## Facts

- The European Communities imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil under Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2000.
- The duties followed an investigation examining dumping and alleged material injury to the EC industry, including an injury analysis that cumulatively assessed imports from multiple countries.
- Brazil initiated WTO dispute settlement, challenging aspects of the investigation and the resulting duties under GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA).
- A WTO panel largely rejected Brazil’s claims; Brazil appealed limited legal interpretations and conclusions.
- The Appellate Body reviewed only issues of law and legal interpretation from the panel report under DSU Article 17.6.

## Issues

1. What Article 3.1 ADA requires for a “positive determination” of injury based on “positive evidence,” and how it guides the interpretation of Articles 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5.
2. Whether the EC’s cumulation of imports from multiple countries in the injury analysis satisfied Article 3.3 ADA, including the need for a reasoned justification beyond numerical thresholds.
3. Whether the EC’s causation analysis complied with Article 3.5 ADA by showing a genuine cause-and-effect relationship and ensuring injury from other factors was not attributed to dumped imports.
4. How Article 17.6(i) ADA constrains panel review, including the requirement to assess the adequacy and logical coherence of the authority’s explanation without conducting a de novo investigation.

## Decision

- The Appellate Body upheld several panel findings rejecting Brazil’s claims, but reversed or modified parts of the panel’s legal reasoning concerning elements of injury analysis and causation under Article 3 ADA.
- On cumulation (Article 3.3), the Appellate Body emphasized that cumulation is not automatic upon meeting de minimis and non-negligibility thresholds and requires a reasoned explanation grounded in market conditions and competitive relationships.
- On causation and non-attribution (Article 3.5), the Appellate Body clarified that authorities must examine all known other causal factors and explain how their injurious effects are separated from the effects of dumped imports.
- On standard of review (Article 17.6(i)), the Appellate Body stressed that panels must scrutinize whether the determination reflects proper fact-finding and an unbiased, objective evaluation, including whether the reasoning adequately links evidence to conclusions.
- The DSB adopted the panel report as modified by the Appellate Body and requested the EC to bring the measure into conformity.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3.1 ADA imposes an overarching obligation that injury determinations be based on positive evidence and an unbiased and objective evaluation, informing the application of the more specific injury and causation provisions.
- Article 3.3 ADA permits cumulation only if (i) dumping margins are more than de minimis, (ii) import volumes are not negligible, and (iii) imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product; satisfaction of thresholds does not eliminate the need for a reasoned explanation.
- Cumulation analysis must address competitive interactions and market conditions and should avoid reliance on aggregated data in a way that obscures material differences among import sources relevant to injury.
- Article 3.5 ADA requires (i) a demonstrated genuine and substantial cause-and-effect relationship between dumped imports and injury and (ii) an explained non-attribution analysis separating the effects of other known factors from those of dumped imports; timing alone is insufficient.
- Under Article 17.6(i) ADA, panels do not redo the investigation but must test whether the authority’s findings rest on proper fact establishment and whether the explanation is reasoned, coherent, and sufficient on the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Body largely maintained the outcome rejecting most of Brazil’s challenges but clarified that ADA Article 3 requires transparent, evidence-based reasoning: cumulation must be justified by competitive conditions, causation must separate other injurious factors through a non-attribution analysis, and panel review must evaluate both factual grounding and the adequacy of the authority’s explanation under Article 17.6(i).


European Cmtys.—Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Braz., WTO Doc. WT/DS219/AB/R (Aug. 18, 2003)