Examples of using Pattern clause in English and their translations into Spanish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
We refer to these two conditions as the"pattern clause" and the"explanation clause", respectively.
China's argument effectively imports the phrase"individual export transactions" into the pattern clause.
These two conditions are referred to below as the"pattern clause" and the"explanation clause" respectively.
What is relevant to the pattern clause is the qualitative dimension of the"significance" of price differences, not an overall qualitative analysis of the pattern. .
Recalling its findings in US- Washing Machines,the Appellate Body noted that the term"significantly" in the pattern clause has both quantitative and qualitative dimensions.
Regarding the interpretation of the pattern clause, a"pattern" must be of export prices that differ significantly"among different purchasers, regions or time periods.
Section II.B responds to Korea's appeal of certain Panel findings related to the"pattern clause" of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.
The Panel seemed to think that because it found a textual basis in the explanation clause to consider qualitative factors,it could reject any such textual basis in the pattern clause.
The Panel Erred by Finding that the Pattern Clause Did Not Require Authorities to Consider Qualitative Factors.
For these reasons, we consider that an investigating authority may rely on individual export transaction prices or average prices in order to find a pattern, provided that this pattern meets the requirements stipulated in the pattern clause.
This is a legal conclusion reached by the Panel in light of its interpretation of the pattern clause as allowing a pattern to be composed of a large number of transactions.
As explained above, we consider that the pattern clause focuses on the price differences among different purchasers, regions, or time periods, not the differences within the prices for the"targeted" purchaser, region, or time period.
The Appellate Body disagreed with China that the reference to"prices of individual export transactions" in the first part of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 directly informs orlimits how a pattern is to be identified in the pattern clause.
For these reasons,China submitted that the United States acted inconsistently with the pattern clause by applying the Nails test in the three challenged investigations without assessing whether the data distribution was normal or at least single-peaked and symmetric.
The Appellate Body therefore did not agree with China that a decline in production costs should form part of the investigating authority's qualitative analysis in assessing the significance of price differences under the pattern clause.
Additionally, the USDOC's differential pricing analysis is not inconsistent with the"pattern clause" of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2, when that clause is properly interpreted in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation.
While the W-W and T-T comparison methodologies under the first sentence"shall normally" be used,an investigating authority may use the exceptional W-T comparison methodology under the second sentence if the requirements of its pattern clause and explanation clause are met.
Korea also argues that the Panel incorrectly interpreted the"pattern clause" of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement, and erroneously found that it does not require an investigating authority to examine the reasons why export prices differ.
Assuming the export prices to the"target" are found to differ from the other export prices in a case where a large number of individual export prices fall below the one standard deviation threshold, the pattern clause also requires the investigating authority to determine whether these differences are significant.
The Panel recalled its understanding that the pattern clause does not require the consideration of such variations; rather, it provides discretion to investigating authorities to choose between individual export transaction prices and average prices when determining a pattern. .
Regarding seasonality, to the extent that seasonal variations in the prices of goods explain why export prices vary over time periods, the Appellate Body considered that they relate to the"reasons" for the price differences andthus need not be considered under the pattern clause.
Addressing China's claim under Article 2.4.2,the Appellate Body observed that the text of the pattern clause does not prescribe a specific method for identifying a"pattern", in particular whether individual export transaction prices or average prices must be used.
We thus agree with the Panel that, when a pattern is determined through the use of averages, the pattern itself will consist of individual export transactions.280 For these reasons,we disagree with China that the meaning of the term"pattern" supports the view that the use of averages is a priori prohibited by the pattern clause.
The Panel explained:[T]he USDOC used what it called the Nails test to meet the requirements under the pattern clause of Article 2.4.2 to find a pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different purchasers or time periods.
We thus agree with the Panel that while the pattern clause"specifies what an investigating authority should find… it does not prescribe how an investigating authority should make such a finding."124 Accordingly, investigating authorities enjoy a margin of discretion regarding the methods or tools they wish to use in establishing the existence of a pattern. .
We consider that this view is consistent with the function of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2, which is to allow investigating authorities to identify and address"targeted dumping".274 As a result, an investigating authority may rely on prices of individual export transactions or average prices in order to find a pattern, provided that the pattern meets the requirements stipulated in the pattern clause.
The Appellate Body thus agreed with the Panel's conclusion that the pattern clause provides investigating authorities with discretion in relation to whether a pattern determination is to be based on individual export transaction prices or average prices.
While the pattern clause also refers to a pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different regions, the USDOC did not find a pattern on that basis in the three challenged investigations.(Ibid., fn 40 thereto) 66 Panel Report, para. 7.3(referring to United States' first written submission to the Panel, para. 85) and para. 7.40 referring to United States' first written submission to the Panel, para. 86.
China further requested the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis andfind that the USDOC acted inconsistently with the pattern clause in the three challenged investigations, by failing to find, through an objective and unbiased evaluation of the facts,"a pattern of export prices which differ significantly" within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2.
Korea seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's interpretation of the pattern clause of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 as not requiring the authorities to consider qualitative factors when finding a"pattern" of export prices that"differ significantly.8 In particular, the Panel erred in finding that.