduras requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations... | 888 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING
REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REPORTS OF THE PANELS
SCI redacted, as indicated [[***]]
Note:
These Panel Reports are in the form of a single document constituting four separate Panel Repo... | 2026-03-15T15:59:24.119803 | |
458 | 435 | DS435_SEQ03_Report_Of_Panel_Sup.pdf | DS435_SEQ03_Report_Of_Panel_Sup.pdf | 3 | Report_Of_Panel | Appendices SCI redacted, as indicated [[***]] This supplement contains Appendices A to E to the Reports of the Panels to be found in document WT/DS435/R, WT/DS441/R, WT/DS458/R, WT/DS467/R. | PANEL_REPORT | Sup | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REPORTS OF THE PANELS | 28 June 2018 | WT/DS435/R/Suppl.1; WT/DS441/R/Suppl.1; WT/DS458/R/Suppl.1; WT/DS467/R/Suppl.1; WT/DS435/R; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS458/R; WT/DS467/R. | ['Honduras'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'China', 'Cuba', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'India', 'Indonesia', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Nigeria', 'Norway', 'Oman', 'Panama', 'Philippines', 'South Africa', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'Uruguay', 'Zimbabwe', 'Guatemala', 'Singapore', 'Guatem... | Appellate Body | Art. 20, 16.1, 15.4, 2.1, 24.3, 22.2(b), 3.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 8, 17 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 July 2020
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Honduras. (See also DS434, DS441, DS458 and DS467)
On 4 April 2012, Honduras requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations... | 150 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING
REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REPORTS OF THE PANELS
Appendices
SCI redacted, as indicated [[***]]
This supplement contains Appendices A to E to the Reports of the Panels to be found in doc... | 2026-03-15T15:59:24.230664 | |
458 | 441 | DS441_SEQ01_DSB_Action.pdf | DS441_SEQ01_DSB_Action.pdf | 1 | DSB_Action | Action by the Dispute Settlement Body | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA - CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING PANEL REPORTS | 28 August 2018 | WT/DS441/24; WT/DS458/22; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS441/R/Add.1; WT/DS441/R/Suppl.1; WT/DS458/R; WT/DS458/R/Add.1; WT/DS458/R/Suppl.1 | ['Dominican'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Trinidad and Tobago', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', ... | Appellate Body | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.4, 20, 22.2(b), 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 16.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 July 2020
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the Dominican Republic. (See also DS434, DS435, DS458 and DS467)
On 18 July 2012, the Dominican Republic requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Aus... | 1 | AUSTRALIA - CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
PANEL REPORTS
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 27 August 2018, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Panel reports
on Australia - Cert... | 2026-03-15T15:59:24.262067 | |
458 | 441 | DS441_SEQ02_Report_Of_Panel_Corr.pdf | DS441_SEQ02_Report_Of_Panel_Corr.pdf | 2 | Report_Of_Panel | Action by the Dispute Settlement Body Corrigendum The original document inadvertently referenced the Panel report on Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging (WT/DS441/R, WT/DS441/R/Add. 1, and WT/DS... | PANEL_REPORT | Corr | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING PANEL REPORTS | 30 August 2018 | WT/DS441/24/Corr.1; WT/DS458/22/Corr.1; WT/DS441/R; WT/DS441/R/Add.; WT/DS441/R/Suppl.1 | ['Dominican'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Trinidad and Tobago', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', ... | Appellate Body | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.4, 20, 22.2(b), 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4 GATT 1994Art. 16.1 Intellectual Property (TRIPS) | The summary below was up-to-date at
28 July 2020
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the Dominican Republic. (See also DS434, DS435, DS458 and DS467)
On 18 July 2012, the Dominican Republic requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Aus... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
PANEL REPORTS
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Corrigendum
The original document inadvertently referenced the Panel report on Australia – Certain Measures... | 2026-03-15T15:59:24.262486 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS458_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CUBA | 7 May 2013 | WT/DS458/1; G/L/1026; G/TBT/D/43; IP/D/33 | General Council; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT); Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 3 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY CUBA
The following communication, dated 3 May 2013, from the delegation of Cuba to the
delegation of Australia and to the Chairper... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.088345 |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf | DS458_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf | 2 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM CANADA | NUMBERED | null | 0 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS COMMUNICATION FROM CANADA | 14 May 2013 | WT/DS458/2 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
COMMUNICATION FROM CANADA
The following communication, dated 8 May 2013, from the delegation of Canada to the
delegation of Aust... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.090061 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ03_Communication_01.pdf | DS458_SEQ03_Communication_01.pdf | 3 | Communication | Communication from New Zealand | NUMBERED | null | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 14 May 2013 | WT/DS458/3 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from New Zealand
The following communication, dated 8 May 2013, from the delegation of New Zealand to the
delegati... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.094083 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ04_Communication_02.pdf | DS458_SEQ04_Communication_02.pdf | 4 | Communication | Communication from Norway | NUMBERED | null | 2 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 16 May 2013 | WT/DS458/4 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Norway
The following communication, dated 13 May 2013, from the delegation of Norway to the
delegation of Aus... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.094582 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ05_Communication_03.pdf | DS458_SEQ05_Communication_03.pdf | 5 | Communication | Communication from Ukraine | NUMBERED | null | 3 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 17 May 2013 | WT/DS458/5; WT/DS458/1; G/L/1026; G/TBT/D43; IP/D/33 | General Council; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT); Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Ukraine
The following communication, dated 14 May 2013, from the delegation of Ukraine to the
delegation of A... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.095003 |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ06_Communication_04.pdf | DS458_SEQ06_Communication_04.pdf | 6 | Communication | Communication from Honduras | NUMBERED | null | 4 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 17 May 2013 | WT/DS458/6 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Honduras
The following communication, dated 13 May 2013, from the delegation of Honduras to the
delegation of... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.095433 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ07_Communication_05.pdf | DS458_SEQ07_Communication_05.pdf | 7 | Communication | Communication from the European Union | NUMBERED | null | 5 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 22 May 2013 | WT/DS458/7; WT/DS458/1; G/L/1026; G/TBT/D/43; IP/D/33 | General Council; Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT); Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from the European Union
The following communication, dated 16 May 2013, from the delegation of the
European Union ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.096391 |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ08_Communication_06.pdf | DS458_SEQ08_Communication_06.pdf | 8 | Communication | Communication from the Dominican Republic | NUMBERED | null | 6 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 22 May 2013 | WT/DS458/8 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from the Dominican Republic
The following communication, dated 17 May 2013, from the delegation of the
Dominican R... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.096823 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ09_Communication_07.pdf | DS458_SEQ09_Communication_07.pdf | 9 | Communication | Communication from Uruguay | NUMBERED | null | 7 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 21 May 2013 | WT/DS458/9 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Uruguay
The following communication, dated 17 May 2013, from the delegation of Uruguay to the
delegation of Au... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.097193 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ10_Communication_08.pdf | DS458_SEQ10_Communication_08.pdf | 10 | Communication | Communication from Brazil | NUMBERED | null | 8 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 22 May 2013 | WT/DS458/10 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Brazil
The following communication, dated 17 May 2013, from the delegation of Brazil to the
delegation of Aus... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.097611 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ11_Communication_09.pdf | DS458_SEQ11_Communication_09.pdf | 11 | Communication | Communication from Guatemala | NUMBERED | null | 9 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 22 May 2013 | WT/DS458/11 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Guatemala
The following communication, dated 17 May 2013, from the delegation of Guatemala to the
delegation ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.098313 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ12_Communication_10.pdf | DS458_SEQ12_Communication_10.pdf | 12 | Communication | Communication from Nicaragua | NUMBERED | null | 10 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 22 May 2013 | WT/DS458/12 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Nicaragua
The following communication, dated 17 May 2013, from the delegation of Nicaragua to the
delegation ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.098853 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ13_Request_To_Join_Consultations.pdf | DS458_SEQ13_Request_To_Join_Consultations.pdf | 13 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | ACCEPTANCE BY AUSTRALIA OF THE REQUESTS TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING ACCEPTANCE BY AUSTRALIA OF THE REQUESTS TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 4 June 2013 | WT/DS458/13 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
ACCEPTANCE BY AUSTRALIA OF THE REQUESTS TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, the European Union, Guatemala, Honduras,
New Zealand, Nic... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.099806 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ14_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel_00.pdf | DS458_SEQ14_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel_00.pdf | 14 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL | NUMBERED | null | 0 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CUBA | 14 April 2014 | WT/DS458/14 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 3 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CUBA
The following communication, dated 4 April 2014, from the delegation of Cuba to the
Chairperson of the Disput... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.103460 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ15_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | DS458_SEQ15_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | 15 | Note_By_Secretariat | NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | NUMBERED | null | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF CUBA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 6 May 2014 | WT/DS458/16; WT/DS458/14 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF CUBA
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
1. At its meeting on 25 April 2014, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) esta... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.104500 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ16_Note_By_Secretariat_Rev.pdf | DS458_SEQ16_Note_By_Secretariat_Rev.pdf | 16 | Note_By_Secretariat | NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT Revision | NUMBERED | Rev | null | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF CUBA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 12 June 2015 | WT/DS458/16/Rev.1; WT/DS458/14 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 2 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF CUBA
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
Revision
1. At its meeting on 25 April 2014, the Dispute Settlement Body (... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.106022 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ17_Communication_11.pdf | DS458_SEQ17_Communication_11.pdf | 17 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 11 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PANEL | 14 October 2014 | WT/DS458/17 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 10 October 2014, was received from the Chairperson of the
Panel with the req... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.116411 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ18_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel_01.pdf | DS458_SEQ18_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel_01.pdf | 18 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | request for the establishment of a Panel | NUMBERED | null | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL | 27 October 2014 | WT/DS458/18; WT/DS458/14 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 32 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 22 October 2014, was received from the Chairperson of the
Panel with the request that it be cir... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.143621 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ19_Communication_12.pdf | DS458_SEQ19_Communication_12.pdf | 19 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 12 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL | 30 June 2016 | WT/DS458/19 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 29 June 2016, was received from the Chairperson of the Panel
with the request that it be circul... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.144196 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ20_Communication_13.pdf | DS458_SEQ20_Communication_13.pdf | 20 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 13 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PANEL | 6 December 2016 | WT/DS458/20 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 1 December 2016, addressed to the Chairperson of the
Dispute Settlement Body... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.144749 | |
458 | 458 | DS458_SEQ21_Communication_14.pdf | DS458_SEQ21_Communication_14.pdf | 21 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 14 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PANEL | 21 September 2017 | WT/DS458/21 | ['Cuba'] | ['Australia'] | ['Argentina', 'Brazil', 'Canada', 'Chile', 'Dominican', 'EU', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'India', 'Japan', 'South Korea', 'Malaysia', 'Mexico', 'New Zealand', 'Nicaragua', 'Norway', 'Philippines', 'Russia', 'Singapore', 'Taiwan', 'Thailand', 'Turkey', 'Ukraine', 'U.S.', 'China', 'Nigeria', 'Indonesia', 'Peru', 'Saudi Ara... | Panel | Art. 2.1, 3.1, 15.1, 15.4, 16.1, 16.3, 17, 22.2(b), 20, 24.3 Intellectual Property (TRIPS)Art. 2.1, 2.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, IX GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
19 September 2018
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Cuba. (See also DS434, DS435, DS441 and DS467)
On 3 May 2013, Cuba requested consultations with Australia concerning certain Australian laws and regulations that... | 1 | AUSTRALIA – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING TRADEMARKS,
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS AND OTHER PLAIN PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 21 September 2017, addressed to the Chairperson of the
Dispute Settlement Bo... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.145264 | |
459 | 459 | DS459_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS459_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY | NUMBERED | null | null | EUROPEAN UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON THE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF BIODIESEL AND MEASURES SUPPORTING THE BIODIESEL INDUSTRY REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY ARGENTINA | 23 May 2013 | WT/DS459/1; G/L/1027; G/SCM/D97/1; G/TRIMS/D/36; G/TBT/D/44 | General Council; Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM); Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT); Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) | ['Argentina'] | ['EU'] | [] | Consultation | Art. I:1, III, III:1, III:2, III:4, III:5 GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.2 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. XVI:4 Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 2.1, 2.2 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)Art. 3.1(b), 3.2, 5(b), 5(c), 2.3, 1.1, 6.3(a) Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) | The summary below was up-to-date at
15 May 2013
Consultations
Complaint by Argentina.
On 15 May 2013, Argentina requested consultations with the European Union and its member States regarding certain measures that allegedly affect the importation and marketing of biodiesel, as well as measures supporting... | 13 | EUROPEAN UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON THE
IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF BIODIESEL AND MEASURES
SUPPORTING THE BIODIESEL INDUSTRY
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY ARGENTINA
The following communication, dated 15 May 2013, from the delegation of Argentina to the
delegation of the European Union and to... | 2026-03-15T15:59:25.267812 |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ01_Communication_00.pdf | DS454_SEQ01_Communication_00.pdf | 1 | Communication | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION (DS460) COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | NUMBERED | null | 0 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN (DS454) | 27 July 2015 | WT/DS454/9; WT/DS460/9 | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN
(DS454)
CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
(DS460)
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The followin... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.272340 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ02_Communication_01.pdf | DS454_SEQ02_Communication_01.pdf | 2 | Communication | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION (DS460) COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | NUMBERED | null | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN (DS454) | 3 August 2015 | WT/DS454/10; WT/DS460/10 | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN
(DS454)
CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
(DS460)
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The followin... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.272837 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ03_Communication_02.pdf | DS454_SEQ03_Communication_02.pdf | 3 | Communication | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION (DS460) COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | NUMBERED | null | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN (DS454) | 14 October 2015 | WT/DS454/11; WT/DS460/11; WT/DS454/AB/ | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN
(DS454)
CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
(DS460)
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The followin... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.273281 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ04_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS454_SEQ04_Addendum_Add.pdf | 4 | Addendum | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH- PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORTS OF THE PANELS Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH- PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN | 13 February 2015 | WT/DS454/R/Add.1; WT/DS460/R/Add.1; WT/DS454/R-WT/DS460/R. | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 92 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM JAPAN
CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM
THE EUROPEAN UNION
REPORTS OF THE PANELS
Addendum
This addendum contains Annexes A ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.334620 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ05_Terms_Of_Reference_Corr.pdf | DS454_SEQ05_Terms_Of_Reference_Corr.pdf | 5 | Terms_Of_Reference | CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH- PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORTS OF THE PANELS Corrigendum Please note that in the original reports WT/DS454/R and WT/DS460/R, paragraph 8.9 should read as follows: 8.9 Consistent with our terms of reference, w... | NUMBERED | Corr | null | CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH- PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN | 17 September 2015 | WT/DS454/R/Corr.1; WT/DS460/R/Corr.1; WT/DS454/R; WT/DS460/R | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 1 | CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM JAPAN
CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
REPORTS OF THE PANELS
Corrigendum
Please note that in the origin... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.335052 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ06_Addendum_Add.pdf | DS454_SEQ06_Addendum_Add.pdf | 6 | Addendum | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AB-2015-5 Reports of the Appellate Body Addendum | NUMBERED | Add | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN AB-2015-4 CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AB-2015-5 | 14 October 2015 | WT/DS454/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS460/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS454/AB/R; WT/DS460/AB/R. | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 51 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM JAPAN
AB-2015-4
CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
AB-2015-5
Reports of the Appellate Body
Addendum
This Ad... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.365132 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ07_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | DS454_SEQ07_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | 7 | Report_Of_Panel | Panel Report | PANEL_REPORT | null | null | CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH- PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN | 13 February 2015 | WT/DS454/R; WT/DS460/R; WT/DS454/R; WT/DS460/R. | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 124 | CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM JAPAN
CHINA — MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-
PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
REPORTS OF THE PANELS
Note by the Secretariat:
The Panels issu... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.458369 | |
460 | 454 | DS454_SEQ08_Report_Of_Appellate_Body.pdf | DS454_SEQ08_Report_Of_Appellate_Body.pdf | 8 | Report_Of_Appellate_Body | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AB-2015-5 Reports of the Appellate Body Note: The Appellate Body is issuing these Reports in th e form of a single document constituting two separate Appellate Body Reports: WT/DS454/AB/R... | AB_REPORT | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM JAPAN AB-2015-4 CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AB-2015-5 | 14 October 2015 | WT/DS454/AB/R; WT/DS460/AB/R; WT/DS454/AB/R; WT/DS460/AB/R.; WT/DS454/AB/R/Add.1 | ['Japan'] | ['China'] | ['EU', 'India', 'South Korea', 'Russia', 'U.S.', 'Turkey', 'Saudi Arabia'] | Appellate Body | 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 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Japan. (See also DS460)
On 20 December 2012, Japan requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless... | 107 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM JAPAN
AB-2015-4
CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
AB-2015-5
Reports of the Appellate Body
Note:
The Appella... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.533092 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | DS460_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION | 18 June 2013 | WT/DS460/1; G/L/1030; G/ADP/D97/1 | Anti-Dumping Practices (ADP); General Council | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 2 | CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
The following communication, dated 13 June 2013, from the delegation of the
European Union to the delegation of China and to the Chairpers... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.828697 |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf | DS460_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf | 2 | Communication | Communication from Japan | NUMBERED | null | 0 | CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 1 July 2013 | WT/DS460/2 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Japan
The following communication, dated 27 June 2013, from the delegation of Japan to the
delegation of China, the delegation of the Eur... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.829487 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations.pdf | DS460_SEQ03_Request_To_Join_Consultations.pdf | 3 | Request_To_Join_Consultations | ACCEPTANCE BY CHINA OF THE REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION ACCEPTANCE BY CHINA OF THE REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 11 July 2013 | WT/DS460/3 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA - MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
ACCEPTANCE BY CHINA OF THE REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Japan notified the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of its desire to be joined in the
consultations requested by the European Union,... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.830212 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ04_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS460_SEQ04_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 4 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION | 20 August 2013 | WT/DS460/4 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 3 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
The following communication, dated 16 Au gust 2013, from the delegation of the
European Union to the Chairperson of the Dis... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.832271 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ05_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | DS460_SEQ05_Note_By_Secretariat.pdf | 5 | Note_By_Secretariat | CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Note by the Secretariat | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION | 11 September 2013 | WT/DS460/5; WT/DS460/4 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB ) established a p... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.832791 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ06_Note_By_Secretariat_Rev.pdf | DS460_SEQ06_Note_By_Secretariat_Rev.pdf | 6 | Note_By_Secretariat | REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT Revision | NUMBERED | Rev | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 25 September 2013 | WT/DS460/5/Rev.1; WT/DS460/4 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE
REQUEST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
Revision
1. At its meeting on 30 August 2013, the Disp ute Settlement Body (DSB) establi... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.833471 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ07_Working_Procedures_00.pdf | DS460_SEQ07_Working_Procedures_00.pdf | 7 | Working_Procedures | SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW | NUMBERED | null | 0 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND U... | 22 May 2015 | WT/DS460/7 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 3 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND
ARTICLE17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND U... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.835335 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ08_Working_Procedures_01.pdf | DS460_SEQ08_Working_Procedures_01.pdf | 8 | Working_Procedures | AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 23(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW | NUMBERED | null | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER ... | 2 June 2015 | WT/DS460/8 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 3 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),
AND UNDER ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.838003 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ09_DSB_Action.pdf | DS460_SEQ09_DSB_Action.pdf | 9 | DSB_Action | Action by the Dispute Settlement Body | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT | 30 October 2015 | WT/DS460/12; WT/DS460/AB/R; WT/DS460/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS460/R; WT/DS460/R/Add.1 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 28 October 2015, the Disput e Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body
report on China – M... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.838717 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ10_Communication_01.pdf | DS460_SEQ10_Communication_01.pdf | 10 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP"/SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION CONCERNING ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU | 11 December 2015 | WT/DS460/13 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP"/SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
COMMUNICATION FROM CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION CONCERNING
ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 9 December 2015, from the delegation of China and the
delegation ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.839568 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ11_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | DS460_SEQ11_Agreement_Art_21_3.pdf | 11 | Agreement_Art_21_3 | AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3 | NUMBERED | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU | 23 February 2016 | WT/DS460/14 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 1 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE
STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 19 February 2016, from the delegation of China and the
delegation of the European Union to the Chairper son o... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.840174 | |
460 | 460 | DS460_SEQ12_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | DS460_SEQ12_Report_Of_Panel.pdf | 12 | Report_Of_Panel | panel report | PANEL_REPORT | null | null | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST") FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION JOINT REQUEST BY CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR A DECISION BY THE DSB | 13 March 2015 | WT/DS460/6 | ['EU'] | ['China'] | ['Japan', 'South Korea', 'India', 'Russia', 'Saudi Arabia', 'Turkey', 'U.S.'] | Appellate Body | Art. 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.7, 6.8, Annex II, Annex I, 6.9, 7.4, 12.2, 12.2.2, 1 Anti-dumpingArt. VI GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
12 April 2016
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by the European Union. (See also DS454)
On 13 June 2013, the European Union requested consultations with China concerning measures imposing anti-dumping duties on certa... | 2 | CHINA – MEASURES IMPOSING ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
HIGH-PERFORMANCE STAINLESS STEEL SEAMLESS TUBES ("HP-SSST")
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION
JOINT REQUEST BY CHINA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
FOR A DECISION BY THE DSB
The following communication, dated 12 March 2015, from the delegation of China and the
delegation of the European U... | 2026-03-15T15:59:29.841329 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations_00.pdf | DS461_SEQ01_Request_For_Consultations_00.pdf | 1 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY | NUMBERED | null | 0 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY PANAMA | 20 June 2013 | WT/DS461/1; G/L/1031 | General Council | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 3 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF
TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY PANAMA
The following communication, dated 18 June 2013, from the delegation of Panama
to the delegation of Colombia and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated
in accordance with Arti... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.910204 |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf | DS461_SEQ02_Communication_00.pdf | 2 | Communication | Communication from Guatemala | NUMBERED | null | 0 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS | 2 July 2013 | WT/DS461/2 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF
TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS
Communication from Guatemala
The following communication, dated 28 June 2013, from the delegation of Guatemala
to the delegation of Colombia, the delegation of Panama and to the Chairperson
of the Dispute Set... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.910841 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ03_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | DS461_SEQ03_Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel.pdf | 3 | Request_For_Establishment_Of_Panel | REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY PANAMA | 20 August 2013 | WT/DS461/3 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 3 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY PANAMA
The following communication, dated 19 August 201 3, from the delegation of Panama to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
On ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.913100 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ04_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf | DS461_SEQ04_Note_By_Secretariat_00.pdf | 4 | Note_By_Secretariat | NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | NUMBERED | null | 0 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF PANAMA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 16 January 2014 | WT/DS461/4; WT/DS461/3; WT/DS461/3 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF PANAMA
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
1. At its meeting on 25 September 2013, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a
panel pursuant to the request of Panama in document , in accord... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.913888 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ05_Communication_01.pdf | DS461_SEQ05_Communication_01.pdf | 5 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL | 6 November 2014 | WT/DS461/5 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
COMMUNICATION FROM THE PANEL
The following communication, dated 4 November 20 14, was received from the Chairperson of the
Panel with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body.
Article 12.8 of the Understanding on ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.914430 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ06_Working_Procedures.pdf | DS461_SEQ06_Working_Procedures.pdf | 6 | Working_Procedures | AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY COLOMBIA 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 | 27 January 2016 | WT/DS461/6 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 4 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY COLOMBIA
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 follo... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.916892 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ07_Communication_02.pdf | DS461_SEQ07_Communication_02.pdf | 7 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 2 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY | 29 March 2016 | WT/DS461/7 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
COMMUNICATION FROM THE APPELLATE BODY
The following communication, dated 22 March 2016, from the Chair of the Appellate Body
addressed to the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated to Members in accordance
with Article 17.5 o... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.917561 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ08_DSB_Action.pdf | DS461_SEQ08_DSB_Action.pdf | 8 | DSB_Action | Action by the Dispute Settlement Body | NUMBERED | null | null | COLOMBIA - MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT | 22 June 2016 | WT/DS461/10; WT/DS461/AB/R; WT/DS461/AB/R/Add.1; WT/DS461/R; WT/DS461/R/Add.1 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA - MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
APPELLATE BODY REPORT AND PANEL REPORT
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 22 June 2016, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body report
on Colombia - Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, App... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.918149 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ09_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf | DS461_SEQ09_Note_By_Secretariat_01.pdf | 9 | Note_By_Secretariat | GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT On 30 August 2016, pursuant to the request received on 19 August 2016 from the delegation of Panama, the Director General appointed Mr Giorgio Sacerdoti to act as arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Sett... | NUMBERED | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C) OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | 7 September 2016 | WT/DS461/12 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES,
APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(C)
OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES
GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
On 30 August 2016, pursuant to the request received on 19 August 2016 from the deleg... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.918661 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ10_Communication_03.pdf | DS461_SEQ10_Communication_03.pdf | 10 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 3 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA | 15 December 2016 | WT/DS461/15 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA
The following communication, dated 13 December 2016, was received from the delegation of
Colombia with the request that it be circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).
In accordance with Article 21.6 of... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.919472 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ11_Request_For_Consultations_01.pdf | DS461_SEQ11_Request_For_Consultations_01.pdf | 11 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS | NUMBERED | null | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS | 2 March 2017 | WT/DS461/19 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 3 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
The following communication, dated 2 7 February 2017, from the delegation of Colombia to the
delegation of Panama and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement B... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.921425 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ12_Communication_04.pdf | DS461_SEQ12_Communication_04.pdf | 12 | Communication | COMMUNICATION FROM | NUMBERED | null | 4 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA | 3 March 2017 | WT/DS461/20 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 3 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA
The following communication, dated 2 7 February 2017, from the delegation of Colombia to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of that delegation.
With reference to the p... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.922699 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ13_Request_For_Consultations_02.pdf | DS461_SEQ13_Request_For_Consultations_02.pdf | 13 | Request_For_Consultations | REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS | NUMBERED | null | 2 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY PANAMA REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS | 16 March 2017 | WT/DS461/21 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 7 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY PANAMA
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
The following communication, dated 9 March 2017, from the delegation of Panama to the
delegation of Co lombia and the Chair person of the Dispute Settlement Body, is ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.927550 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ14_Note_By_Secretariat_02.pdf | DS461_SEQ14_Note_By_Secretariat_02.pdf | 14 | Note_By_Secretariat | Note by the Secretariat | NUMBERED | null | 2 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRATOR | 6 September 2017 | WT/DS461/23; WT/DS461/18 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 22.6 OF THE DSU BY COLOMBIA
CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRATOR
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 20 February 2017, the Dispute Settlement Body ( DSB) took note that the
matter raised by Colombia in document has ... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.928179 | |
461 | 461 | DS461_SEQ15_Note_By_Secretariat_03.pdf | DS461_SEQ15_Note_By_Secretariat_03.pdf | 15 | Note_By_Secretariat | RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF COLOMBIA NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT | NUMBERED | null | 3 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR | 6 September 2017 | WT/DS461/24; WT/DS461/17.; WT/DS461/17 | ['Panama'] | ['Colombia'] | ['Ecuador', 'El Salvador', 'EU', 'China', 'Guatemala', 'Honduras', 'U.S.', 'Philippines'] | Implementation & Compliance | Art. II:1(b), II:1(a), VIII:1, X:3(a) GATT 1994 | The summary below was up-to-date at
14 March 2019
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Consultations
Complaint by Panama.
On 18 June 2013, Panama requested consultations with Colombia with respect to the imposition by Colombia of a compound tariff affecting the importation of t... | 1 | COLOMBIA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE IMPORTATION
OF TEXTILES, APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5
CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL ESTABLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF COLOMBIA
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT
1. At its meeting on 6 March 2017, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) agreed, pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settle... | 2026-03-15T15:59:41.928628 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.