WT/DS141/RW

$B%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj(B($B@i6eI46e==;MG/$N4X@G5Z$SKG0W$K4X$9$k0lHL6(DjBhO;>r$N; Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994)

$B%*%j%8%J%kJs9p:NBr0J9_$N7P0^(B

$B#2#0#0#1G/!!#37n#1#2F|!!%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k!&>e5i0Q0w2qJs9p:NBr(B

$B#2#0#0#2G/!!#57n!!#7F|!!#2#1!%#5>r

$B#2#0#0#2G/!!#57n#2#2F|!!#2#1!%#5>r%Q%M%kIUBw(B

$B#2#0#0#2G/#1#17n#2#9F|!!#2#1!%#5>r%Q%M%kJs9p(B

$B#2#0#0(B$B#3(B$BG/(B$B!!#4(B$B7n(B$B!!#8(B$BF|!!#2#1!%#5>r>e5i0QJs9p(B

$B#2#0#0#3G/!!#47n#2#4F|!!#2#1!%#5>r%Q%M%k!&>e5i0QJs9p:NBr(B

$B"(>e5i0Q0w2qJs9p$K$D$$$F$O!"(B$B>e5i0Q0w2qJs9pJ,@O(B$B$r;29M$K$7$F$/$@$5$$!#(B

$B%*%j%8%J%kJs9p:NBr0J9_$N;v

$B!!0J2<$N%Q%M%k7hDj$r;29M$K$7$F$/$@$5$$!#(B

$B%Q%M%k7hDj$NJ,@O(B$B!J(B()$BFb$N?t;z$OCJMnHV9f!K(B

r$NBP>]HO0O(B>$B#1!%(B$B0lHLE*LdBj(B(General issues)

$B?3::4p=`(B(Standard of Review)

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"#D#S#U!JJ6Ah2r7hN;2r!K#1#1>r$*$h$S%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#1#7!%#6>r$N?3::4p=`$K>H$i$7$D$D!"#D#S#B!JJ6Ah2r7h5!4X!K$N4+9p$r]6(Dj$K@09g$7$F$$$k$+H]$+$r?3::$7$J$/$F$O$J$i$J$$(B(we must evaluate the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendation of the DSB)$B!"$H=R$Y$?(B(6.5-6)$B!#(B

$BN)>Z@UG$(B(Burden of Proof)

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"%$%s%I$,K\7o#E#CAZ$9$k@UG$$rIi$&$3$H!";vZ5rDs=P5AL3$ON>Ev;v9q$,Ii$&$3$H$r3NG'$7$?(B(6.7)$B!#(B

$B#2!%(B$B@h7hLdBj(B(Request for Preliminary Rulings)

$B!!#E#C$O!"0J2<$N#4$D$NLdBj$K$D$$$F@h7hE*7hDj$r5a$a$F$$$?!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"(6.8)$B!#(B

$B#D#S#B4+9p$Nr%Q%M%k$NIUBw;v9`(B(Regulations 160/2002 and 696/002 are not measures $B!H(Btaken to comply$B!I(B with the DSB$B!G(Bs rulings and recommendations within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the DSU and, therefore, are not within the Panel$B!G(Bs jursidiction)

$B!!#E#C$O!"%*%j%8%J%k$N%Q%M%k]$H$J$i$J$$$H(6.9)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"]$H$J$i$J$$$H=R$Y$?!#-!(BAustralia – Salmon (Article 21.5 - Canada)$B%Q%M%kJs9p!"(BAustralia – Automotive Leather II (Article 21.5 – US)$B%Q%M%kJs9p$K$h$l$P!"2?$,4+9p$r!Vr%Q%M%k$K$h$C$F8!F$!&7hDj$5$l$k$Y$-;v9`$G$"$k(B(6.13-15)$B!"-"%(%8%W%H$d%Q%-%9%?%s$KBP$9$k%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0Ae5i(B$B0Q0w2q(it does not argue that the subsequent two measures undo the compliance effectuated by the first measure)$B!"Ev=i$N%$%s%I$KBP$9$kA(India argues that the first measure, $B!D(B is insufficient to establish compliance, and that the subsequent two measures do not cure that insufficiency)$B!"$H$$$&;v>p$b9MN8$9$Y$-$G$"$k(B(6.21)$B!#(B

$B!V2A$9$kF|;~$O%Q%M%k$N@_CVF|$+(B(The relevant date for assessing the consistency of the measures $B!H(Btaken to comply$B!I(B is the date of establishment of the Panel)

$B!!(reasonable period of time)$B=*N;8e$K$H$i$l$?%(%8%W%H$d%Q%-%9%?%s$KBP$9$kA

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"$9$G$KBEEv$J4|4VFb$K$H$i$l$?%$%s%I$KBP$9$k%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0A(6.27)$B!#(B

$B%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$G?=N)$NBP>]$H$J$i$J$+$C$?LdBj$rK\(Certain claims raised by India in this dispute, with respect to aspects of the original measure with which were the subject of claims by India, but were not pursued before the original Panel, are not properly before this Panel)

$B!!#E#C$O!"%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%kEv;~$NA (to the extent the redetermination confirms findings set out in the original determinations, the redetermination is not a $B!H(Bmeasure taken to comply$B!I(B, and the Panel should not rule on claims addressing the redetermination to the extent it is not a measure taken to comply.) $B!"$H

$B!!%Q%M%k$O]$H$J$i$:$7$?$,$C$F?3::$NBP>]$H$b$J$i$J$+$C$?LdBj$^$G$r$b#D#S#U#2#1!%#5>r]$K4^$a$k$3$H$rG'$a$k$H!"Ho?=N)9q$O8erl9g4X@G>y5v$rE12s$5$l$k2DG=@-$b=P$F$-$F(B(the defending Member would have no opportunity to bring its measure into conformity with the AD Agreement $B!D(B [and] would be subject to potential suspension of concessions as a result of a finding of violation$B!D(B)$B!"#D#S#U$N(Such an outcome would not seem to be consistent with the overall object and purpose of the DSU to achieve satisfactory resolution of disputes, effective functioning of the WTO, to maintain a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members, and to ensure that benefits accruing to any Member under covered agreements are not to nullified or impaired)(6.39-40)$B!"-"K\r$NB;32$N%@%s%T%s%0M"F~0J30$N860x$X$NHs5"@U$NLdBj(B(non-attribution to dumped imports of injuries caused by $B!H(Bother factors$B!I(B)$B$K$D$$$F?=N)$r9T$C$F$$$k$,!"$3$NLdBj$K$D$$$F$O%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$G$b%$%s%I$O?=N)$r9T$C$?$b$N$N(B(raised a claim)$B!"O@5r$r<($5$J$+$C$?$?$a(B(made no arguments in support of its claim)$B!"%Q%M%k$K$h$C$F?=N)$,B`$1$i$l$F$*$j(B(was dismissed)$B!"#E#C$b$3$NE@$D$$$F$O?7$?$JD4::$r$9$k$3$H$J$/!"%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$GBP>]$H$J$C$?7hDj$r:F3NG'$7$?$K$H$I$^$k(B(it referred back to and confirmed its original consideration of these factors)(6.41-42)$B!"-#K\r$K4X$9$k?=N)$r9T$&$3$H$rG'$a$l$P!"%$%s%I$K%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$G==J,$KO@$8$J$+$C$?LdBj$K$D$$$F:FEYDs5/$9$k%A%c%s%9$rM?$($k$3$H$K$J$j(B(allow India a second chance to prevail on a claim which it raised, but it did not pursue, in the original proceeding)$B!"AJ>Y$N?M0YE*A`:n$dMtMQ$r>7$/62$l$,$"$j!"J6Ah=hM}@)EY$N8z2LE*$J1?MQ$r32$9$k(B(harmful to the effective operation of the dispute settlement system)(6.43)$B!"-$$3$l$^$G$K#D#S#U#2#1!%#5>rl9g$b%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$G$OAh$&$3$H$N=PMh$J$+$C$??7$?$J$"$k$$$O=$@5$5$l$?A(6.47-49)$B!"-%K\7o$O!"(BUnited States – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia)$B$HN`;w$N%1!<%9$G$"$j!"$9$G$K%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$,6(Dj0cH?$rG'$a$J$$$HH=CG$7$?E@$K$D$$$F#D#S#U#2#1!%#5>r(6.50-52)$B!"-%0J>e$h$j!"%*%j%8%J%kr$N?=N)$K$D$$$F$OK\(6.53)$B!"-&%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#4>r$K$D$$$F$O!"%*%j%8%J%k!&%Q%M%k$OF1>r$KNs5s$5$l$F$$$kMW0x$N$&$A$$$/$D$+$K$D$$$F#E#C$O8!F$$7$F$$$J$$$HG'Dj$7$F$*$j!"#E#C$O$3$NG'Dj$r(substance of the EC$B!G(Bs evaluation of all the Article 3.4 factors)$B$N%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#4>r@09g@-$rAh$C$F$*$j!"$3$N$&$A%*%j%8%J%k(not a claim that India could have presented in the original dispute, as it relates primarily to the analysis in the redetermination)$B!"K\%Q%M%k$O$3$l$r?3::$9$k$3$H$,=PMh$k(B(6.54-57)$B!#(B

$B%Q%M%k@_CVMW@A$G8@5Z$5$l$F$$$J$$?=N)(B(Claims not stated in the request for establishment of the Panel)

$B!!#E#C$O!"-!%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#4!%#1>r(B(i)$B5Z$S#D#S#U#2#1!%#3>r$K$D$$$F%$%s%I$O?=N)$r9T$C$F$$$J$$!"-"$7$?$,$C$F$3$l$i$K4X$9$k%$%s%I$N

$B!!0lJ}%$%s%I$O!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#4!%#1>r(B(i)$B5Z$S#D#S#U#2#1!%#3>r$OO@5r(B(arguments)$B$G$"$C$F?=N)(B(claims)$B$G$O$J$$$H

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"-!#E#C$NN)>l$O%$%s%I$,K\7o$G>!AJ$9$k$K$O%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#4!%#1>r(B(i)$B5Z$S#D#S#U#2#1!%#3>r$K$D$$$F?=N)$r9T$&I,MW$,$"$k$H$N8+2r$K4p$E$$$F$$$k$,(B(The EC$B!G(Bs position rests on its view that a claim under Article 4.1(i) is necessary in order for India to prevail. $B!D(B The EC$B!G(Bs position rests on its view that India$B!G(Bs assertion that the EC failed to respect the reasonable period of implementation can only be addressed in the context of a claim under Article 21.3(b))$B!"%$%s%I$,$3$l$i$N>r9`$K$D$$$F?=N)$r9T$C$F$$$J$$0J>e!"%Q%M%k$O$3$l$i$K$D$$$FG'Dj$r9T$o$J$$(B(make no rulings)(6.64-66)$B!"-"$H$O$$$(!"%Q%M%k$O$3$l$i$N>r9`$r%$%s%I$Nr9`$K$D$$$FG'Dj$7$J$1$l$P%$%s%I$,9T$C$F$$$k?=N)$K$D$$$F7kO@$r2<$9$3$H$,=PMh$J$$$HH=CG$9$k>l9g$b$"$j$&$k(B(if we were to conclude that a finding of a violation under either Article 4.1(i) or Article 21.3 were a necessary predicate to allow us to reach a conclusion with respect to the alleged violations that are the subject of India$B!G(Bs claims, we would be unable to resolve the claims India has actually made.)(6.67)$B!#(B

$B#3!%(B$B%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#2!%#2!%#2>r(B(ii)$B0cH?(B(The EC acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the AD Agreement)

$B!!%*%j%8%J%ke5i0Q0w2q$O!"#E#C$,#1(selling, general, and administrative expenses)$B5Z$SMx1W$r7W;;$7@5>o$N2A3[$r7hDj$7$?$3$H$K$D$$$F!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#2!%#2!%#2>r(B(ii)$B0cH?$rG'Dj$7$F$$$?!#$3$l$rBombay Deying$BStandard Industries$B(The EC weighted the data for SG&A and profits reported by these two companies on the basis of the net value of their domestic sales)$B!"#S#G!u#A5Z$SMx1W$r7W;;$7$?(B(6.69)$B!#0lJ}%$%s%I$O!"HNGd2A3[$G$O$J$/HNGdNL$K1~$8$?2C=EJ?6Q(B(weighting on the basis of sales volume)$B$r$9$Y$-$H(6.70)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"r(B(ii)$B$K4p$E$-!"%Q%M%k$O2re$N47=,E*5,B'!"$9$J$o$A%&%#!<%s>rLsK!>rLs#3#1!%#1>r$K4p$E$-6(Dj$r2r(6.79)$B!"-"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#2!%#2!%#2>r(B(ii)$B$NJ88@$O!"#S#G!u#A5Z$SMx1W$K$D$$$F2C=EJ?6QCM$,5a$a$i$l$J$1$l$P$J$i$J$$$3$H$K$D$$$F$OL@3N$G$"$k$,!"HNGdNL$K4p$E$$$F2C=EJ?6Q$9$Y$-$J$N$+HNGd3[$K4p$E$$$F2C=EJ?6Q$9$Y$-$J$N$+$K$D$$$F$OL@3N$J;X?K$r<($7$F$$$J$$(B(6.81)$B!"-"%$%s%I$O!">e5i0Q0w2q$K$h$l$P2C=EJ?6QCM$OM"=P(an average of two companies$B!G(B data weighted on the basis of sales value reflects the relative importance of each of those companies in the total sales value)$B!"HNGdNL$K4p$E$/2C=EJ?6Q$OAmHNGdNL$K4X$9$kAjBPE*=EMW@-$rH?1G$7$F$*$j(B(an average of two companies$B!G(B data weighted on the basis of sales volume reflects the relative importance of each of those companies in the total sales volume)$B!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#2!%#2!%#2>r(B(ii)$B$NJ8L.$G$O$I$A$i$b2DG=$G$"$k$H2r(6.83-84)$B!"-#%$%s%I$O%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#2!%#2!%#2>r(B(ii)$B$NJ8L.$H$7$F#2!%#2>rCm!"#2!%#2!%#1>rCm!"#6!%#1#0>r$r5s$2$F$$$k$,!"J8L.$OJ88@$rN%$l$?0UL#$rIU$9$3$H$O=PMh$:!"$^$?%$%s%I$,5s$2$F$$$k$$$:$l$NJ8L.$bHNGdNL$G2C=EJ?6Q$7$J$/$F$O$J$i$J$$$H$N7kO@$rF3$/$b$N$G$O$J$$(B(6.85-88)$B!"-$%$%s%I$O(BEuropean Court of First Instance$B$,HNGdNL$r4p$KDL>o$N>&rE,MQ$r9T$C$?$HrLsK!>rLs#3#1>r$N0UL#$G$N!VJ8L.!W$H$O8@$($:!"%(%9%H%C%Z%k$N:,5r$H$O$J$j$($J$$!#$^$?!"?.5A@?(6.89-91)$B!#(B

$B#4!%%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#1>r!"#3!%#3>r!"#5!%#7>r0cH?(B(The EC acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1, 3.3 and 5.7 of the AD Agreement)

$B!!#2#0#0#1G/#77n#2#6F|!"#E#C$O!"5,B'(B1515/2001$B$r:NBr$7$?!#$=$l$K$h$l$P!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0$^$?$OAj;&4X@G$K4X$9$kJs9p$,#D#S#B$K$h$j:NBr$5$l$?>l9g!"M};v2q$OJ6Ah$NBP>]$H$J$C$?A$NE,@Z$JA(the Council, acting on a proposal by the Commission, may repeal or amend the disputed measure, or adopt any other special measures deemed appropriate in the circumstances)$B!#$^$?M};v2q$O!"#D#S#B$K:NBr$5$l$?Js9p$K$*$1$k2rl9g$K$O!"J6Ah$NBP>]$H$J$C$F$$$J$$A$NE,@Z$JA(the Council may repeal or amend a non-disputed measure, or adopt any other special measures deemed appropriate in the circumstances, is such action is considered appropriate, in order to take into account the legal interpretations made in a report adopted by the DSB)(6.96)$B!#(B

$B#E#C$O!"%*%j%8%J%k$N%Q%M%k!&>e5i0Q0w2qJs9p$N:NBr$r 1515/2001$B$K4p$E$-!"%$%s%I!"%(%8%W%H!"%Q%-%9%?%s$+$i$N%Y%C%I%j%M%s$KBP$9$k%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0@G$r:FD4::$7$?!#:F7hDj(B(Regulation 1644/2001)$B$N7k2L!"%$%s%I$KBP$9$k%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s$r2<$2$?$,!"%(%8%W%H$H%Q%-%9%?%s$KBP$9$k%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s$OEv=i$N$^$^$H$7$?!#$^(B$B$?!"$3$l$i#3%+9q$+$i$N%@%s%T%s%0M"F~$K$h$C$F#E#C;:6H$K(6.97-98)$B!#(B

$B!!0lJ}!"M};v2q$O%$%s%I$+$i$N%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0@GD'<}$rB3$1$k$N$OE,@Z$G$O$J$$$H$7$F!"D'<}$r0l;~E*$KDd;_$7$?(B(suspended)$B!#%Q%M%k?3::Ev;~!"(BEurocoton$B$N?=N)$K4p$E$/:F7hDj$N8+D>$7$,9T$o$l$F$*$j!"=$@5%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0@G$O$^$@D'<}$5$l$F$$$J$+$C$?(B(6.99)$B!#(B

$B!!#E#C$O$^$?!"5,B'(B1515/2001$B$K4p$E$-!"%(%8%W%H5Z$S%Q%-%9%?%s$KBP$9$k%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0@G$r8+D>$7!"%Q%-%9%?%s$K$D$$$F$O%@%s%T%s%0$,G'Dj$5$l$J$+$C$?$H$7$F(terminated)$B!"%(%8%W%H$K$D$$$F$O%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s:F7W;;$N$?$a$N==J,$J%G!<%?$,$J$$$?$a@GD'<}$r0l;~Dd;_$7!":F7hDj8+D>$7$N?=N)$b$J$+$C$?$?$aA(6.100)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%-%9%?%sBP$9$k(6.101)$B!#(B

$B!!%$%s%I$O!"-!#E#C$,!"8e$K%@%s%T%s%0$,$J$$$H$5$l$?%(%8%W%H$H%Q%-%9%?%s$+$i$NM"F~$bN_@QE*$KI>2A$7$?$3$H$O!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#3>r5Z$S#3!%#1>r$K0cH?$7$F$$$k!"-"#E#C$,%@%s%T%s%0$HB;32$rF1;~$K9MN8$7$J$+$C$?$3$H$O%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#5!%#7>r$K0cH?$9$k!"$H(6.102)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"]$O%$%s%I$KBP$9$k%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%0:F7hDj(B(Regulation 1644/2001)$B$G$"$j!":F7hDjEv;~%(%8%W%H$H%Q%-%9%?%s$N%@%s%T%s%0$O%G%_%K%_%90J>e$HG'Dj$5$l$F$*$j!"$=$NG'Dj$N6(Dj@09g@-$OAh$o$l$F$$$J$+$C$?$3$H$+$i!"#E#C$O$=$N$h$&$JG'Dj$r:,5r$H$7$F$3$l$i$N9q$+$i$NM"F~$rN_@QE*$KI>2A$9$k$3$H$,$G$-$k(B(6.108)$B!"-"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#5!%#7>r$O!"D4::3+;O5Z$SD4::$N2aDx$K$*$$$FE,MQ$5$l$k$HL@5-$7$F$*$j!"!VD4::!W$H$O:G=*7hDj$K;j$kD4::$G$"$C$F$=$N8e$N:F7hDj$K$OE,MQ$5$l$J$$$7!":F7hDj$K$bE,MQ$5$l$k$H2r(6.113-115)$B!#(B

$B#5!%%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#1>r5Z$S#3!%#2>r0cH?(B(The EC acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1and 3.2 of the AD Agreement)

$B!!#E#C$O!"%$%s%I$NM"=P(6.117)$B!#(B

$B!!%$%s%I$O!"8DJL%^!<%8%s$,;;=P$5$l$J$+$C$?@8;:r0cH?$r(6.118)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"r$O!"!V%@%s%T%s%0M"F~$NNL!W$r!"%@%s%T%s%07hDj$H$OJL8D$K!"%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s$N;;Dj$K4p$E$$$F7hDj$9$k(B(the volume of dumped imports must be determined independently of the determination of dumping, based on the calculation of dumping margins in accordance with the AD Agreement)$B$3$H$r5a$a$F$$$J$$(B(6.127)$B!"-"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#1>r5Z$S#3!%#2>r$O%@%s%T%s%0M"F~$,2?$+$K$D$$$FDj5A$7$F$$$J$$$,!"6(Dj#2!%#1>r5Z$S#6!%#1#0>r$h$j!"%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s$,%G%_%K%_%90J>e$HG'Dj$5$l$?@8;:($B!H(Bdumped imports$B!I(B are all imports attributable to producers or exporters for which a margin of dumping greater than de minimis is calculated)(6.127-133)$B!"-#K\7o$G$O!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#6!%#1#0>r$K4p$E$-8DJL$N%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s$,;;=P$5$l$J$+$C$?@8;:r$O8DJL$N%@%s%T%s%0!&%^!<%8%s$,;;=P$5$l$J$+$C$?@8;:(6.134-137)$B!#(B

$B#6!%%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#1>r5Z$S#3!%#4>r0cH?(B(The EC acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the AD Agreement)

$B!!#E#C$O!"B;32$N:FG'Dj$K$*$$$F!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#4>r$KNs5s$5$l$F$$$k$9$Y$F$NMW0x$r9MN8$7$?(B(6.145)$B!#(B

$B!!%$%s%I$O!"#E#C$O%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#4>r$KNs5s$5$l$F$$$kMW0x$K$D$$$F%G!<%?$r<}=8$7$F$*$i$:!"$7$?$,$C$F#E#C$NB;32:FG'Dj$OZE*$J>Z5r(B(positive evidence)$B$K4p$E$/$b$N$H$O$$$($:!"#3!%#1>r5Z$S#3!%#4>r$K0cH?$7$F$$$k$H(6.146)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"r$N!VZE*$J>Z5r(B(positive evidence)$B!W$O!"B;32G'Dj$N4pAC$H$J$k>Z5r$,9NDjE*!"5R4QE*!"$+$D8!>Z2DG=$G!"?.MQ$G$-$k$b$N$G$J$1$l$P$J$i$J$$(B(must be of an affirmative, objective and verifiable character, and that it must be credible)$B$H$$$&$3$H$r0UL#$7!"$^$?!V5R4QE*$J8!F$(B(objective examination)$B!W$OD4::$NJ}K!$,?.5A@? ($B!H(Bexamination$B!I(B process must conform to the dictates of the basic principles of good faith and fundamental fairness)$B!"FCDj$NMx324X78(be investigated in an unbiased manner, without favouring the interests of any interested party, or group of interested parties, in the investigation)$B$H$$$&$3$H$r0UL#$9$k(B(6.159)$B!"-"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#4>r$N!VI>2A(B(evaluation)$B!W$H$O!"J,@O$H::Dj$N2aDx$G$"$j!"$=$3$G$O3FMW0x$N0U5A!"4XO"@-$d=EMW@-$K$D$$$F$ND4::Ev6I$NH=CG$,I,MW$H$J$j(B(an $B!H(Bevaluation$B!I(B is a process of analysis and assessment requiring the exercise of judgment on the part of the investigating authority$B!D(B the investigating authority must therefore assess the role, relevance and relative weight of each factor in the particular investigation)$B!"$^$?0lIt$NMW0x$,B;32$NH/@8$r<($7$F$$$J$+$C$?$H$+$i$H$$$C$FB;32$NH/@8$,H]Dj$5$l$k$o$1$G$O$J$$(B (6.160-163)$B!"-##E#C$O%*%j%8%J%kD4::Ev;~$h$j%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj$KNs5s$5$l$F$$$k$9$Y$F$NMW0x$K4X$9$k%G!<%?$r=8$a$F$*$j!"$^$?>Z5r$r=8$a$:$K#E#C$,B;32G'Dj$r9T$C$?$H$$$&>Z5r$b$J$$(B(6.164-167)$B!"-$#E#C$O!"4+9p2A$r9T$C$F$$$J$$$3$H$K$O$J$i$J$$(B(merely because the redetermination confirms or adopts certain findings made in the original determination does not demonstrate a failure to carry out an overall evaluation of the information in making the injury redetermination)(6.170-173)$B!"-%#E#C$O!"%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#4>r$KNs5s$5$l$F$$$kMW0x$K$D$$$FJq3gE*$J:F8!F$$HJ,@O$r9T$C$F$$$k(B(6.175-216)$B!#(B

$B#7!%%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#5>r0cH?(B(The EC acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement)

$B!!%$%s%I$O!"#E#C$N0x2L4X78$NG'Dj$O%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#3!%#5>r$K0cH?$7$F$$$k$H(6.218)$B!#(B

$B!!%Q%M%k$O!"]$H$O$J$i$J$$$H=R$Y$?$,!"K\J6Ah$N?WB.$J2r7h$N$?$a$K$3$NE@$K$D$$$F$bG0$N$?$aG'Dj$r9T$&$N$,E,@Z$H9M$($k(B(we consider it appropriate, in order to ensure prompt resolution of this Article 21.5 dispute, to make, in the alternative, findings on India$B!G(Bs claim in this regard)$B!#$?$@$7!"$3$NLdBj$,K\]$H$J$i$J$$$H$NG'Dj$,#D#S#B$K:NBr$5$l$k$J$i$P!"K\7o$K$D$$$F$N(no recommendation or ruling by the DSB would be necessary with respect to our alternative findings, if our preliminary ruling, that India$B!G(Bs claim concerning $B!H(Bother factors$B!I(B causing injury is not properly before us, is adopted)(6.226-227)$B!"-"#3!%#5>rBh#1J8$N0x2L4X78$=$N$b$N$K$D$$$F$OK\]$H$J$k$,(B(one aspect of India$B!G(Bs claim under Article 3.5 is not disposed of by our preliminary ruling, as it relates to the determination of causal link per se, and not to the consideration of other factors causing injury)$B!"%@%s%T%s%0M"F~$,B;32$NM#0l$N860x$H$J$C$F$$$kI,MW$O$J$/!"%$%s%I!"%(%8%W%H!"%Q%-%9%?%s$+$i$N%@%s%T%s%0M"F~$NA}2C$K$h$j9qFb$N;T>l2A3J$,0z$-2<$2$i$l!"$=$l$K$h$C$FB;32$,@8$8$F$$$k$H$N#E#C$NG'Dj$OE,@Z$J0x2L4X78$NG'Dj$G$"$k$H$$$($k(B(6.228-232)$B!"-#$=$NB>$N860x$X$NHs5"@U$K$D$$$F!"%$%s%I$O#E#C$,$$$/$D$+$NCN$i$l$F$$$kMW0x$r8!F$$7$J$+$C$?$H(6.238-245)$B!#(B

$B#8!%%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#1#5>r0cH?(B(The EC acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 15 of the AD Agreement)

$B!!%$%s%I$O!"#E#C$,%"%s%A%@%s%T%s%06(Dj#1#5>r$K4p$E$/7z@_E*$J5_:QA(6.249)$B!#(B