United States – certain methodologies and their application to anti-dumping proceedings involving china

AB-2016-7

Report of the Appellate Body

Table of Contents

1   Introduction.. 9

2   Arguments of the Participants. 15

3   Arguments of the third participants. 15

4   Issues Raised in This Appeal. 15

5   Analysis of the Appellate Body. 16

5.1   China's claims pertaining to the USDOC's application of the Nails test and its use of the W-T methodology in the three challenged investigations. 16

5.1.1   Background. 17

5.1.2   The first and third alleged quantitative flaws. 19

5.1.2.1   Whether the Panel erred under the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement in rejecting China's claim in respect of the first alleged quantitative flaw.. 19

5.1.2.2   Whether the Panel erred under the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement in rejecting China's claim in respect of the third alleged quantitative flaw.. 25

5.1.2.3   Whether the Panel failed to comply with Article 17.6(i) of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement 29

5.1.3   Qualitative issues. 30

5.1.4   Use of averages in determining a "pattern". 35

5.1.5   Whether the Panel erred under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in suggesting that comparison methodologies may be combined to establish dumping margins. 42

5.2   The AFA Norm.. 43

5.2.1   Panel's findings. 44

5.2.2   Rules or norms of general and prospective application. 47

5.2.3   Whether the Panel erred in finding that China has not demonstrated that the AFA Norm is a norm of general and prospective application. 50

5.2.4   China's request for completion – general and prospective application. 53

5.2.5   China's request for completion – Article 6.8 and paragraph 7 of Annex II to the Anti-Dumping Agreement 57

5.2.6   Conclusion. 60

6   Findings And Conclusions. 61

6.1   The USDOC's application of the Nails test and its use of the W-T methodology in the three challenged investigations. 61

6.2   The AFA Norm.. 63

6.3   Recommendation. 64