Upcoming Webinar - "Jus Mundi's Conflict Checker" on Friday, April 10th 2020 - 6:00 PM (CEST) - Register here !
Source(s) of the information:
Source(s) of the information:

Report of the Panel

WTO AND GATT CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT

Short titleFull case title and citation
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, p. 515
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Panel Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DS121/R, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS121/AB/R, DSR 2000:II, p. 575
Argentina – Import Measures Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods, WT/DS438/AB/R / WT/DS444/AB/R / WT/DS445/AB/R, adopted 26 January 2015
Argentina – Preserved Peaches Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved Peaches, WT/DS238/R, adopted 15 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, p. 1037
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3327
Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain, WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004, DSR 2004:VI, p. 2739
Chile – Price Band System Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/R, adopted 23 October 2002, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS207AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3127
Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric, WT/DS415/R, WT/DS416/R, WT/DS417/R, WT/DS418/R, and Add.1, adopted 22 February 2012, DSR 2012:XIII, p. 6775
EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – Ecuador II) / EC – Bananas III (Article 21.5 – US) Appellate Body Reports, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador,WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU, adopted 11 December 2008, and Corr.1 / European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA and Corr.1, adopted 22 December 2008, DSR 2008:XVIII, p. 7165
EC – IT Products Panel Reports, European Communities and its member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products, WT/DS375/R / WT/DS376/R / WT/DS377/R, adopted 21 September 2010, DSR 2010:III, p. 933
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, p. 9
Korea – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, p. 3
Korea – Dairy Panel Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/R and Corr.1, adopted 12 January 2000, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS98/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, p. 49
Mexico – Anti‑Dumping Measures on Rice Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti‑Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice, WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted 20 December 2005, DSR 2005:XXII, p. 10853
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS308/AB/R, DSR 2006:I, p. 43
US – Cotton Yarn Appellate Body Report, United States –Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 2001, DSR 2001:XII, p. 6027
US – Lamb Appellate Body Report, United States –Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001, DSR 2001:IX, p. 4051
US – Lamb Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/R, WT/DS178/R, adopted 16 May 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, p. 4107
US – Line Pipe Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, p. 1403
US – Steel Safeguards Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:VII, p. 3117
US – Steel Safeguards Panel Reports, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/R / WT/DS249/R / WT/DS251/R / WT/DS252/R / WT/DS253/R / WT/DS254/R / WT/DS258/R / WT/DS259/R / and Corr.1, adopted 10 December 2003, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, DSR 2003:VIII, p. 3273
US – Tuna II (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13 June 2012, DSR 2012:IV, p. 1837
US – Tyres (China) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Certain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from China, WT/DS399/AB/R, adopted 5 October 2011, DSR 2011:IX, p. 4811
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005, DSR 2005:I, p. 3
US – Wheat Gluten Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/AB/R, adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, p. 717
US – Wheat Gluten Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, WT/DS166/R, adopted 19 January 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS166/AB/R, DSR 2001:III, p. 779
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997, and Corr.1, DSR 1997:I, p. 323

ABBREVIATIONS

AbbreviationDescription
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
BCI Business Confidential Information
Commission The Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of Ukraine
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
Key Findings Key Findings of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Based on Special investigation on Imports of Motors Cars to Ukraine Regardless of the Country of Origin and Export
Ministry The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine
Notice of 14 March 2013 Notice of Imposition of Safeguard Measures on Imports of Motor Cars to Ukraine Regardless of Country of Origin and Export, as published in the Uryadovyi Kuryer No. 48 of 14 March 2013
SCM Agreement Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Safeguards Law Ukraine's Law on Application of Safeguard Measures Against Imports to Ukraine, 22 December 1998, No. 332-XIV
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1993) New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 (4th edition), Volumes 1 and 2
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (2002) New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2002 (5th edition), Volumes 1 and 2
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (2007) New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2007 (6th edition), Volumes 1 and 2
WTO World Trade Organization
WTO Agreement Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 COMPLAINT BY JAPAN

1.1.
On 30 October 2013, Japan requested consultations with Ukraine pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Dispute ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("the GATT 1994") and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding the definitive safeguard measure1 imposed by Ukraine on imports of certain passenger cars and the investigation that led to the imposition of this measure.2 The European Union and the Russian Federation requested on 13 and 14 November 2013, respectively, to join the consultations pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU.3 On 29 November 2013, Ukraine informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of the European Union and the Russian Federation to join the consultations.4
1.2.
Consultations were held on 29 November 2013 and 21 January 2014, but failed to resolve the dispute.

1.2 PANEL ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION

1.3.
At its meeting on 26 March 2014, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of Japan in document WT/DS468/5, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.5
1.4.
The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by Japan in document WT/DS468/5 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.6

1.5.
On 10 June 2014, Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute. The Chairman of the DSB shall inform the Members of the composition of the panel thus formed no later than 10 days after the date the Chairman receives such a request.

1.6.
On 20 June 2014, the Director-General accordingly composed the Panel as follows:

Chairperson: Mr William Davey

Members: Mr Felipe Hees

Mr Chang-fa Lo

1.7.
Australia, the European Union, India, Korea, the Russian Federation, Turkey and the United States have reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.

1.3 PANEL PROCEEDINGS

1.3.1 General

1.8.
After consultations with the parties, the Panel adopted its Working Procedures7 and timetable on 29 July 2014.
1.9.
The Panel held a first substantive meeting with the parties on 29 and 30 September 2014. A session with the third parties took place on 30 September 2014. The Panel held a second substantive meeting with the parties on 17 and 18 November 2014. On 5 December 2014, the Panel issued the descriptive part of its Report to the parties. The Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties on 12 February 2015. The Panel issued its Final Report to the parties on 18 March 2015.

1.3.2 Working procedures on BCI

1.10.
At Ukraine's request and after consultations with both parties, the Panel adopted, on 8 August 2014, additional procedures for the protection of BCI.8

2 FACTUAL ASPECTS

2.1 THE MEASURE AT ISSUE

2.1.
This dispute concerns the definitive safeguard measure imposed by Ukraine on imports of certain passenger cars to Ukraine and the investigation that led to the imposition of this measure.

2.2 OTHER FACTUAL ASPECTS

2.2.
Further to a complaint lodged by the Association of Ukrainian Vehicle Manufacturers "Ukravtoprom" on behalf of three Ukrainian automobile manufacturers (VO KrASZ LLC, ZAZ CJSC, Eurocar CJSC), Ukraine's Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade adopted, on 30 June 2011, Decision No. SP-259/2011/4402-27 on the initiation and conduct of the safeguard investigation on imports of motor cars to Ukraine, regardless of country of origin and export.
2.3.
The period of investigation covered three years, namely 2008-2010, with an additional assessment of certain factors during the first half of 2011.
2.4.
On 2 July 2011, the safeguard investigation was formally initiated following publication of the Commission's decision of 30 June in the Uryadovyi Kuryer No. 118 of 2 July 2011. The investigation was carried out by the Ministry pursuant to Ukraine's Safeguards Law.
2.5.
On 13 July 2011, the initiation of the safeguard investigation was notified9 to the WTO pursuant to Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards.
2.6.
On 6 March 2012, the Commission approved Decision No. SP-272/2012/4423-08 to extend the safeguard investigation for an additional 60 days in accordance with Article 8 of the Safeguards Law. The notice concerning this decision was published in the official gazette of Ukraine, the Uryadovyi Kuryer, on 7 March 2012.
2.7.
On 11 April 2012, the Ministry circulated to Japan and several other exporting countries its Key Findings based on the results of the safeguard investigation. The Ministry proposed to impose safeguard measure in the form of a safeguard duty at a level of 6.46% for passenger cars with an engine volume of 1000cm3 - 1500cm3 and 15.1% for passenger cars with an engine volume of 1500cm3 - 2200cm3.
2.8.
On 28 April 2012, the Commission took Decision No. SP-275/2012/4423-08 on Imposition of Safeguard Measures on Imports of Motor Cars into Ukraine Regardless of the Country of Origin or Export of 28 April 2012 (hereafter referred to as the "Decision"). A Notice of Imposition of Safeguard Measures on Imports of Motor Cars into Ukraine Regardless of the Country of Origin was published in the Uryadovyi Kuryer No. 48 on 14 March 2013. The safeguard measure in the form of a safeguard duty was imposed with the following rates: 6.46% for passenger cars with an engine volume of 1000cm3 – 1500cm3 and 12.95% for passenger cars with an engine volume of 1500cm3 – 2200 cm3. The measure entered into force 30 days after its official publication for a duration of three years.
2.9.
According to Article 21 of the Safeguards Law, the above-mentioned safeguard measure was not applied to imports into Ukraine of the product concerned originating from the following countries – Members of the WTO: Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda and Zambia.
2.10.
On 21 March 2013, Ukraine submitted to the WTO a notification pursuant to Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, and pursuant to Article 12.1(c) and footnote 2 of Article 9 of the Agreement on Safeguards.10
2.11.
By Decision No. SP-306/2014/4423-06 of 12 February 2014, the Commission decided to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure in accordance with the following schedule:

a. For cars with a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 1500 cm3, classified under UKTZED11 code of 8703 22 10 00:

i. In 12 months from the day of applying the measure: 4.31%

ii. In 24 months from the day of applying the measure: 2.15%.

b. For cars with a cylinder capacity exceeding 1500 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3, classified under UKTZED code of 8703 23 19 10:

i. In 12 months from the day of applying the measure: 8.63%

ii. In 24 months from the day of applying the measure: 4.32%.

2.12.
A Notice concerning this decision was published in the Uryadovyi Kuryer, No. 57 of 28 March 2014. The decision on liberalization entered into force on the date of its publication.
2.13.
This decision was notified to the Committee on Safeguards on 28 March 2014.12

3 PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1.
Japan requests that the Panel:

a. find that the safeguard measure adopted by Ukraine is inconsistent with its obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994 and, in particular, with:

i. Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to publish a report setting forth its findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law and a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined;

ii. Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to conduct a proper investigation that includes reasonable public notice to all interested parties and the opportunities for them to present evidence and their views;

iii. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to demonstrate the existence of any "unforeseen developments"; failed to demonstrate a logical connection between the increase in imports and an "unforeseen development"; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions with regard to an "unforeseen development";

iv. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to demonstrate and evaluate the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994 and how that effect has resulted in the increase in imports; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions with regard to the alleged effect of obligations incurred under the GATT 1994;

v. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was the result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of obligations incurred under the GATT 1994; failed to establish an increase in imports in a manner consistent with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions with regard to the increase in imports;

vi. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to examine all relevant injury factors; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions of how the facts support its determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury;

vii. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to demonstrate the existence of a causal link between the alleged increased imports and the alleged serious injury or threat thereof; failed to make a proper non-attribution analysis; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions regarding the existence of a causal link between the increased imports and the alleged serious injury or threat of injury and non-attribution of other factors;

viii. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, 7.4 and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine failed to apply the safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment"; failed to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure by submitting a relevant timetable for progressive liberalization; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions as to why the measure is necessary to prevent or remedy the alleged serious injury;

ix. Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, because Ukraine imposes duties which are in excess of those set forth in its schedule through the unlawful safeguard measure at issue;

x. Articles 12.1 and 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine did not notify immediately the Committee on Safeguards upon initiating the safeguard investigation, making a finding of serious injury and taking a decision to apply safeguard measures and because the initial notification made by Ukraine did not include "all pertinent information" as required by Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards;

xi. Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine did not provide adequate opportunities for prior consultations on the proposed safeguard measure and because the consultations held in April 2012 did not fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards;

xii. Article 12.5 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine did not notify immediately to the Council for Trade in Goods the results of any consultations referred to in Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards;

xiii. Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine did not endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing between Ukraine and Japan under the GATT 1994, in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement;

b. recommend that the DSB, pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, requests Ukraine to bring its measure into conformity with the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994; and

c. suggest, pursuant to the second sentence of Article 19.1 of the DSU, that Ukraine revoke its safeguard measure.

3.2.
Ukraine requests that the Panel reject all of Japan's claims in this dispute in their entirety.

4 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

4.1.
The arguments of the parties are reflected in their executive summaries, provided to the Panel in accordance with paragraph 19 of the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel (see Annexes B-1 and B-2).

5 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES

5.1.
The arguments of Korea are reflected in its oral statement, while the arguments of Australia, the European Union, Turkey and the United States are reflected in their executive summaries, provided in accordance with paragraph 20 of the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel (see Annexes C-1, C-2, …). India and the Russian Federation did not submit written or oral arguments to the Panel.

6 INTERIM REVIEW

6.1.
On 12 February 2015, the Panel submitted its Interim Report to the parties. On 24 February 2015, Japan and Ukraine each submitted written requests for the review of precise aspects of the Interim Report and comments. Neither party requested an interim review meeting. On 3 March 2015, Japan submitted comments on Ukraine's requests for review and comments. Ukraine submitted no comments on Japan's requests for review and comments.
6.2.
In accordance with Article 15.3 of the DSU, this section of the Panel Report sets out the Panel's response to the parties' requests made at the interim review stage. The Panel modified aspects of its Report in the light of the parties' comments where it considered it appropriate, as explained below. References in this section to other sections, paragraph numbers and footnotes relate to the Interim Report.
6.3.
In addition to the modifications specified below, the Panel also corrected a number of typographical and other non-substantive errors throughout the Report, including those identified by the parties.
6.4.
In order to facilitate understanding of the interim review comments and changes made, the following section is structured to follow the organization of the findings section of this Report (Section 7), with the review requests of the parties, and their comments, addressed sequentially, according to the paragraph numbers that attracted comments.

6.1 PRELIMINARY MATTERS

6.5.
Regarding paragraph 3.1, Japan notes that the Panel decided to use the term "safeguard measure" in singular form throughout the Interim Report. However, Japan argues that, for the purpose of describing Japan's claim at paragraph 3.1, the term "safeguard measure" should appear in the plural.
6.6.
The Panel recalls that its preference to use the term "safeguard measure" in the singular form is discussed and explained in detail at footnote 18. For simplicity and consistency, we also prefer to use one single form throughout our Report. Nevertheless, in response to Japan's comment we moved footnote 18 to paragraph 1.1, where the term "safeguard measure" appears for the first time in the Report.
6.7.
Regarding paragraph 7.6, Japan requests the Panel to make one change concerning the date of the publication of Decision No. SP-259/2011/4402-27 and another concerning the use of one word in the description of the product concerned.
6.8.
The Panel made appropriate changes to the first sentence and bullet points (a) and (b) of paragraph 7.6.
6.9.
Regarding paragraph 7.15, numeral viii, Japan suggests using the same terms that are used in paragraph 3.1, numeral viii, including the phrase "by submitting a relevant timetable for progressive liberalization", which is missing from paragraph 7.15.
6.10.
The Panel made the requested changes.
6.11.
Regarding Section 7.1.5, and in particular paragraphs 7.29 to 7.37, Ukraine comments that it "maintains" its position regarding whether the Key Findings are a part of the published report of the Ministry. Ukraine submits that there is no reason to think that publication in the official newspaper Uryadovyi Kuryer is the only legally accepted method of publication provided by Ukraine's Safeguards Law. Ukraine adds that the Uryadovyi Kuryer is reserved only for notices about the Commission decisions. Moreover, Ukraine contends that the Key Findings were provided to all interested WTO Members and were therefore a part of the public record of the investigation and could have been made available by the Ministry upon a written request. Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.12.
Japan responds that the Panel has already dismissed Ukraine's arguments with regard to the Key Findings at paragraph 7.36. According to Japan, Ukraine's comments do not call for any modification of the Panel's findings in Section 7.1.5.
6.13.
The Panel notes that paragraph 7.36 addresses this issue in detail. Even if it were correct, as Ukraine now suggests, that under the domestic law of Ukraine the Key Findings could not be published in the Uryadovyi Kuryer, this does not demonstrate that Ukraine met its obligation under the Agreement on Safeguards to publish them. While we therefore do not change our finding in this regard, in view of Ukraine's argument about the Uryadovyi Kuryer we deleted the reference to Ukraine's legal requirements in the fourth sentence of paragraph 7.36.

6.2 CLAIMS RELATING TO UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS AND THE EFFECT OF THE OBLIGATIONS INCURRED UNDER THE GATT 1994

6.14.
Regarding Section 7.2, Ukraine comments that it maintains its position that the unforeseen developments in the present case consisted of the global financial and economic crisis, and not the different multiple factors cited by the Panel in this section. Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.15.
Japan responds by stating that Ukraine's comments should be dismissed since they are essentially a repetition of the arguments already presented by Ukraine throughout the panel proceedings and were dismissed by the Panel.
6.16.
The Panel made no change, since the "different multiple factors" referred to by Ukraine have been identified by Ukraine itself during the course of the proceedings.

6.3 CLAIMS RELATING TO INCREASED IMPORTS

6.17.
Regarding paragraph 7,194, Japan suggests that the Panel insert in the second sentence of the paragraph one of its arguments so as to fully reflect Japan's position.
6.18.
The Panel made the requested change.
6.19.
Regarding Section 7.3.1.1, and in particular paragraphs 7,145 and 7,147 concerning the issue of the "significance" of the relative increase in imports, Ukraine comments that fully addressing the requirement to establish the "significance" of the increase in imports could result in a breach of the confidentiality obligations under Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards referred to in Ukraine's submissions to the Panel. In particular, Ukraine considers that providing the precise figures of the original ratio between domestic production and imports could make the confidential information concerning domestic production easily accessible. Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.20.
Japan submits that Ukraine's comments should be dismissed. According to Japan, Ukraine does not challenge the numbers provided by the Panel in Section 7.3.1.1, but instead repeats its arguments concerning confidentiality of the data on imports and domestic production. Japan argues that the Panel has already taken into account these arguments, as reflected in footnote 142.
6.21.
The Panel recalls that at paragraphs 7,147-7.148 it determined that the competent authorities have not demonstrated, through reasoned explanations, that the relative increase was significant enough. Indeed, in the Notice of 14 March 2013, the competent authorities did not even characterize the relative increase at issue as "significant". At paragraph 7,147 we further observed that "[w]ithout additional information or relevant explanations" (emphasis added) the reference to the 37.9% increase is not sufficient by itself to demonstrate the required "significance" and we explained our view. Thus, we did not say, and do not wish to imply that Ukraine could only establish the significance of the relative increase by revealing confidential information in the determination. Nevertheless, in view of Ukraine's comment we added some clarification at the end of paragraph 7,147.

6.4 CLAIMS RELATING TO THREAT OF SERIOUS INJURY

6.22.
Regarding Section 7.4.1.1, Ukraine raises a concern that "fully adhering to the Panel's recommendations on the analysis of the increased imports may require violating the regulations of Article 3.2 of the Agreement [on Safeguards]". According to Ukraine, publication of information regarding the level of the market share of increased imports or the rate and amount of the increased imports risks revealing information claimed to be confidential by the domestic industry. However, Ukraine makes no specific request for any change to this section.
6.23.
Japan notes that Section 7.4.1.1 deals with a different issue. Furthermore, Japan notes that the Panel has already taken Ukraine's arguments concerning confidentiality into consideration, in particular at paragraph 7,251.
6.24.
The Panel notes that Ukraine's concern relates to Section 7.4.1.3. In Section 7.4.1.3, we are not suggesting that confidential information must be disclosed in order to make a finding of threat of serious injury consistent with the Agreement on Safeguards. As provided for in Article 3.2 itself, it is usually possible to provide a meaningful summary of confidential information that does not conflict with the confidentiality requirement under Article 3.2. An analysis and determination based on such a non-confidential summary may well be sufficient to demonstrate that the requirements of the Agreement on Safeguards have been satisfied.13
6.25.
As regards the amounts of the increase, Japan correctly points out that this issue is already addressed at paragraph 7,251. As concerns the rate of the increased imports, we fail to see how our findings would or could require a breach of the confidentiality obligation imposed by Article 3.2 on the part of the Ukrainian competent authorities. As we note at paragraph 7,251, the Notice itself refers to the 71% absolute decrease in imports and the 38% relative increase in imports, so Ukraine's competent authorities did not consider this information to be confidential.
6.26.
Concerning the "share of the domestic market taken by the increased imports", we have reviewed paragraph 7,249 in the light of Ukraine's comment and found it appropriate, for greater clarity and completeness, to provide some further elaboration in that paragraph and to insert two additional paragraphs.

6.5 CLAIMS RELATING TO CAUSATION

6.27.
Regarding paragraph 7,291, Japan requests that the word "only" be deleted from the first sentence of the paragraph to avoid suggesting that in Japan's view, the coincidence in time between the increase of imports and the impairment of the domestic industry is not of importance at all. Japan notes that this was not its position.
6.28.
The Panel made the requested change to paragraph 7,291.

6.6 CLAIMS RELATING TO THE APPLICATION, DURATION, AND LIBERALIZATION OF THE SAFEGUARD MEASURE AT ISSUE

6.29.
Regarding paragraphs 7,355 to 7,359, Japan submits that, contrary to what is stated in the Panel's findings, it did not argue that the failure to "notify" a timetable for progressive liberalization under Article 12.2 necessarily results in an inconsistency with Article 7.4.14 Japan maintains that it cannot be excluded that, although a Member does not notify the timetable for progressive liberalization as required by Article 12.2, it nonetheless complies with Article 7.4. Japan notes that what it argued is that Article 12.2 confirms that the requirement included in Article 7.4 to provide for progressive liberalization has to be satisfied when the safeguard measure is applied. For these reasons, Japan requests that the Panel modify paragraphs 7,355 to 7,359 so that they correctly reflect its arguments.
6.30.
The Panel made appropriate changes to paragraphs 7,355 to 7,359 to reflect more clearly that Japan's arguments relate to a failure to provide a timetable for progressive liberalization before the measure was applied rather than more narrowly only to a failure to notify such a timetable before the measure was applied.
6.31.
Regarding paragraph 7,372, Japan submits that it did not argue that "failure to notify a timetable as required by Articles 12.1 and 12.2 establishes, by itself, that a Member has acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 7.1"(emphasis added). Japan thus suggests that this sentence be corrected to accurately reflect its arguments.
6.32.
The Panel made the requested change to more accurately reflect Japan's argument.
6.33.
Regarding paragraphs 7,360 to 7,363, where the Panel addresses "whether Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 7.4 because, as of the date of establishment of this panel, it had failed to liberalize the safeguard measures", Japan argues that the Panel does not discuss the argument raised by Japan in paragraphs 56 and 57 of its comments on Ukraine's responses to the questions from the Panel about whether the Panel can review a measure which did not exist at the time of the establishment of the panel. Japan makes no specific request for a change.
6.34.
The Panel recalls that on 12 February 2014, the competent authorities adopted Decision No. SP-306/2014/4423-06 that provided for the progressive liberalization of the safeguard measure at issue. Although that decision was published and entered into force on 28 March 2014, which was two days after the date of establishment of this Panel, the decision was taken before the date of establishment of this Panel. We further note that Japan at paragraphs 56 and 57 of its comments on Ukraine's responses to questions from the Panel also argues that actions by a responding party subsequent to the establishment of a panel can be taken into account as evidence to review the WTO-consistency of the measure at issue. Nevertheless, in view of Japan's comment we deleted the first sentence of paragraph 7,362.
6.35.
Regarding Section 7.6.1, Ukraine recognizes the arguments of the Panel concerning the application and liberalization of its safeguard measure under Articles 5.1, 7.1, and 7.4. Ukraine strongly agrees that the obligations under Articles 7.4 and 12.2 are closely related but not similar. Ukraine further comments, in relation to Section 7.6.2, that Article 7.4, which provides for the obligation to progressively liberalize a safeguard measure, is dissimilar to and independent from the obligations imposed by Articles 5.1 and 7.1, which concern the extent of the safeguard measure. Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.36.
Japan submits that it fails to see what Ukraine is requesting the Panel to review, since Ukraine's comments express its agreement with the Panel's findings.
6.37.
The Panel made no change in response to Ukraine's comment.

6.7 CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLE II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994

6.38.
Regarding paragraph 7,393, Japan considers that addressing its claim under Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 is important since that Article constitutes the fundamental obligation that Ukraine has violated by invoking Article XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards. Japan further argues that any compliance action by Ukraine must be fully consistent with this fundamental obligation. Japan makes no specific request for a change.
6.39.
The Panel did not modify paragraph 7,393. We are not convinced that a finding on the consistency of Ukraine's safeguard measure with Article II:1(b) is necessary to enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings. In most panel reports dealing with disputes concerning safeguard measures, the complaining party either did not make a claim under Article II:1(b)15 or made a claim under Article II:1(b) in the alternative to claims under Article XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards.16 On one occasion, the complaining party made a claim under Article II:1(b) and the panel exercised judicial economy in respect of that claim, since a finding was not considered necessary to enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings.17

6.8 CLAIMS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE INVESTIGATION REPORT

6.40.
Regarding paragraph 7,410, Japan requests that the Panel delete the reference to the absence of specific concerns raised by Japan in the last sentence of that paragraph. Japan argues that it did raise specific concerns in its submissions to the Panel. Japan notes that in the course of the proceedings, it pointed out that the competent authorities had provided to Japan only very limited information including in the Notice of Initiation, which led Japan to submit only brief general observations. Furthermore, Japan recalls its statement that neither the Notice of Initiation nor any other document specifies the starting date of the period of investigation.
6.41.
The Panel deleted the reference in question from the last sentence of paragraph 7,410. After reviewing paragraphs 7,404 to 7,412 in response to Japan's comment, we also deleted the third and fourth sentence of paragraph 7,411, since they addressed a broader argument than the one advanced by Japan.
6.42.
Regarding paragraph 7,431, Japan requests that the Panel add a sentence after the third sentence to refer to its response to a question from the Panel.
6.43.
The Panel added the proposed sentence to paragraph 7,431, which summarizes Japan's arguments.
6.44.
Regarding Sections 7.8.1 and 7.8.2, Ukraine recognizes the conclusions of the Panel regarding the procedural obligations under Articles 3.1 and 4.2. Ukraine maintains that its Ministry provided all interested parties, including Japan, with the required information and therefore adhered to the requirement concerning reasonable public notice. Ukraine fully agrees that no information in addition to that provided during the investigation and in the relevant notices and Key Findings needed to be made available to the interested parties. Furthermore, Ukraine observes that the interested parties were given full access to all non-confidential information available to the Ministry (including the arguments and presentations of the other interested parties).
6.45.
Japan submits that, contrary to Ukraine's comments, the Panel did not find that no information in addition to that provided during the investigation and in the relevant notices and Key Findings needed to be made available to the interested parties. Japan further comments that the Panel did not find that the interested parties were given full access to all non-confidential information available to the Ministry.
6.46.
The Panel made no change in response to Ukraine's comment.

6.9 CLAIMS RELATING TO NOTIFICATIONS, PRIOR CONSULTATIONS, AND THE LEVEL OF CONCESSIONS

6.47.
Regarding footnote 506, Japan requests that the Panel add a reference to Japan's response to Panel question No. 106, as the arguments already referenced in footnote 506 were reiterated in that response.
6.48.
The Panel made the appropriate changes in footnote 506.
6.49.
Regarding Section 7.9.1.1.1, Ukraine comments that it did not have all the relevant documents available in one of the WTO official languages and that an additional effort was therefore required of it to translate these documents when making notifications to the Committee on Safeguards. Ukraine points out that this is especially true for a newly-acceded Member with limited resources. Ukraine further comments that this factor has to be taken into proper consideration in the Panel's conclusion regarding the immediacy of the notification under Article 12.1(a). Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.50.
Japan notes that Ukraine merely reiterates the arguments it presented in its submissions. Japan is of the view that there is no need to consider these arguments further, since the Panel has already addressed them.
6.51.
The Panel made no change in response to Ukraine's comment. Section 7.9.1.1.1 already takes appropriate account of the need to translate relevant documents into an official language of the WTO.
6.52.
Regarding Section 7.9.1.1.2, Ukraine comments that the decision on the actual application of the safeguard measure and the finalization of the Commission's conclusions on the threat of injury caused by increased imports occurred on 14 March 2013 and not on 28 April 2012. Ukraine submits that no position could be considered official and could be publicly disseminated before the Notice of Imposition was published on 14 March 2013. Ukraine states that it therefore agrees with the position of the Panel concerning the notification under Article 12.1(c). At the same time, Ukraine maintains its view that its joint notification under Articles 12.1(b) and 12.1(c) was made immediately upon finding a threat of serious injury caused by increased imports and taking a decision to apply the safeguard measure. Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.53.
Japan responds that the Panel has already dismissed the arguments that Ukraine reiterates in its comments and that they should therefore not be taken into account.
6.54.
The Panel made no change in response to Ukraine's comment. Section 7.9.1.1.2 already takes appropriate account of the arguments presented by Ukraine.
6.55.
Regarding Section 7.9.2, Ukraine "maintains" that adequate opportunity for prior consultations was provided to interested Members as the Ukrainian competent authorities provided them with all necessary information. However, Ukraine makes no specific request for a change.
6.56.
Japan notes that Ukraine's comments in this regard relate to Section 7.9.3, not 7.9.2. Furthermore, Japan argues that Ukraine's comments should be dismissed because they are no different from Ukraine's arguments made during the panel proceedings and have been rejected by the Panel.
6.57.
The Panel agrees that Ukraine's comments relate to Section 7.9.3. In the absence of any specific request from Ukraine, we made no change to this section.
6.58.
Regarding paragraph 7,533, Japan submits that the Panel's argument summary does not fully reflect its submissions. Japan requests the Panel to add an additional sentence after the first sentence of this paragraph.
6.59.
The Panel modified paragraph 7,533 to better reflect Japan's position.
6.60.
Regarding Section 7.9.5, Ukraine "maintains" that since the consultations with WTO Members, including Japan, were meaningful and an adequate opportunity for prior consultations was provided to interested Members pursuant to Article 12.3, Ukraine did endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the exporting Members which would be affected by the safeguard measure. Ukraine makes no specific request for a change to this section.
6.61.
Japan requests the Panel to dismiss these arguments because the Panel has already fully addressed Ukraine's arguments in Sections 7.9.3 and 7.9.4 of the Interim Report.
6.62.
The Panel made no modifications to this section, since Ukraine merely reiterates a position that was considered and rejected by the Panel, for the reasons set out in Section 7.9.5.

6.10 CONCLUSIONS

6.63.
Ukraine in a concluding comment states that the Panel's Interim Report "denies the legal right of Ukraine to apply safeguard measures as a developing country when the underlying conditions are met".18 Ukraine makes no specific request for a change in this respect.
6.64.
The Panel notes that this was the first time in the context of these panel proceedings that Ukraine referred to itself as a developing country. The comment in question relates to the right to apply a safeguard measure. However, neither Article 9, which contains additional provisions concerning developing country Members, nor any other provision of the Agreement on Safeguards provides for special or differential treatment for developing country Members with regard to the conditions and circumstances under which a safeguard measure can be applied – all WTO Members are subject to the same requirements in this regard.

7 FINDINGS

7.1 PRELIMINARY MATTERS

7.1.
Before examining Japan's claims in the present dispute, the Panel will describe in more detail Ukraine's safeguard measure at issue and the underlying investigation. Next, we will go on to provide an overview of Japan's claims and describe the order in which we will carry out our assessment. We will then recall some general principles governing the standard of review applicable to disputes arising under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994. Finally, we will consider which is the relevant Ukrainian document setting out supporting findings and conclusions by the Ukrainian competent authorities on the basis of which we will conduct our review.

7.1.1 The safeguard measure at issue

7.2.
The present dispute concerns a safeguard measure that Ukraine's competent authorities imposed in April 2013 for three years on imports of passenger cars from all sources, and the investigation that led to the imposition of the measure. More specifically, Japan's claims concern the following measures, and their amendments, replacements, implementing acts or any other related measure in connection with them:

a. Decision No. SP–259/2011/4402-27 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of 30 June 2011 on the initiation and conducting of the investigation process as to import into Ukraine of motor cars19 irrespective of the country of origin and export, and the Notice concerning it;20

b. Decision No. SP-272/2012/4423-08 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of 6 March 2012 whereby the duration of the investigation was extended by 60 days, and the Notice concerning it;21

c. Decision No. SP-275/2012/4423-08 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of 28 April 2012 on the imposition of safeguard measures on imports of motor cars to Ukraine regardless of country of origin and export, and the Notice concerning it;22

d. Decision No. SP-288/2013/4423-06 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of 11 April 2013 on the amendments to the Commission's decision No. SP-275/2012/4423-08 of 28 April 2012 on the application of safeguard measures on imports of cars in Ukraine regardless of their country of origin and export, and the Notice concerning it;23

e. Decision No. SP-306/2014/4423-06 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of 12 February 2014 that provides for progressive liberalization of the measure, and the Notice concerning it.24

7.3.
The safeguard measure at issue applies to imports of the following products:

Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (category M1 – vehicles with no less than 4 wheels and no more than 8 sitting places except driver sitting place), with spark-ignition internal combustion engine and crank gear of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3, new, classified under UKTZED25 codes 8703 22 10 00 and 8703 23 19 10.

7.4.
It takes the form of special customs duties imposed at different rates differentiated by engine volumes:

– for cars of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 1500 cm3: 6.46%

– for cars of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1500 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3: 12.95%.

7.5.
These special duty rates were subsequently liberalized in accordance with the following schedule:

- for cars with a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 1500 cm3, classified under UKTZED code of 8703 22 10 00:

i. In 12 months from the day of applying the measure (i.e. 14 March 2013): 4.31%

ii. In 24 months from the day of applying the measure (i.e. 14 March 2013): 2.15%.

- for cars with a cylinder capacity exceeding 1500 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3, classified under UKTZED code of 8703 23 19 10:

i. In 12 months from the day of applying the measure (i.e. 14 March 2013): 8.63%

ii. In 24 months from the day of applying the measure (i.e. 14 March 2013): 4.32%.

7.1.2 Procedure carried out by the competent authorities26

7.6.
By Decision No. SP–259/2011/4402-27 of 30 June 2011 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade of Ukraine27, published in the official gazette Uryadovyi Kuryer on 2 July 2011, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine initiated a safeguard investigation into:

a. Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars with spark-ignition internal combustion engine and crank gear of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 1500 cm3, new, classified under UKTZED code 8703 22 10 00;

b. Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars with spark-ignition internal combustion engine and crank gear of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1500 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3, new, classified under UKTZED code 8703 19 10 00.28

7.7.
The investigation was initiated following an application lodged by the Association of the Ukrainian Carmakers "UkrAvtoprom" on behalf of three Ukrainian automobile manufacturers.29 Ukraine notified this decision to the WTO Committee on Safeguards on 13 July 2011 and the notification was circulated to WTO Members on 15 July 2011.30
7.8.
The investigation period was established as of 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2010. During the course of the investigation, the competent authorities extended the duration of the investigation by 60 days by Decision No. SP-272/2012/4423-08 of 6 March 2012.31
7.9.
On 11 April 2012, Ukraine sent a letter to the Embassy of Japan in Ukraine inviting Japan to consultations.32 Attached to that letter was a document entitled "Key Findings of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Based on Special Investigation on Import of Motor Cars to Ukraine Regardless of Country of Origin and Export"33, in which the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade concluded that:

Given the foregoing and results of analysis of information obtained in the course of the safeguard investigation, the Ministry concludes that there is sufficient evidence and grounds for having the Commission to review the proposals concerning application of safeguard measures regarding the import of motor cars to Ukraine regardless of the country of origin and export, for a three-year period.

The safeguard measures shall be applied in the form of a special duty for the import of the above-mentioned products into Ukraine depending on engine volume: for those exceeding 1000 cm3, but not exceeding 1500 cm3– at the rate of 6.46%, and for those exceeding 1500 cm3, but not exceeding 2200 cm3 – at the rate of 15.1%.

Consultations between Ukraine and Japan took place in Kiev on 19 April 2012.

7.10.
On 28 April 2012, by Decision No. SP-275/2012/4423-08 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade, the competent authorities decided to impose a safeguard measure on imports of motor cars to Ukraine regardless of the country of origin or export.34
7.11.
On 14 March 2013, the Notice of Imposition of a safeguard measure was published in the official gazette.35 The Notice of Imposition provides in relevant part:

Taking all of this into account, the Commission has decided that:

- During the period of investigation, import of motor cars to Ukraine regardless of the country of origin and export increased relative to domestic production by the domestic industry, and that such increase took place under conditions and volume which threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry;

- The national interests of Ukraine require imposition of safeguard measures against such imports.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 16 of the [Safeguards Law of Ukraine], the Commission approved Decision No. SP-275/2012/4423-08 on 28 April 2012, according to which safeguard measures were imposed against imports of the Product to Ukraine regardless of the country of origin and export, which is defined as follows: Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transportation of persons (category M1 – vehicles with no less than 4 wheels used to transport passengers and with no more than 8 sitting places except driver sitting place), with spark-ignition internal combustion engine and crank gear of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3, new, classified under UKTZED codes 8703 22 10 00 and 8703 23 19 10.

Safeguard measures shall be imposed for 3 years in the form of a special duty applicable to imports into Ukraine of the above-mentioned commodities based on engine volume:

- 1000 cm3- 1500 cm3- 6.46%

- 1500 cm3- 2200 cm3- 12.95%.

According to Article 21 of the [Safeguards Law of Ukraine], the above-mentioned safeguard measures shall not apply to imports to Ukraine of the Product originating from the following countries – members of the WTO: Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda and Zambia.

The Commission's Decision shall enter into force 30 days after the official publication of this Notice.36

The aforementioned safeguard measure thus became effective as of 14 April 201337 for a period of 3 years.

7.12.
On 21 March 2013, Ukraine submitted to the WTO Committee on Safeguards a notification pursuant to Articles 12.1(b) and (c) of the Agreement on Safeguards and footnote 2 of Article 9 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The notification was circulated to WTO Members on 25 March 2013.38
7.13.
On 11 April 2013, the competent authorities, by Decision No. SP-288/2013/4423-06 "On amendments to the decision of the Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade No. SP-275/2012/4423-08 of 28 April 2012 on the application of safeguard measures on imports of cars in Ukraine regardless of their country of origin and export"39, suspended the safeguard measure from 20 April 2013 until 28 February 2014 for certain types of cars with hybrid propulsion, namely:

Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (category M1 – vehicles with no less than 4 wheels and no more than 8 sitting places except driver sitting place), with spark-ignition internal combustion engine and crank gear of a cylinder capacity exceeding 1000 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3, new, classified under UKTZED codes 8703 22 10 00 and 8703 23 19 10 with hybrid power system (electric motor-driven wheels).

This decision was published on 20 April 2013 and notified to the WTO Committee on Safeguards on 20 May 2013.40

7.14.
On 12 February 2014, the competent authorities adopted Decision No. SP-306/2014/4423-06 that provides for progressive liberalization of the measure.41 This decision became effective on the date of its publication, i.e. on 28 March 2014, and was notified to the WTO Committee on Safeguards on the same day.42

7.1.3 Overview of claims and order of the Panel's analysis

7.15.
Japan set out the following claims in its request for the establishment of a panel:43

i. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to publish a report setting forth its findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law and a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined;

ii. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to conduct a proper investigation that includes reasonable public notice to all interested parties and the opportunities for them to present evidence and their views;

iii. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to demonstrate the existence of any "unforeseen developments"; failed to demonstrate a logical connection between the increase in imports and the alleged "unforeseen developments"; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions with regard to such "unforeseen developments";

iv. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to demonstrate and evaluate the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994 and how that effect has resulted in the increase in imports; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions with regard to the alleged effect of obligations incurred under the GATT 1994;

v. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was the result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of obligations incurred under the GATT 1994; failed to establish an increase in imports in a manner consistent with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions with regard to the increase in imports;

vi. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to examine all relevant factors and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions of how the facts support its determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury;

vii. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to demonstrate the existence of a causal link between the alleged increased imports and the alleged serious injury or threat thereof; failed to make a proper non-attribution analysis and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions regarding the existence of a causal link between the increased imports and the alleged injury or threat of injury and non-attribution of other factors;

viii. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, 7.4 and 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because it has failed to apply the safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment"; failed to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure by submitting a relevant timetable for progressive liberalization; and failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions as to why the measure is necessary to prevent or remedy the alleged serious injury;

ix. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 because it imposed duties which are in excess of those set forth in its schedule through the unlawful safeguard measures at issue;

x. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 12.1 and 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because it did not notify immediately the Committee on Safeguards upon initiating the safeguard investigation, making a finding of serious injury and taking a decision to apply safeguard measures and because the initial notification made by Ukraine did not include "all pertinent information" as required by Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards;

xi. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards because it did not provide adequate opportunities for prior consultations on the proposed safeguard measures and because the consultations held in April 2012 did not fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards;

xii. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 12.5 of the Agreement on Safeguards because it did not notify immediately to the Council for Trade in Goods the results of any consultations referred to in Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and

xiii. Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because it did not endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing between Ukraine and Japan under the GATT 1994, in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

7.16.
Japan also requests the Panel to exercise its authority under the second sentence of Article 19.1 of the DSU to suggest ways in which Ukraine could implement the recommendations of the Panel. In particular, Japan requests the Panel to suggest that Ukraine revoke its definitive safeguard measure.44 Japan considers that in the present dispute, the size and number of errors made by the competent authorities during the safeguard investigation resulted in multiple inconsistencies with the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994, so that the only way that Ukraine could properly implement possible recommendations of the Panel is the revocation of its definitive safeguard measures.45
7.17.
Ukraine requests that all of Japan's claims be rejected.
7.18.
The Panel notes that under the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994, a Member wishing to impose a safeguard measure must comply with two main sets of requirements. The first comprises substantive requirements, including the circumstances and conditions46 that must be demonstrated to justify the application of a safeguard measure. Specifically, a Member must demonstrate that, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994, the product to be subjected to a safeguard measure is being imported into the territory of that Member in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry in that territory producing like or directly competitive products. The second comprises procedural requirements, including requirements to allow interested parties to present evidence and views, transparency requirements such as notifications to the WTO Committee on Safeguards, and procedural requirements to provide an opportunity for consultations to other Members.
7.19.
We observe that Japan has advanced claims relating to both substantive and procedural requirements. We will begin our assessment with the claims concerning the substantive requirements. Specifically, we will first examine Japan's claims relating to unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations. We will then continue with the claims relating to the conditions, namely, increased imports, serious injury or threat thereof and the causal link between these two conditions for imposing a safeguard measure. Next, we will turn to the claims that concern, not the right to apply any safeguard measure, but the particulars of the safeguard measure actually imposed. These are the claims relating to the necessity of the safeguard measure at issue and its liberalization, as well as Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994. After that, we will address the claims concerning the procedural requirements. This analysis will begin with the claims concerning the investigative process and the resulting investigation report. We will end with the claims concerning, or linked to, the notification and consultation requirements.
7.20.
In addressing these claims, we will make use, as appropriate, of the principle of judicial economy. According to the Appellate Body, this principle:

allows a panel to refrain from making multiple findings that the same measure is inconsistent with various provisions when a single, or a certain number of findings of inconsistency, would suffice to resolve the dispute." Thus, panels need address only those claims "which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute", and panels "may refrain from ruling on every claim as long as it does not lead to a 'partial resolution of the matter'." Nonetheless, the Appellate Body has cautioned that "[t]o provide only a partial resolution of the matter at issue would be false judicial economy", and that "[a] panel has to address those claims on which a finding is necessary in order to enable the DSB to make sufficiently precise recommendations and rulings so as to allow for prompt compliance by a Member with those recommendations and rulings 'in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.'47

7.21.
Accordingly, the Panel will not necessarily make findings on all claims put forward by Japan in this dispute.

7.1.4 Standard of review

7.22.
The Agreement on Safeguards is silent as to the standard of review to be applied by panels in reviewing the WTO-consistency of safeguard measures and the associated investigations. Previous panel and Appellate Body reports have established that the general standard of review contained in Article 11 of the DSU is applicable to disputes involving claims of violation of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994.48
7.23.
Article 11 of the DSU requires a panel to make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant agreements.49 In US – Cotton Yarn, the Appellate Body examined the scope of this general rule regarding the standard of review applicable to disputes under the Agreement on Safeguards and summarized its views as follows:

panels must examine whether the competent authority has evaluated all relevant factors; they must assess whether the competent authority has examined all the pertinent facts and assessed whether an adequate explanation has been provided as to how those facts support the determination; and they must also consider whether the competent authority's explanation addresses fully the nature and complexities of the data and responds to other plausible interpretations of the data. However, panels must not conduct a de novo review of the evidence nor substitute their judgement for that of the competent authority.50

7.24.
As explained by the Appellate Body, the standard of review applicable to panels' examination of a competent authorities' determination involves neither a de novo review nor "total deference" to the competent authorities' determinations.51 Rather, a panel is required to assess whether the competent authorities have examined all the relevant facts and have provided a reasoned and adequate explanation as to how the facts support their determination.52 In US – Lamb, the Appellate Body stated that:

a panel can assess whether the competent authorities' explanation for its determination is reasoned and adequate only if the panel critically examines that explanation, in depth, and in the light of the facts before the panel. Panels must, therefore, review whether the competent authorities' explanation fully addresses the nature, and, especially, the complexities, of the data, and responds to other plausible interpretations of that data. A panel must find, in particular, that an explanation is not reasoned, or is not adequate, if some alternative explanation of the facts is plausible, and if the competent authorities' explanation does not seem adequate in the light of that alternative explanation.53

7.25.
We note that this standard of review was articulated by the Appellate Body in the context of a claim under Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards. However, the Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards made it clear that the same standard should be applied to other obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards as well as to the obligations in Article XIX of the GATT 1994.54
7.26.
A panel's assessment of whether the competent authorities have complied with their obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 should be based on the relevant report published by the authorities.55 Article 3.1, last sentence, requires the competent authorities to publish a report setting forth their findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law. Moreover, Article 4.2(c) obliges the competent authorities to publish promptly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined. The Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards stated in this respect that:

[i]t is precisely by 'setting forth findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law', under Article 3.1, and by providing 'a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined', under Article 4.2(c), that competent authorities provide panels with the basis to 'make an objective assessment of the matter before it' in accordance with Article 11.56

The Appellate Body went on to conclude that:

the "reasoned conclusions" and "detailed analysis" as well as "a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined" that are contained in the report of a competent authority, are the only bases on which a panel may assess whether a competent authority has complied with its obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.57

7.27.
Accordingly, our examination of the competent authorities' determinations will be based on the report published by the competent authorities. With respect to the published report, the Appellate Body also observed that panels should not be "left to 'deduce for themselves' from the report of the competent authority the 'rationale for the determinations from the facts and data contained in the report of the competent authority'".58 Thus, the explanations contained in the report must be "explicit", "clear and unambiguous", and must not "merely imply or suggest an explanation".59 In case there is no reasoned and adequate explanation in the published report to support the competent authorities' determinations, "the panel has no option but to find that the competent authority has not performed the analysis correctly".60 This notably implies that reasoning, analysis and demonstrations provided after publication of the report – i.e. ex post explanations – are irrelevant and cannot be relied upon to remedy any deficiencies of the competent authorities' determinations.
7.28.
The Appellate Body further stated, in US – Tyres, that "a panel should examine whether the conclusions reached by the investigating authority are reasoned and adequate in the light of the evidence on the record and other plausible alternative explanations".61 Thus, for purposes of assessing whether the explanations provided in the published report are adequate, we will also take into account relevant evidence submitted to us from the record of the investigation and plausible alternative explanations for the developments relied upon by the competent authorities in making their determination.

7.1.5 Relevant Ukrainian documents

7.29.
The Panel now turns to the question of which documents comprise the competent authorities' "published report" within the meaning of Articles 3.1, last sentence, and 4.2(c). The last sentence of Article 3.1 provides:

The competent authorities shall publish a report setting forth their findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law.

Article 4.2(c) provides that:

The competent authorities shall publish promptly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevant of the factors examined.

7.30.
The verb "publish" is defined as "make generally known; declare or report openly; announce; disseminate (a creed or system)".62 We further note that the panel in Chile – Price Band System ascertained the meaning of the verb "publish" in Article 3.1, last sentence, by considering it in context and determined that in this particular context it "must be interpreted as meaning 'to make generally available through an appropriate medium', rather than simply 'making publicly available'".63 We see no reason not to follow this interpretation also in the present dispute.
7.31.
The parties to this dispute do not agree as to which of two principal documents, the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings, sent to certain interested parties on 11 April 2012, we should, or may, take into account in our analysis of Ukraine's safeguard measure. In addition, Ukraine also views as relevant its Notification to the WTO Committee on Safeguards under Articles 12.1(b) and (c), dated 21 March 2013.
7.32.
According to Japan, in this dispute, the "published report" within the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) is the Notice of 14 March 2013, and Japan submits that the Panel should limit its examination to that document. Japan contends that Ukraine itself, in the letter dated 17 June 2013 sent to Japan by its competent authorities64, confirmed that the Notice of 14 March 2013 is the report containing the findings and reasoned conclusions. Japan argues that the "published report" must be "made generally available through an appropriate medium"65, and that the "Key Findings" were not made "generally available" and consequently were not "published". Japan also notes that this document was not explicitly referred to in the Notice of 14 March 2013.66
7.33.
Ukraine submits that the Key Findings, the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Notification contained a non-confidential summary of findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law, as required by Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). In Ukraine's view, these documents can serve as a basis for the Panel's analysis of Japan's claims. Ukraine argues that while the Key Findings were not published in the newspaper Uryadovyi Kuryer in the same way that the Notice of 14 March 2013 was, it is up to the competent authorities to decide the appropriate medium of publication, as long as the information is made publicly available. According to Ukraine, the Key Findings were sent directly to the representatives of the affected exporting countries in April 2012 in order to comply with Articles 3, 4, and 12 and Article XIX:2. Moreover, Ukraine argues that the Key Findings, as well as any other non-confidential information on the investigation, were also available to the interested parties, as any of the interested parties could access any relevant non-confidential information upon a written request under Article 9.6 of Ukraine's Safeguards Law.67
7.34.
The Panel agrees that the Notice of 14 March 2013 constitutes a "published report" within the meaning of Article 3.1, last sentence, and also an "analysis" and "demonstration" within the meaning of Article 4.2(c). The Notice was published in Ukraine's official gazette on 14 March 201368, and it sets forth the Commission's findings and reasoned conclusions, as well as detailed analysis and a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined.
7.35.
Ukraine's notification to the WTO Committee on Safeguards under Articles 12.1(b) and (c) is dated 21 March 2013. Since it contains no analysis, findings or reasoning in addition to those included in the Notice of 14 March 2013, we do not consider it necessary to decide whether this document was published by Ukraine within the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). Generally speaking, the parties in their submissions have not referred to this document, but rather to the Notice of 14 March 2013 or the Key Findings.
7.36.
Turning, finally, to the Key Findings, we note that they contain analysis and recommended findings and conclusions of the Ministry addressed to the Commission. However, the Key Findings are not specifically referred to in the Commission's Notice of 14 March 2013, which was published later, nor have they been appended thereto. As regards publication, the Key Findings were sent out to certain interested parties on 11 April 2012. But they were not "published" by Ukraine, in the way the Notice of 14 March 2013 was. Although Ukraine argues that the Key Findings were sent directly to some affected exporting countries, and were available on request to the interested parties under Article 9.6 of Ukraine's Safeguards Law, we cannot conclude that this constitutes publication for purposes of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). Nothing in either Article 3.1 or Article 4.2(c) suggests that publication may be limited to certain, or even all, interested parties. Moreover, we fail to see how the Key Findings could be considered as having been "published" when, except for those interested parties sent a copy by the competent authorities, interested parties needed to make a specific written request to see the document.69 Finally, we question whether interested parties could, in fact, have seen the document, given that the relevant provision of Ukraine's Safeguards Law allows interested parties to see information submitted by other interested parties, but not "official documents of the Ministry...".70 Therefore, in our view, as the Key Findings were not "made generally available through an appropriate medium", we consider that they were not "published" within the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). In the light of the foregoing, we conclude that the Key Findings do not constitute the kind of published report required by Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). Indeed, as noted by Japan, Ukraine itself in a letter to Japan referred to the Notice of 14 March 2013, but not the Key Findings, as the report within the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c).71
7.37.
Therefore, as stated previously, our examination of the competent authorities' determinations in this case will be based on the published report, that is to say, the Notice of 14 March 2013. Nevertheless, the Key Findings unquestionably form part of the record of the safeguard investigation at issue. That being the case, we will take them into account, as appropriate, for purposes of understanding the explanations provided in the Notice of 14 March 2013 and assessing their adequacy.

7.2 CLAIMS RELATING TO UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS AND THE EFFECT OF THE OBLIGATIONS INCURRED UNDER THE GATT 1994

7.38.
The Panel now turns to examine Japan's claim of violation of Article XIX:1(a) and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) concerning the competent authorities' determination regarding unforeseen developments and the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994.
7.39.
Japan claims that Ukraine has failed to demonstrate the existence of and evaluate unforeseen developments as required by Article XIX:1(a), Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a), and as a consequence, has acted inconsistently with these provisions.72 In particular, Japan claims that Ukraine has (i) failed to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments; (ii) failed to demonstrate the existence of a logical connection between the alleged unforeseen developments and the increased imports; and (iii) as a consequence failed to give reasoned and adequate explanations on these issues thus acting inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c).73
7.40.
Japan also claims that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) and Article 11.1(a) because it failed to demonstrate in its published report that it incurred obligations concerning the imported products involved in the dispute under the GATT 1994 and how the increase in imports was an effect of these obligations. Japan further argues that since the published report does not contain any findings and reasoned conclusion on this issue, Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards.74
7.41.
Ukraine responds that all of Japan's claims under Article XIX:1(a) and Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) must be rejected since Japan (i) did not establish that the existence of unforeseen developments and the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994 are each a "prerequisite" for the imposition of a safeguard measure; (ii) did not show that the circumstances that Ukraine demonstrated to exist as a matter of fact were anything other than "unexpected" and thus "unforeseen" in the sense of Article XIX:1(a); (iii) did not show that Ukraine failed to provide in the Key Findings or the Notice of 14 March 2013 sufficiently reasoned and adequate explanations regarding unforeseen developments;75 and (iv) did not show that Ukraine had not made tariff concessions applicable to the imported products involved in the dispute and that Ukraine had not demonstrated the existence of such concessions as a matter of fact.76
7.42.
The Panel will begin its analysis with Japan's claim under Article XIX:1(a). We will first consider Ukraine's argument regarding the legal nature of the two textual elements at issue – "unforeseen developments" and the "effect of the obligations incurred under [the GATT 1994]" (hereafter "effect of GATT 1994 obligations"). Then, we will consider Ukraine's identification and demonstration of unforeseen developments and the logical connection between the unforeseen developments and the increased imports. Finally, we will consider Ukraine's identification of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994 and the logical connection with the increased imports. After completing our analysis of the claims under Article XIX:1(a), we will proceed to consider the claims under Articles 11.1(a), 3.1 and 4.2(c).

7.2.1 Claims under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994

7.43.
Article XIX:1(a) provides as follows:

If, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of that contracting party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers in that territory of like or directly competitive products, the contracting party shall be free, in respect of such product, and to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury, to suspend the obligation in whole or in part or to withdraw or modify the concession.

7.44.
As indicated, the Panel will begin its assessment of Japan's claim under Article XIX:1(a) by considering the issue raised by Ukraine regarding the legal nature of "unforeseen developments" and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations.

7.2.1.1 Unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations

7.45.
Ukraine submits that the term "unforeseen developments" is not a prerequisite or"prior condition" for imposing a safeguard measure since it does not appear in the text of Article 2. According to Ukraine, Article 2 establishes only three conditions for the imposition of a safeguard measure, namely (i) that a product must be imported in increased quantities, (ii) so as to cause, (iii) serious injuryto the domestic industry. In Ukraine's view, a determination regarding unforeseen developments is therefore not a "prerequisite", that is to say, "a thing required as a prior condition"77, for the adoption of a safeguard measure. As a consequence, Ukraine submits that Japan's claim must fail since it has not established that the existence of unforeseen developments is a condition that must be met before a safeguard measure may be adopted.78
7.46.
Ukraine recalls that in the context of Article XIX, the Appellate Body in Argentina – Footwear (EC) determined with regard to unforeseen developments that they are not a "condition" for imposing safeguard measures, but rather "a circumstance which must be demonstrated as a matter of fact" and that an important distinction is to be drawn between a "condition" and a "circumstance which must be demonstrated as a matter of fact".79 As regards the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, Ukraine observes that according to the Appellate Body this element likewise is not a "condition" listed in Article 2 and thus not a "prerequisite" but only a circumstance which must be demonstrated as a matter of fact.80 Ukraine therefore submits that Japan's claim in respect of this element suffers from the same flaw as the claim concerning unforeseen developments.81
7.47.
Japan counters that the existence of unforeseen developments and of the effect of GATT 1994 obligations does constitute a "prerequisite" or "legal requirement" that must be demonstrated to apply a safeguard measure consistently with Article XIX.82 According to Japan, Ukraine ignores that the Appellate Body has stated that the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX are to be considered in conjunction and that any safeguard measure must be in conformity with both agreements.83
7.48.
Japan submits that regardless of the actual term used - a "circumstance" or a "prerequisite" – unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations constitute "legal requirement[s]" that must be satisfied in order for a safeguard measure to be applied in accordance with the WTO disciplines.84 Japan argues that "unforeseen developments" and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations are not simply circumstances that must "exist as a matter of fact" given that the demonstration of the existence of these elements must be made before a safeguard measure is applied.85
7.49.
Japan also submits that, contrary to what Ukraine asserts regarding the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, the importing Member must not only have incurred obligations under the GATT 1994 as a matter of fact, the importing Member must also identify those obligations.86
7.50.
The Panel begins its analysis by noting that Ukraine's arguments raise three issues: first, whether unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations should be characterized as circumstances, conditions or prerequisites; second, what legal consequences flow from this characterization; and third, whether Japan misunderstood the nature of these two elements and thus Japan's claims should fail for this reason.
7.51.
Regarding the first issue, the Appellate Body has clarified in several reports the legal nature of the elements contained in the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) and their relationship with the conditions established in the second clause of Article XIX:1(a):

The first clause in Article XIX:1(a) – "as a result of unforeseen developments and of the obligations incurred by a Member under the Agreement, including tariff concessions … " – is a dependent clause which, in our view, is linked grammatically to the verb phrase "is being imported" in the second clause of that paragraph. Although we do not view the first clause in Article XIX:1(a) as establishing independent conditions for the application of a safeguard measure, additional to the conditions set forth in the second clause of that paragraph, we do believe that the first clause describes certain circumstances which must be demonstrated as a matter of fact in order for a safeguard measure to be applied consistently with the provisions of Article XIX of the GATT 1994. In this sense, we believe that there is a logical connection between the circumstances described in the first clause – "as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred by a Member under this Agreement, including tariff concessions … " – and the conditions set forth in the second clause of Article XIX:1(a) for the imposition of a safeguard measure.87 (Emphasis added; original emphasis omitted)

7.52.
Thus, the two elements of the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) constitute circumstances that must be demonstrated as a matter of fact, distinct from the conditions established under the second clause. We also observe that on one occasion, the Appellate Body also referred to the existence of one of these two elements as a "prerequisite" to be demonstrated in order for a safeguard measure to be applied.88 Therefore, to us it is clear that (i) the two elements in the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) are circumstances that have to be demonstrated as a matter of fact, (ii) that they are legally different from the conditions in the second clause of the same provision, and (iii) that the Appellate Body has also used the term "prerequisite" to refer to them.
7.53.
Regarding the second issue, the Appellate Body in US – Lamb elaborated on the legal consequences of the interpretation given in Korea – Dairy and Argentina – Footwear (EC) and discussed when and where the demonstration of these circumstances should occur. It stated that the demonstration must occur before a safeguard measured is applied, and that this demonstration must feature in the same report of the competent authorities in which the conditions are demonstrated:

[A]s the existence of unforeseen developments is a prerequisite that must be demonstrated, as we have stated, "in order for a safeguard measure to be applied" consistently with Article XIX of the GATT 1994, it follows that this demonstration must be made before the safeguard measure is applied. Otherwise, the legal basis for the measure is flawed. We find instructive guidance for where and when the "demonstration" should occur in the "logical connection" that we observed previously between the two clauses of Article XIX:1(a). The first clause, as we noted, contains, in part, the "circumstance" of "unforeseen developments". The second clause, as we said, relates to the three "conditions" for the application of safeguard measures, which are also reiterated in Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. Clearly, the fulfilment of these conditions must be the central element of the report of the competent authorities, which must be published under Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. In our view, the logical connection between the "conditions" identified in the second clause of Article XIX:1(a) and the "circumstances" outlined in the first clause of that provision dictates that the demonstration of the existence of these circumstances must also feature in the same report of the competent authorities. Any other approach would sever the "logical connection" between these two clauses, and would also leave vague and uncertain how compliance with the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) would be fulfilled.89 (Emphasis added; original emphasis omitted)

7.54.
As mentioned by the Appellate Body, the demonstration of the existence of the circumstances in question must be provided in the competent authorities' published report required under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). Accordingly, to meet the Appellate Body's conclusion, as quoted above at paragraph 7.51, that these circumstances must be demonstrated as a matter of fact, we understand that this means that competent authorities must explain in their published report how the factual evidence before them demonstrates the existence of these circumstances. Therefore, it is not sufficient for competent authorities to satisfy themselves that these circumstances exist as a factual matter; they must also provide a demonstration of their existence in their published report.
7.55.
Another element of the above statements of the Appellate Body is worth highlighting. The Appellate Body concluded that the circumstances in question must be demonstrated before a safeguard measure is imposed. In our view, this implies that any demonstration of the existence of these circumstances that is provided after imposition of a safeguard measure will not be sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article XIX:1(a). In this context, we observe that the Appellate Body has already had occasion to address this issue and concluded that the analysis of the pertinent issues of fact and law referred to in Article 3.1, and to be set out in the competent authorities' published report, cannot be supplemented by the Member concerned during the course of WTO dispute settlement procedures or in a document other than the competent authorities' report (e.g. an unpublished report).90 Therefore, it is clear to us that any ex post facto91 explanation purporting to demonstrate the existence of the circumstances required by the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) cannot cure the lack of such demonstration in the competent authorities' published report.
7.58.
Regarding the third issue presented by Ukraine's arguments, we do not interpret Japan's argument to be that unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations are "conditions" similar to the ones contained in the second clause of Article XIX:1(a) or Article 2. Throughout its submissions, Japan has used the terms "circumstances", "prerequisite" or "legal requirement" to refer to these elements and not the term "condition".94 Therefore, we disagree with Ukraine's argument that Japan has erroneously referred to the elements of the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) as "conditions". Regarding the terms "prerequisite" or "legal requirement", we recall that they were also used in previous Appellate Body and panel reports when addressing the same matter and therefore Japan has not erred by using them. We thus reject Ukraine's argument that Japan erroneously characterized the two elements in the first clause of Article XIX:1(a) as conditions.
7.59.
Consequently, we proceed with our analysis of Japan's claims on the basis that "unforeseen developments" and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations are "circumstances" that the competent authorities are legally required to demonstrate as a matter of fact, and that such demonstration is to be conducted (i) before a safeguard measure is applied, (ii) through reasoned and adequate explanations, and (iii) in the competent authorities' published report.

7.2.1.2 Unforeseen developments

7.60.
The Panel now turns to examine Japan's claim as it relates to unforeseen developments. Japan's claim is based on two main arguments. Japan asserts that Ukraine's competent authorities have not properly demonstrated the existence of unforeseen developments and that Ukraine has not explained how the alleged unforeseen developments resulted in increased imports.

7.2.1.2.1 The unforeseen developments alleged in this case

7.61.
The Panel begins by considering Japan's argument that Ukraine's competent authorities have failed to properly demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments. We recall in this respect that the term "unforeseen developments" has been interpreted to mean developments that are "unexpected".95
7.62.
Japan argues that the sole reference to unforeseen developments in either the Notice of 14 March 2013 or the Key Findings is the increase in imports and that it therefore appears that the competent authorities identified the increase in imports as the unforeseen development. Japan submits that this is improper because the increase in imports must be a result of unforeseen developments and, therefore, the unforeseen developments must necessarily be something other than the increase in imports themselves. Referring to the panel report in Argentina – Preserved Peaches, Japan contends that the text of Article XIX:1(a) does not permit an interpretation that would equate increased imports with unforeseen developments.96 Japan concludes that, to the extent that Ukraine considered the increased imports as an unforeseen development, it failed to demonstrate this circumstance and thus acted inconsistently with Articles XIX:1(a).97
7.63.
Ukraine submits that the unforeseen developments in the present case are explained by the "perfect storm" caused by the confluence of the serious contraction in demand and the dramatic increase in imports in relative terms against the backdrop of the global financial and economic crisis in the second half of 2008 and Ukraine's significant reduction of tariffs on passenger cars pursuant to its accession to the WTO in May 2008. Ukraine further argues that although it expected that some sectors in which it had made significant WTO tariff commitments could face increased competition from imports, it was unexpected that as a result of the global financial and economic crisis soon after its accession to the WTO, consumer demand would contract as much as it did, and that this would coincide with such an increase in imports that displaced domestic products. Ukraine submits that the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings contained an analysis of the impact of the global financial and economic crisis.98
7.64.
Ukraine argues that in the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings, the Ministry explained that it was unforeseen that imports into Ukraine would increase by 37.9% relative to domestic automobile production in 2010 compared to 2008, despite the decrease in import volumes in absolute terms. Ukraine alleges that the significant increase in market share came on the heels of the global financial and economic crisis, which had a significant impact on the Ukrainian passenger car industry.99
7.65.
In Ukraine's view, the existence of the global financial and economic crisis is a matter of fact that does not require much demonstration. Ukraine submits that since the 2008 global financial and economic crisis is a widely accepted and probably even an uncontested fact, no additional evidence is required to prove its existence. Moreover, Ukraine contends that as this circumstance was not questioned by the interested parties, it was concluded by the Ministry that it existed and did not need any confirmation. Ukraine considers that Japan cannot seriously claim not to be aware of this global crisis during the period of investigation.100
7.66.
Japan responds that it is only in Ukraine's first written submission that the global financial and economic crisis is identified as the unforeseen development. According to Japan, nowhere in the Notice of 14 March 2013 or the Key Findings was the crisis identified as the unforeseen development, nor is there any discussion or explanation as to why it constituted an unforeseen development in the sense of Article XIX.101 Japan recalls that according to the Appellate Body, the demonstration of unforeseen developments must be made before the application of a safeguard measure, in the published report.102 Japan submits that any identification of the unforeseen developments after the imposition of a safeguard measure cannot, therefore, render a safeguard measure consistent with Article XIX:1(a). Japan further argues that, as the panel found in Chile – Price Band System, an ex post facto explanation cannot cure the importing Member's failure to meet the requirement of demonstrating unforeseen developments in the published report.103
7.67.
The Panel observes that the issue to be examined is whether Ukraine identified and demonstrated the existence of unforeseen developments as required by Article XIX:1(a). As explained above, this requires us to determine whether the competent authorities identified the relevant unforeseen developments in their published report. At the outset, we recall our view that the Notice of 14 March 2013 constitutes the published report within the meaning of Article 3.1, as discussed in Section 7.1.5 above.
7.68.
The Notice of 14 March 2013 contains the following succinct passage on unforeseen developments:

The occurrence of "unforeseen developments" is explained by a 37.9% increase of the share of imported motor cars relative to domestic production during 2010 when compared to 2008, despite decreased import volumes in absolute terms and an overall contraction in consumption of motor cars within the domestic market of Ukraine during this period.104

7.69.
Apart from this reference, we do not find any other mention of unforeseen developments in the Notice of 14 March 2013.105
7.70.
The Key Findings and Ukraine's notification to the WTO Committee on Safeguards under Articles 12.1(b) and (c) also refer to unforeseen developments, using language almost identical to that contained in the Notice of 14 March 2013. The relevant passages in the Key Findings and notification to the WTO are the following:

The occurrence of "unforeseen developments" is explained by a 37.9% increase of the share of imported products relative to domestic automobile production in Ukraine in 2010 compared to 2008, despite decreased import volumes in absolute terms and an overall contraction in consumption of automobiles within the domestic market of Ukraine during this period.106 (emphasis added)

The fact of "unforeseen developments" is present in increase of import share by 37.9% relative to applicant's production of motor cars in 2010 compared with 2008 despite of the general decrease of import in quantitative equivalent and general decrease of consumption of motor cars at the domestic market in this period.107 (emphasis added)

7.71.
Japan submits that these statements suggest that the increase in imports is the unforeseen development. Ukraine did not respond directly to this argument. It argues instead that the occurrence of unforeseen developments is explained by the "perfect storm" formed by a confluence of several factors in the context of the 2008 global financial and economic crisis, and that it was unforeseen that imports would increase by 37.9% relative to domestic automobile production in Ukraine in 2010, compared to 2008.
7.72.
In examining the passage provided in the Notice of 14 March 2013, we note the statement that the occurrence of unforeseen developments "is explained by" the relative increase in imports. For us, this means that the occurrence of unforeseen developments is "made clear or intelligible"108, or "made plainly visible"109 by the relative increase in imports. Thus, the most natural reading of this translated phrase, in the context of the cited reference of the Notice of 14 March 2013, is that the competent authorities considered that the occurrence of unforeseen developments was demonstrated by the relative increase in imports, in spite of an absolute decrease in imports and an overall contraction in the consumption of automobiles. It is also noteworthy that Ukraine itself has described the conclusions of the competent authorities in the Notice of 14 March 2013 along very similar lines in its first written submission:

In its findings, the Ministry explained that it was unforeseen that imports would increase by 37.9 percent relative to domestic automobile production in Ukraine in 2010 compared to 2008, despite the decrease in import volumes in absolute terms.110 (emphasis added)

7.73.
Therefore, we find that the Notice of 14 March 2013 identifies the relative increase in imports as the unforeseen development. We recognize that the Notice of 14 March 2013 also refers to an absolute decrease in imports and a contraction in demand that occurred during the same period. But nothing in the Notice of 14 March 2013 suggests that either of these was considered an unforeseen development by the competent authorities. Consequently, it is clear to us that the development that the Notice of 14 March 2013 identifies as unforeseen is the relative increase in imports.
7.74.
We consider, next, Ukraine's arguments regarding what were the unforeseen developments in this case, as there is a difference between Ukraine's submissions to this Panel and the actual content of the Notice of 14 March 2013.
7.75.
In its first written submission, Ukraine not only describes the content of the Notice of 14 March 2013 reproduced above, but also identified as the unforeseen development a "perfect storm" involving a "confluence of factors" in the context of the 2008 global financial and economic crisis:

[I]t was unexpected that, as a result of the global crisis soon after its accession, consumption demand would contract to the extent it did, and this would coincide with such an increase in imports completely displacing domestic producers. That unfortunate "perfect storm" is essentially what the Ministry highlighted in the section on unforeseen development in the Key Findings.111

The confluence of the serious contraction in demand and the dramatic increase in imports in relative terms against the backdrop of the global financial crisis in the second half of 2008, at the same time that Ukraine significantly lowered tariffs on passenger cars pursuant to WTO obligations, was unexpected and thus unforeseen.112

7.76.
In response to a request from the Panel, Ukraine elaborated as follows:

While it is obvious that the global financial crisis led both to the significant increase in imports in relative terms and the decrease in consumption, the latter was a different factor that cannot be associated with the increase in imports and was referred to in the non-attribution section of the Key Findings.113

7.77.
In its second written submission, Ukraine stated:

[I]t was unexpected that, as a result of the global crisis immediately after its accession, the increase in imports would be so significant as to completely displace domestic production.114

The facts confirm the unforeseen combination of a global economic crisis affecting in particular this industry right at the time of tariff liberalization and major changes in the Ukrainian economy as a result of the WTO accession.115

7.78.
Thus, it seems Ukraine has put forward multiple versions of what the unforeseen developments were in the present case: (i) the simultaneous contraction in demand and increase in imports; (ii) the confluence of a contraction in demand, tariff liberalization, and a relative increase in imports; (iii) the global financial and economic crisis; (iv) the increase in imports; and (v) the combination of a global financial and economic crisis and tariff liberalization. There is a stark contrast between Ukraine's submissions to the Panel, which for the most part suggest that the unforeseen developments were events either caused by, coinciding with, or including, the global financial and economic crisis, and the actual text of the Notice of 14 March 2013, which identifies only the relative increase in imports as an unforeseen development.
7.79.
The Panel asked Ukraine to clarify whether the Notice of 14 March 2013 contains any reference to the global financial and economic crisis in the section of the Notice of 14 March 2013 dealing with unforeseen developments. In its response, Ukraine stated that the competent authorities considered the effects of the global financial and economic crisis in the non-attribution section of the Key Findings.116 For our part, we see nothing in the Notice of 14 March 2013 that could be understood to identify the global financial and economic crisis as being the unforeseen development or an integral part thereof.
7.80.
In this regard, we disagree with Ukraine's suggestion that explicit identification of the 2008 global financial and economic crisis was in any event not required, as its existence is a widely known and accepted fact. Even if the events that are alleged to be unforeseen are widely known and accepted, this does not relieve the competent authorities of their obligation to explicitly identify in the published report the unforeseen developments that have been determined to exist.
7.81.
As concerns the Key Findings, which are in any event not a published report within the meaning of Article 3.1, it is of no avail that the effects of the global financial and economic crisis are mentioned in the non-attribution section of the Key Findings. The issue of non-attribution relates to one of the conditions to be demonstrated – causation – and not the circumstance here in question. Also, the relevant passage in the Key Findings that deals with unforeseen developments does not refer to the non-attribution section. Furthermore, we recall that according to the Appellate Body, it is not for panels to read into the report of the competent authorities linkages that they failed to make.117 Consequently, even if the Panel were to accept the Key Findings as part of the published report under Article 3.1, the general reference to the global financial and economic crisis in a different section of the Key Findings is in our view not sufficient to clearly identify it as an unforeseen development in this case.
7.82.
In the light of the foregoing, we find that owing to the absence of any reference in the Notice of 14 March 2013 to developments other than the relative increase in imports, the additional developments, or combinations of developments, identified by Ukraine before the Panel constitute ex postfacto explanations regarding what the unforeseen developments were. As such, and for purposes of our review, they need not be taken into account.
7.84.
Therefore, we find that Ukraine has failed to make a proper determination on unforeseen developments, because the competent authorities in their published report identified the relative increase in imports as the unforeseen development rather than identifying and explaining any unforeseen developments that resulted in that relative increase in imports. Having failed to make a proper determination in respect of one of the relevant circumstances, we conclude that Ukraine has, to that extent, acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a).

7.2.1.2.2 Logical connection between the unforeseen developments and the relative increase in imports

7.85.
The Panel will now address Japan's arguments regarding the demonstration of the logical connection between the unforeseen developments and the relative increase in imports. We recall that Japan argues that according to the Appellate Body the competent authorities are required by Article XIX:1(a) specifically to demonstrate that the identified unforeseen developments have resulted in increased imports.119
7.86.
Japan argues that neither the Notice of 14 March 2013 nor the Key Findings provide any explanation with regard to how the alleged unforeseen developments resulted in the increase in imports.120 Referring to the Appellate Body report in US – Steel Safeguards, Japan observes that it is for the competent authorities to demonstrate the logical connection between the alleged unforeseen developments and the increase in imports, and that the Panel may not read into the report linkages that the competent authorities failed to make.121
7.87.
Japan further argues that, even assuming that the global financial and economic crisis had been recognized by the competent authorities as the unforeseen development, Ukraine does not provide any explanation as to how these unforeseen developments actually resulted in the increase in imports. In Japan's view, it is not sufficient that the global financial and economic crisis merely coincided in time with the increase in imports. According to Japan, it must also be demonstrated that the unforeseen developments causeda change in the competitive relationship between imported and domestic products to the detriment of the latter.122
7.88.
Ukraine disagrees with Japan's position that the unforeseen developments must cause a change in the competitive relationship. In Ukraine's view, the unforeseen developments and the obligation incurred under GATT 1994 need not modify the competitive relationship between the imports and domestic products, but cause the increase in imports directly. Ukraine further submits that its analysis of the issue of unforeseen developments was conducted by the competent authorities during the investigation, and that much of their analysis is confidential, such that only the results have been included in the Key Findings.123
7.89.
Japan counters that regardless of whether Ukraine properly treated the analysis as confidential or not, the competent authorities were still required to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation on how the facts support their determination.124
7.90.
The Panel recalls its findings above that Ukraine failed to make a proper determination on unforeseen developments under Article XIX:1(a). In the light of this, there is no need for us to make findings regarding whether the competent authorities examined the "logical connection" between the unforeseen developments and the relative increase in imports. In the absence of a sufficient determination of unforeseen developments, there is no occasion to consider whether there is a sufficient connection between such developments and increased imports.

7.2.1.3 Effect of GATT 1994 obligations

7.91.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim regarding the effect of GATT 1994 obligations. As with the parallel claim concerning unforeseen development, this claim rests on two main arguments. Japan argues first that Ukraine's competent authorities have failed to properly demonstrate the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, and second, that Ukraine has not explained how the effect of any such obligations resulted in increased imports.

7.2.1.3.1 Identification of the effect of relevant GATT 1994 obligations

7.92.
The Panel begins by examining Japan's argument that Ukraine's competent authorities have failed to properly demonstrate the existence of the effect of relevant GATT 1994 obligations.
7.93.
Japan argues that a Member wishing to impose a safeguard measure must not only have incurred obligations under the GATT 1994, but must identify those obligations and demonstrate them in its published report. Japan submits that Ukraine failed to do so since neither the Notice of 14 March 2013 nor the Key Findings identify or analyse the effect of the obligations incurred by Ukraine under the GATT 1994. Japan therefore submits that Ukraine failed to demonstrate as a matter of fact that it incurred obligations under the GATT 1994, and that this is a violation of Article XIX:1(a).125
7.94.
Ukraine argues that there can be no debate about the existence of the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994. According to Ukraine, it is as an obvious fact that it made tariff concessions on passenger cars when it joined the WTO in 2008 and reduced the import duty on passenger cars from 25% to 10%. Ukraine submits that Japan cannot deny this fact given its active involvement in the negotiations on Ukraine's WTO accession. Ukraine further alleges that the existence of WTO commitments is a fact mentioned in the Key Findings.126
7.95.
Japan responds that the fact that Ukraine made tariff commitments with regard to the product concerned does not cure the competent authorities' failure to identify such commitments in their published report.127
7.97.
Turning to Ukraine's published report, the Notice of 14 March 2013, we note that it contains no mention or analysis of the effect of the GATT 1994 obligations. The only reference to Ukraine's commitments under the GATT 1994 is contained in the Key Findings, which are not a published report. However, that reference appears in the context of the causation analysis:

At the same time, WTO accession of Ukraine and its commitments to reduce the import duty from 25% to 10% as well as the abolition of government support could have negatively impacted the domestic car industry's financial condition, rather than this being a consequence of growing import of cars to Ukraine.128

7.98.
To us, it is clear that Ukraine was analysing the tariff reduction as a possible factor causing injury to the domestic industry and did not refer to it as one of the circumstances that must be demonstrated under Article XIX:1(a). We also recall that as we mentioned in paragraph 7.81 above, the Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards has clarified that it is not for the Panel to read into the report linkages that the competent authority failed to make.129 Therefore, even if we were to take into account the Key Findings, this reference in a section dealing with one of the conditions – causation – is not sufficient to identify the circumstance here at issue, that is to say, the relevant GATT 1994 obligations and their effect.
7.99.
We therefore find that Ukraine has failed to make a proper determination on the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, because it has not identified in its published report the effect of GATT 1994 obligations. Having failed to make a proper determination also in respect of this circumstance, we conclude that Ukraine has, to that extent, acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a).

7.2.1.3.2 Logical connection between the effect of GATT 1994 obligations and the relative increase in imports

7.100.
The Panel now addresses Japan's arguments regarding the demonstration of the logical connection between the effect of GATT 1994 obligations and the relative increase in imports.
7.101.
Japan argues that since the text of Article XIX:1(a) establishes that the increase in imports must occur "as a result" of the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, it follows that a Member must not only identify the specific obligations it incurred under the GATT 1994, but must also explain how the effect of these obligations resulted in the product being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to its domestic industry. Japan further contends that it must be explained how these obligations had the effect of preventing the Member concerned from taking WTO-consistent measures in order to prevent or remedy the change generated by the unforeseen developments in the competitive relationship between imports and the domestic product.130
7.102.
Japan notes that the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings are silent on this issue and that it is only in its first written submission that Ukraine makes a reference to this analysis by stating that its market access commitments "pulled imports of passenger cars into the Ukraine market".131 Japan argues that in making this statement, Ukraine confuses unforeseen developments with the effect of GATT 1994 obligations. The former must have resulted in the increase in imports, while the latter must prevent the importing Member from taking appropriate measures to limit the increased imports that resulted from unforeseen developments.132
7.103.
Ukraine argues that after it had reduced its tariffs as a result of its accession to the WTO, imports of passenger cars into Ukraine increased relatively to domestic production. Ukraine recognizes that although other factors may have existed to drive imports of passenger cars into Ukraine, the reduction of the tariff rate by ten percentage points pulled imports of passenger cars into its market, despite the decrease in demand as a result of the effect of the global financial crisis on Ukraine consumers.133
7.104.
The Panel recalls its findings above that Ukraine failed to make a proper determination on the effect of GATT 1994 obligations under Article XIX:1(a). In the light of this, there is no need for us to make findings regarding whether the competent authorities examined the "logical connection" between the effect of GATT 1994 obligations and the relative increase in imports. In the absence of a sufficient determination of the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, there is no occasion to consider whether there is a sufficient connection between such element and increased imports.

7.2.1.4 Overall conclusion

7.105.
Having found that Ukraine in its published report has failed to make a proper demonstration on unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, we conclude that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a).

7.2.2 Claim under Article 11.1(a)

7.106.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim regarding Article 11.1(a), which provides as follows:

A Member shall not take or seek any emergency action on imports of particular products as set forth in Article XIX of GATT 1994 unless such action conforms with the provisions of that Article applied in accordance with this Agreement.

7.107.
Japan submits that as a consequence of Ukraine's failure to demonstrate unforeseen developments and in the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 11.1(a).134
7.108.
Ukraine submits that Japan's claim under Article 11.1(a) must be rejected for the reasons set out in paragraphs 7.41 and 7.94 above.

7.2.3 Claims under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c)

7.110.
The Panel turns, finally, to Japan's claims under Articles 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c). Article 3.1, last sentence, provides:

The competent authorities shall publish a report setting forth their findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law.

In turn, Article 4.2(c) provides:

The competent authorities shall publish promptly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined.

7.111.
Japan argues that the existence of unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations are a "pertinent issue … of fact and law" within the meaning of Article 3.1 and, consequently, the published report of the competent authorities must contain a "finding" or a "reasoned conclusion" on these circumstances.135 Japan further argues that the Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards established that Article 4.2(c) also applies to the competent authorities' demonstration of unforeseen developments under Article XIX:1(a).136 Japan therefore contends that, with respect to the circumstances identified in Article XIX:1(a), "the competent authorities are required by Article 3.1, last sentence, to 'give an account of' a 'judgement [sic] or statement which is reached in a connected or logical manner or expressed in a logical form'", on the existence of these circumstances, "'distinctly', or in detail".137
7.112.
With regard to unforeseen developments, Japan submits that the Notice of 14 March 2013 only contains a brief reference and that such reference cannot be considered a "reasoned and adequate explanation" since this statement does not "give an account of a judgment or statement".138 Japan also notes that both the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings fail to identify any unforeseen developments, apart from the increase in imports, and a fortiori fail to provide any discussion or explanation as to why such events should be considered as unforeseen and why they resulted in the increase in imports. With regard to the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, Japan argues that neither the Notice of 14 March 2013 nor the Key Findings contain any analysis of the effect of the GATT 1994 obligations and, therefore, Ukraine has violated Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards.139
7.113.
Ukraine responds that, as far as unforeseen developments are concerned, Japan simply takes issue with the competent authorities' conclusion and arguments on unforeseen developments but cannot claim that it does not understand the reasoning supporting this conclusion. Ukraine also argues that Japan's claim is not supported by the record.140 With regard to the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, Ukraine argues that there is no need for any reasoned conclusion and other explanation when, as a matter of fact, it is uncontested that Ukraine made significant tariff commitments in respect of passenger cars when it joined the WTO in 2008. Ukraine submits that Japan cannot seriously deny that as a matter of fact this is the case given its active involvement in Ukraine's accession negotiations.141
7.114.
The Panel has concluded in Section 7.2.1.4 above that Ukraine has failed to make a proper determination on unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations and, consequently, acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a). In the light of this, we see no need, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings regarding whether Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) in relation to the account it gave of the aforementioned determination in its published report. We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings with respect to these claims.

7.3 CLAIMS RELATING TO INCREASED IMPORTS

7.115.
The Panel next addresses Japan's claims relating to Ukraine's determination of increased imports based on Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a). Since Article 2.1 sets forth the fundamental legal requirements – i.e. the conditions – for application of a safeguard measure, we will first address Japan's claims under Article 2.1.

7.3.1 Claims under Article 2.1

7.116.
The Panel recalls that Article 2.1 provides as follows:

A Member may apply a safeguard measure to a product only if that Member has determined, pursuant to the provisions set out below, that such product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products.

7.117.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 in making its determination of increased imports. In particular, Japan contends that Ukraine failed to (i) demonstrate a "recent" increase in imports; (ii) demonstrate that the increase in imports was sudden, sharp and significant enough; (iii) conduct a complete qualitative analysis, including an analysis of the intervening trends and the amounts142 of imports; and (iv) examine the "conditions" under which the imports occurred.143
7.118.
Ukraine submits that Japan's claim under Article 2.1 regarding the determination of increased imports is not well-founded. Ukraine argues that it met its obligations by examining all aspects of the increase in imports. In Ukraine's view, the data used during the investigation and presented to Japan in consultations demonstrates that the relative increase in imports was sufficiently recent, sudden, sharp, and significant, both quantitatively and qualitatively.144
7.119.
The Panel recalls that an increase in imports is the defining prerequisite for the application of a safeguard measure. Article 2.1 does not merely refer to an "increase" in imports, but requires that "the product is being imported … in such increased quantities, absolute or relative to domestic production" (emphasis added) as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury. Thus, not any increase in imports is sufficient to satisfy this condition. As found by the Appellate Body in Argentina – Footwear (EC),Article 2.1 "requires that the increase in imports must have been recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or threaten to cause 'serious injury'".145 Furthermore, Article 2.1 refers to increased quantities, "absolute or relative to domestic production". The word "or" indicates that a safeguard measure may be applied, subject to other conditions and circumstances being met, in either of these two factual scenarios. Finally, Article 2.1 also stipulates that the product concerned must be imported "under such conditions" as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury. As we explain below146, in our view this is relevant to the requirement that there be a causal link between increased imports and serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry, which is itself another condition for applying a safeguard measure.
7.120.
We thus consider based on the text of Article 2.1 as interpreted by the Appellate Body that for Japan's claim to succeed, Japan must establish that Ukraine did not properly demonstrate that:

a. there was either an absolute increase in imports or an increase relative to domestic production (hereafter, "relative increase");

b. the increase in imports was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, quantitatively and qualitatively; and

c. the increase in imports was recent enough.

We will address these issues in the order listed.

7.3.1.1 Increased imports

7.121.
The Panel turns first to the competent authorities' determination that there was a relative increase in imports during the period of investigation, 2008-2010. Specifically, Ukraine's competent authorities determined in the Notice of 14 March 2013 that during the period of investigation, imports of passenger cars increased by 37.9% relative to domestic production. Japan did not contest that there was a relative increase between 2008 and 2010, but questioned other aspects of the competent authorities' determination of increased imports to which we turn below.
7.122.
We therefore do not need to address this aspect further, except to note that evidence provided by Ukraine during the course of these proceedings suggests that there was an absolute and relative decrease in imports from 2008 to 2009, followed by an absolute and relative increase in imports from 2009 to 2010.147 The impact of the relative increase by 37.9% on the respective market shares of imports and domestic production is not ascertainable from the Notice of 14 March 2013, because it contains no data on import and domestic production volumes.148

7.3.1.2 "[I]n such increased quantities"

7.123.
Turning to the requirement in Article 2.1 that a product must be imported "in such increased quantities" (emphasis added), the Panel notes that the parties to this dispute disagree over whether Ukraine's competent authorities demonstrated that the relative increase in imports was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, and whether they conducted a proper qualitative analysis of the data on imports, specifically with regard to trends in imports and the amounts of imports. Thus, we now proceed to consider, in turn, the following issues:

a. whether the competent authorities in this case provided an adequate explanation concerning the trends in imports that occurred during the period of investigation;

b. whether the competent authorities demonstrated that the relative increase in imports was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough; and

c. whether the competent authorities should have provided the amounts of imports.

7.3.1.2.1 Analysis of intervening trends in imports

7.124.
The Panel first examines whether the competent authorities have analysed intervening trends in imports.
7.125.
Japan, referring to the statement of the Appellate Body in Argentina – Footwear(EC), submits that to make a proper qualitative analysis and evaluation of increased imports, the competent authorities must not only examine the end-points of the data, but also intervening trends. According to Japan, the panel report in Argentina – Preserved Peaches and the Appellate Body report in US – Steel Safeguards indicate that the analysis under Articles XIX and 2.1 requires an examination of the trends in imports over the entire period of investigation. Japan maintains that it is the explanation concerning the trends in imports "that allows a competent authority to demonstrate that 'a product is being imported in such increased quantities'".149
7.126.
Japan argues, in addition, that the use of the phrase "such increased quantities" makes it clear that a comparison of end points will not suffice to demonstrate that a product "is being imported in such increased quantities" within the meaning of Article 2.1, and that "in cases where an examination does not demonstrate […] a clear and uninterrupted upward trend in imports volumes, a simple end-point-to-end-point analysis could easily be manipulated to lead to different results, depending on the choice of end points".150 Japan thus submits that it is evident from the text of Article 2.1 and the jurisprudence that the condition of "increased imports" is not simply that imports have increased based on comparing data for the beginning and end of the period of investigation. Rather, Article 2.1 requires an analysis of the intervening trends.151
7.127.
Japan argues that in this case, Ukraine's competent authorities failed to examine the intervening trends with regard to imports, as they did not analyse what happened between 2008 and 2009 and between 2009 and 2010. According to Japan, in both the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings, Ukraine provided only an end-to-end-point comparison when it found that imports increased between 2008 and 2010 by 37.9% relative to domestic production and by 37.1% relative to domestic consumption, and did not provide data for, or analyse what occurred in, 2009.152 According to Japan, Ukraine's simple end-point-to-end-point analysis "could easily be manipulated to lead to different results, depending on the choice of end points".153 In Japan's view, this is because the data does not demonstrate "a clear and uninterrupted upward trend".154 Japan notes that not only did the absolute volume of imports decrease significantly over the entire period of investigation, but imports also decreased relative to domestic production from 2008 to 2009. Japan considers that a clear upward trend in imports over an entire period of investigation could not have existed, if during half of the period of investigation the imports were actually decreasing in both absolute and relative terms. Japan also notes that the data concerning intervening trends and the ex post analysis of these data provided by Ukraine in its first written submission cannot be found in the Notice of 14 March 2013 or the Key Findings and thus are not relevant for the Panel's examination. Japan therefore considers that the competent authorities failed to examine the trends over the period of investigation and to include their conclusions in the published report, and they have consequently not satisfied the requirements of Article 2.1.155
7.128.
Ukraine responds that a qualitative analysis involving consideration of intervening trends is not pertinent to the issue of increased imports, but rather concerns the question of causation. Regarding the analysis of its competent authorities in the present case, Ukraine submits that imports trended upward over the course of the period of investigation, as is evidenced by the fact, stated in the Key Findings, that imports increased between 2008 and 2010 by 37.9% and 37.1% relative to domestic production and domestic consumption, respectively. Ukraine further states that in terms of domestic production, from 2008 to 2009, imports decreased by 8.9%, whereas in 2010, imports increased by 37.9% over 2008 levels relative to domestic production. Regarding Japan's argument about manipulation, Ukraine points out that its competent authorities were strictly bound by Ukraine's domestic law in determining the years to be included in the period of investigation, and that no manipulation was therefore possible. Finally, regarding its published report, Ukraine contends that a more detailed analysis was conducted by its Ministry during the investigation and that the results were presented to the Commission and formed the basis for the imposition of the safeguard measure. According to Ukraine, that analysis is confidential, however, and was therefore not disclosed to Japan.156
7.129.
The Panel begins by recalling the views of the Appellate Body in Argentina – Footwear (EC), which are relevant to the issue raised by Japan. In that dispute, the Appellate Body observed that:

[T]he determination of whether the requirement of imports 'in such increased quantities' is met is not a merely mathematical or technical determination. In other words, it is not enough for an investigation to show simply that imports of the product this year were more than last year – or five years ago.157

7.130.
The Appellate Body in the same dispute also identified an additional element that competent authorities must consider when determining whether a product has been imported "in such increased quantities". Agreeing with the panel in that dispute, it stated that "the competent authorities are required to consider the trends in imports over the period of investigation (rather than just comparing the end points) under Article 4.2(a)".158 (emphasis original)
7.131.
While this statement does not specifically refer to Article 2.1, in the immediately following paragraph the Appellate Body referred to the phrase "is being imported" in Article 2.1 in support of its view that the competent authorities must also examine recent imports, "and not simply trends in imports" during a period of several years.159 Moreover, in US – Steel Safeguards, the Appellate Body reiterated its view that an examination of trends is required and stated that the importing Member in that dispute could not properly have found that imports had "increased" as required by Article 2.1, without having addressed an "intervening trend" showing a decrease in imports at the end of the period of investigation.160 In the same dispute, the Appellate Body also stated that:

The use of the phrase "such increased quantities" in Articles XIX:1(a) and 2.1, and the requirement in Article 4.2 to assess the "rate and amount" of the increase, make it abundantly clear, however, that such a comparison of end points will not suffice to demonstrate that a product "is being imported in such increased quantities" within the meaning of Article 2.1. Thus, a demonstration of "any increase" in imports between any two points in time is not sufficient to demonstrate "increased imports" for purposes of Articles XIX and 2.1. Rather, as we have said, competent authorities are required to examine the trends in imports over the entire period of investigation.161 (emphasis original)

Finally, the Appellate Body emphasized that:

[W]hat is called for in every case is an explanation of how the trend in imports supports the competent authority's finding that the requirement of "such increased quantities" within the meaning of Articles XIX:1(a) and 2.1 has been fulfilled. It is this explanation concerning the trend in imports—over the entire period of investigation—that allows a competent authority to demonstrate that "a product is being imported in such increased quantities".162 (emphasis original)

7.132.
To us, these statements make it clear that, for an affirmative determination of increased imports to be consistent with Article 2.1, it is not sufficient for the competent authorities to establish an increase in imports through a simple mathematical comparison of data for the two end points marking the beginning and end of the period of investigation. It is necessary, though still not sufficient by itself163, that the competent authorities also set out in their published report a reasoned and adequate explanation concerning the development of imports between the end points, i.e. concerning the intervening trends in imports that occurred during the period of investigation.
7.133.
We note that the Notice of 14 March 2013 explains the competent authorities' determination "[r]egarding increased imports to Ukraine and degree of such increase" in one short sentence:

During the investigation period in 2010, compared to 2008, imports of motor cars to Ukraine increased by 37.9% compared to domestic industry output and 37.1% relative to domestic demand.164

7.134.
The Key Findings make the same point and clarify that the percentage figures given in the Notice of 14 March 2013 refer to import volumes in relative terms.165 Both the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings also indicate, albeit in sections not addressing the competent authorities' determination of increased imports, that "the volume of imports of motor cars to Ukraine in absolute terms in 2010 compared to 2008 decreased by 71%".166
7.135.
We recall that we must base our review in this dispute on the published report, which we have concluded is contained in the Notice of 14 March 2013. As is apparent from the above-quoted statement, the Notice of 14 March 2013 compares imports relative to domestic production in 2010 – the end point of the period of investigation in this case – to imports relative to domestic production in 2008 – the starting point of the period of investigation. The Notice of 14 March 2013 does not set out the import volume in relative terms for 2009, and neither do the Key Findings. There is, accordingly, no corresponding data regarding the volume of imports relative to domestic production during the two periods 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.
7.136.
Thus, the published report of the competent authorities contains only an end-point-to-end-point comparison and analysis, finding that the import volume relative to domestic production was 37.9% higher in 2010 than in 2008. The published report provides neither data nor an explanation concerning intervening trends in relative imports, and specifically, makes no reference to import volume relative to domestic production in 2009.
7.137.
Ukraine has provided relevant data and analysis of intervening trends in imports in relative terms in its first written submission. However, as we have pointed out above167, such an ex post explanation cannot remedy the deficiency in the competent authorities' determination as set out in the Notice of 14 March 2013. Nevertheless, it is instructive to consider briefly the data that Ukraine has provided to us, but did not set out or examine in the Notice of 14 March 2013. We set out this data in Table 1 and represent it graphically in Graph 1 below. The data suggests that there was an overall relative increase in imports over the three-year period of investigation. The data also appears to show that the relative increase in imports that was determined to have occurred, based on the end-point-to-end-point comparison, is the result of an initial relative decrease from 2008 to 2009 that was followed by a more substantial relative increase in imports from 2009 to 2010. More particularly, the data suggests that in the investigation at issue, a relative increase in imports did not occur until the second half of the period of investigation. A brief look at intervening trends thus reveals that the competent authorities' end-point-to-end-point analysis is not sufficient on its own to explain adequately why and how the facts of this case supported the conclusion of the competent authorities that passenger cars "[were] being imported in such increased quantities" (emphasis added) relative to domestic production.

Table 1: Changes of imports in relative terms

Indicator200820092010
Ratio of imports to domestic production, % [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change since 2008, %--8.9+37.9

Source of data: Exhibit UKR–3.

Graph 1: Trends in imports of passenger cars into Ukraine in relative terms

(2008–2010)168

[SEE IMAGE IN SOURCE DOCUMENT]

7.138.
Ukraine has asserted that a more detailed analysis was performed regarding increased imports and that its results were the basis for the imposition of the safeguard measure. Ukraine further submits, however, that that analysis is confidential. Ukraine did not explain how or why an analysis of intervening trends (as opposed to the actual import volumes) could be confidential. But even assuming that Ukraine could justifiably withhold certain analysis or data, we note that the competent authorities in this case published data concerning the relative increase for 2010 compared to 2008. In the light of this, we are not persuaded that the competent authorities could not similarly have published data concerning the relative increase or decrease for 2009 compared to 2008, and for 2010 compared to 2009. In our view, such additional data would have permitted the competent authorities to provide at least some explanation concerning intervening trends. We recall that the Notice of 14 March 2013 contains no explanation at all regarding intervening trends.
7.139.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 by failing to provide an explanation in its published report regarding how intervening trends in imports relative to domestic production supported the competent authorities' determination that there was a relative increase for the period of investigation 2008-2010.

7.3.1.2.2 Sudden, sharp, and significant increase

7.140.
The next issue the Panel turns to is whether, as Japan contends, Ukraine has failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough.
7.141.
We recall at the outset that both parties have referred to the Appellate Body report in Argentina – Footwear (EC). According to the Appellate Body, the phrase "in such increased quantities" in Article 2.1 indicates that an increase in imports must have been sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to cause or threaten to cause "serious injury".169 This viewwas followed by the panels in US – Wheat Gluten and Argentina – Preserved Peaches and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards.170 The Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards upheld the panel's conclusion thatthere are no absolute standards in judging how sudden and significant the increase must be in order to qualify as an "increase" within the meaning of Article 2.1.171 Rather, this assessment is to be made by the competent authorities on a case-by-case basis.172
7.142.
Japan argues that the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings do not contain any determination by the competent authorities that the alleged increase in imports was sudden, sharp, and significant enough. Japan contends that the increase in imports identified by Ukraine was not "sudden" because the competent authorities focused mainly on an increase in imports which took place between 2008 and 2010 and ignored the fact that in 2005, 2006 and 2007 imports of the product concerned were steadily increasing at a significant rate. According to Japan, in reaching its conclusion regarding the increase in imports, Ukraine should also have taken into account the data from 2005-2007.173 In supporting its arguments, Japan provided the following graph.

Graph 2: Trends in imports of passenger cars into Ukraine in absolute terms

(2005–2014)174

[SEE IMAGE IN SOURCE DOCUMENT]

7.143.
Ukraine contends that a closer examination of the data considered during the investigation demonstrates that the relative increase in imports was sufficiently sudden, sharp, and significant. Ukraine argues that although the volume of imports into Ukraine decreased by 71%, there was a significant increase in imports in relative terms. According to Ukraine, relative to domestic production, imports decreased modestly in 2009 over 2008 by 8.9%, whereas in 2010, imports relative to domestic production increased sharply, significantly, and suddenly, by 37.9% compared to 2008. Ukraine further submits that its Ministry undertook such an analysis during the investigation and that it is summarized in the Key Findings. According to Ukraine, the more detailed analysis and its results, which were presented to the Commission, were the basis for the imposition of the safeguard measure, but were confidential and were therefore not disclosed to Japan.175
7.144.
Japan responds that the data and the analysis in Ukraine's written submission are entirely ex post and are not included in the Notice of 14 March 2013 or in the Key Findings and are therefore irrelevant. In Japan's view, such ex post analysis cannot cure the absence of any such analysis in the published report of the competent authorities. Japan therefore considers that Ukraine failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation as to why the alleged increase in imports was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough.176
7.145.
The Panel notes that in the Notice of 14 March 2013, and also in the Key Findings, it is stated that in 2010 imports increased by 37.9% relative to domestic production, compared to 2008. Neither document characterizes this increase as "sudden", "sharp" or "significant" or uses any similar language. Accordingly, the lack of analysis on this issue in the Notice of 14 March 2013 and Key Findings is similar to the lack of analysis with respect to the intervening trends discussed above. Ukraine submits that its relevant analysis is confidential. However, Ukraine offered no explanation as to why an analysis of the "suddenness", "sharpness" and "significance" of the relative increase in imports (as opposed to the actual import volumes) should be confidential.
7.146.
We first consider the requirement that the increase in imports be "sudden" and "sharp". The dictionary meaning of "sharp" is "involving sudden change of direction; abrupt, steep"177 while "sudden" is defined as "happening or coming without warning; unexpected", or "abrupt, sharp".178 Without information about the intervening trends, the reference in the Notice of 14 March 2013 to a relative increase by 37.9% in 2010 compared to 2008 is consistent with very different factual scenarios, including, for example, (i) a relative increase in imports between 2008 and 2009 followed by a smaller relative decrease between 2009 and 2010; (ii) a relative decrease in imports between 2008 and 2009 and then a larger relative increase between 2009 and 2010; and (iii) a steady or gradual relative increase over three years (2008-2010). It appears to us that certainly under the third possible scenario, the relative increase in imports could not properly be described as "sharp" or "sudden". Therefore, by itself, the reference to a relative increase of 37.9% in 2010 compared to 2008 does not demonstrate that the relative increase in imports was either "sharp" or "sudden".
7.147.
As regards the required "significance" of the increase, we note that the Notice of 14 March 2013 provides neither the volumes of imports and domestic production nor the ratios of import volumes to domestic production volumes in any year of the period of investigation. Neither do the Key Findings. However, if for example the ratio of import volume to domestic production volume was quite large at the beginning of the period of investigation, a 37.9% relative increase in imports at the end of the period might, in our view, not be sufficient to qualify as "significant". Without additional information or relevant explanations in the Notice of 14 March 2013, we are therefore unable to accept that a reference to a 37.9% relative increase in imports alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the increase was "significant".179 The ex post explanations provided by Ukraine in the context of the present proceedings cannot cure this defect. We must note here that we do not wish to imply that Ukraine could only establish the significance of the relative increase by revealing confidential information in the determination. If no additional information could be provided for reasons of confidentiality, the competent authorities must nevertheless provide, to the fullest extent possible, a reasoned and adequate explanation in support of a determination that the increase was significant.180 Moreover, there may be ways of presenting sensitive data in the report itself, but in a form that avoids improper disclosure. For instance, with regard to the ratio of import volume to domestic production volume, it may be possible, in the case of confidential information, to specify a range of values that includes but does not reveal the actual value, which would facilitate review of the competent authorities' evaluation.
7.148.
Based on the foregoing considerations, we find that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 by failing to demonstrate in its published report, through reasoned explanations, that there was an increase in imports during the period of investigation 2008-2010 that was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough.

7.3.1.2.3 Amounts of imports

7.149.
The Panel now turns to Japan's argument that Ukraine's competent authorities failed to provide and examine the "amounts" of imports and thereby acted inconsistently with Article 2.1. By "amounts" of imports, Japan means the quantities of imports.
7.150.
Japan claims that Ukraine failed to provide and examine the amounts of imports throughout the period of investigation, since both the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings only indicate a rate of decrease in the absolute volume of imports and a rate of increase in the relative imports. Japan argues that the evaluation of the amount of the increase in imports, expressly required under Article 4.2(a), is necessarily relevant to the competent authorities' determination concerning increased imports. Relying on the panel's finding in Argentina – Footwear (EC), which was affirmed by the Appellate Body, Japan argues that to determine whether imports have entered in "such increased quantities", Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) require an analysis of the rate and amount of the increase in imports, in absolute terms and as a percentage of domestic production. Japan contends that without providing the amounts of imports, a full qualitative analysis would not be possible. Japan further argues that the amounts of imports are particularly relevant in the situation of this case, where imports decreased substantially in absolute terms. According to Japan, the fact that imports decreased at a lower rate than did domestic production, but were still decreasing in substantial amounts, is a factor that creates serious doubt as to whether the products could be considered to be imported "in such increased quantities".181
7.151.
In response, Ukraine argues that the requirement of Article 4.2(a) to evaluate the rate and amount of the increase in imports is relevant in the context of causation analysis. In Ukraine's view, Japan is seeking to add to the obligations of Ukraine by requiring under Article 4.2(a) what would amount to a breach of Article 3.2, which provides that information which is by nature confidential or which is provided to the competent authorities on a confidential basis "shall not be disclosed without permission of the party submitting it". In Ukraine's view, by providing the amounts of the imports, Ukraine would act inconsistently with Article 3.2 and invalidate all the efforts it took to protect the domestic industry's confidential data, because a simple numerical analysis of the indexed import data provided by the competent authorities would suffice to derive the confidential information. Ukraine refers to the panel report in US – Steel Safeguards and argues that the non-disclosure requirement prevails, provided the competent authorities are able to resort to "ways of presenting data in a modified form (e.g. aggregation or indexing), which protects confidentiality".182 Ukraine further submits that its demonstration of the import increase on the basis of relative data makes the need to analyse imports in absolute terms less important. Finally, Ukraine asserts that the rates of the increase in imports it provided in the Notice of 14 March 2013 and Key Findings were in fact based on absolute amounts.183
7.152.
Japan responds that an analysis of the absolute and relative amounts of imports would not lead to a breach of Ukraine's obligation of confidential treatment of information submitted to its competent authorities. According to Japan, the amounts of imports cannot be considered confidential, noting that the total annual amount of imports is publicly available information that can be obtained, by product code, from the Ukrainian Statistical Service. Japan also disagrees that in a relative increase scenario, the rate and amount of the increase in imports need not be evaluated in absolute terms. According to Japan, the need for analysis of the import increase in absolute terms is not left to the discretion of the competent authorities, as Article 4.2(a) requires such an analysis.184
7.153.
The Panel recalls its findings above that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 by failing to provide an explanation in its published report regarding how intervening trends in imports relative to domestic production supported the competent authorities' determination that there was a relative increase for the period of investigation 2008-2010. In the light of this, there is no need for us to consider or make any additional finding regarding whether the competent authorities should also have provided an analysis of the amounts of imports, as Japan contends. We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings on this issue.

7.3.1.3 "[I]s being imported"

7.154.
As noted above, Article 2.1 provides that a Member may apply a safeguard only if a product "is being imported" in increased quantities. The Appellate Body has interpreted this requirement to mean that the increase in imports must be "recent" enough to cause or threaten to cause serious injury.185 The Panel now turns to whether, as claimed by Japan, Ukraine failed to demonstrate a "recent" increase in imports.
7.155.
Japan submits that Ukraine must establish that the increase in imports is recent, current and ongoing. Referring to the Appellate Body report in Argentina – Footwear (EC), Japan contends that the period of investigation should be the recent past.186 Japan further argues that the determination regarding whether the conditions for the application of the safeguard measures are fulfilled must be based on the "recent past".187 In Japan's view, if the competent authorities fail to seek out pertinent information about the recent past, they will be unable to determine whether imports have increased in "such quantities" within the meaning of Article 2.1.188
7.156.
Ukraine accepts the Appellate Body's approach to the determination of increased imports as set out in Argentina – Footwear (EC).189 However, relying on the Appellate Body Report in US – Steel Safeguards, Ukraine contends that there is no requirement that imports must be increasing at the time of the determination or thereafter.190 Furthermore, according to Ukraine, the relevant point in time for determining whether the data is recent is the time when the investigation is conducted.191
7.157.
Japan responds that the use of the present tense in Article 2.1 indicates that it is necessary to examine "recent imports". In Japan's view, whether imports are "recent" needs to be assessed by reference to the time when a safeguard measure is applied.192 According to Japan, the increase in imports should be recent enough at the time of the application of a safeguard measure to cause or threaten to cause serious injury or threat thereof. Japan argues that, if at the time a safeguard measure is applied the product is no longer being imported in such increased quantities or the imports are not causing or threatening to cause serious injury, there is nothing that a safeguard measure needs to prevent or remedy.193 Japan further considers that Ukraine's position would lead to absurd consequences because it would imply that WTO Members could take emergency action even ten years after the end of an investigation period.194 Japan submits that a significant delay between the end of the period of investigation and the actual application of a safeguard measure requires an update of the data.195 According to Japan, if there is a significant time gap, the presumption that the conditions for application of a safeguard measure are still fulfilled is no longer reasonable.196
7.158.
Ukraine counters that the Agreement on Safeguards does not require that the application of the measure must follow the termination of the investigation immediately or within a certain period of time.197 In Ukraine's view, a delay between the end of the investigation and the imposition of the safeguard measure is not determined by the Agreement on Safeguards and therefore it is for a Member to decide upon the time gap.198 Furthermore, Ukraine contends that there is no requirement under the Agreement on Safeguards to continue to update the information following the end of the period of investigation and certainly not following the end of the investigation.199
7.159.
With regard to the present dispute, Japan argues that the increase in imports found by the competent authorities over the period 2008–2010 can hardly be regarded as "recent" considering that the safeguard measure was only applied as of April 2013.200 In Japan's view, judging by reference to the time when the safeguard measure was applied, the "period of investigation" was certainly not the "recent past".201
7.160.
Ukraine responds that the data its competent authorities used in their analysis was the most recent data available at the time of investigation. Ukraine recalls that it initiated its investigation in July 2011, covering the three most recent complete years before the initiation of the investigation (2008-2010). Ukraine also points out that the investigation included import data from the beginning of 2011, effectively up to the date of initiation.202 Ukraine further asserts that the time gap after the completion of the investigation was not based on an arbitrary decision of the competent authorities, but is explained by the need to exchange views with exporting countries, particularly the European Union, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Korea.203 Ukraine points out in this regard that Ukrainian officials and representatives of exporting Members held a number of consultations and meetings to discuss the possible imposition of safeguard measure before the application of the safeguard measure at issue.204
7.161.
In Japan's view, the two-year gap in the present case between the end of the period of investigation and the actual imposition of the safeguard measure is manifestly excessive. Japan maintains that a one-year gap between the conclusion of the investigation and the actual imposition of the safeguard measure is also too long. Japan submits that the increase in imports relied upon by the competent authorities was therefore not recent enough.205 According to Japan, the measure at issue applied as of April 2013 can hardly be justified to be an "emergency action" within the meaning of Article XIX:1(a) and Article 11.1(a) when the increase in imports which must be demonstrated before such measures may be imposed relates to imports before 2011.206 Furthermore, Japan contends that even if a significant delay could in principle be justified by good-faith efforts on the part of a WTO Member to conduct negotiations subsequent to the investigation, no such efforts were made in the present case. Japan argues that after providing the Key Findings to certain interested parties, including Japan, the competent authorities did not contact them again, nor did they make any other good faith efforts to settle the case before resorting to the application of a safeguard measure.207
7.162.
The Panel begins by clarifying certain relevant facts regarding the chronology of events in this case. As will be explained in the section below concerning the requirement to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards208, the evidence on record supports the conclusion that the competent authorities in this case made their finding and determination that imports in 2010 had increased relative to domestic production compared to 2008 long before they decided to apply a safeguard measure. Specifically, we explain below that in our view the competent authorities made a determination of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports on 28 April 2012 (which was not published), but only decided to apply a safeguard measure on 14 March 2013.209 The measure entered into force one month later. There was thus a time gap between the end of the period of investigation in 2010 and the date of the substantive determination in April 2012, and an even longer time gap between the end of the period of investigation and the decision to apply the safeguard measure in March 2013. Japan questions the appropriateness of both time gaps under Article 2.1.
7.163.
Under Article 2.1, if a Member has determined that the relevant requirements, which include increased imports, are satisfied, it may apply a safeguard measure. Neither Article 2.1 nor any other provision of the Agreement on Safeguards specifies any maximum permissible time gap between, on the one hand, the end of the period of investigation, and, on the other hand, (i) the date on which the enabling substantive determination is made and (ii) the date of the decision to apply a safeguard measure based on that determination. Nonetheless, Article 2.1 requires that the product concerned "is being imported" in increased quantities. The Appellate Body made the following observation regarding this phrase:

In our view, the use of the present tense of the verb phrase "is being imported" in both Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 indicates that it is necessary for the competent authorities to examine recent imports, and not simply trends in imports during the past five years – or, for that matter, during any other period of several years.130 In our view, the phrase "is being imported" implies that the increase in imports must have been sudden and recent.

Footnote 130 reads:

The Panel... recognizes that the present tense is being used, which it states "would seem to indicate that, whatever the starting-point of an investigation period, it has to end no later than the very recent past." (emphasis added) Here, we disagree with the Panel. We believe that the relevant investigation period should not only end in the very recent past, the investigation period should be the recent past.210

7.164.
The dispute before us presents the issue whether the increase in imports must have been recent (i) in relation to the date on which the Member concerned determines that all requirements for applying a safeguard measure are met (date of the determination); (ii) in relation to the date on which that Member decides to apply a safeguard measure (date of the decision on application); or (iii) in relation to both these dates.
7.165.
It is clear to us from the above-quoted statement by the Appellate Body that the increase in imports must be recent in relation to the date of determination. The Appellate Body refers to the competent authorities' "examination" and "investigation". The present continuous form in the phrase "is being imported" indicates that at the time of determination the increase in imports must have been recent. It is understood, however, that the determination comes at the end of an investigation211, which in itself requires time, and that this investigation must be based on available import data. There thus will ordinarily be some time gap between the end of the period of investigation and the date of determination. As noted, that gap is explained by the time required to conduct the investigation and the availability of necessary data. In our view, in assessing whether an increase in imports was recent in relation to the date of determination, we must take account of the time required to conduct and complete a proper investigation.
7.166.
We now consider whether the increase in imports must also be recent in relation to the date of the decision to apply a safeguard measure. As a contextual matter, we note that the notification requirements in Article 12.1 indicate that the date of determination and the date of the decision on application need not necessarily coincide. They may in the legal systems of some Members, but not in others. Article 12.1 accordingly requires that the importing Member notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards immediately upon (i) making a finding on serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports – which is the date of the determination, as we use that term here – and (ii) taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure. To us, Article 12.1 suggests that, depending on the institutional context of a particular Member, the decision to apply a safeguard measure can come after the determination. In those cases, some delay between the date of the determination and the decision on application may, therefore, be justified.212
7.167.
Ukraine referred to consultations with other Members as a reason for the time gap in this case. According to Article 12.3, Members "proposing to apply a... safeguard measure" must provide adequate opportunity for "prior consultations". The phrase "proposing to apply" suggests that the requirement to give adequate opportunity for consultations arises once a Member has taken a "decision to apply" a safeguard measure, which may in some Members, be after the date of determination.213 If a Member chooses to provide an additional opportunity for consultations already after the date of determination, some limited delay may, in our view, be justifiable, if the Member concerned engages in these consultations in good faith and they could still influence the decision to apply a safeguard measure.
7.168.
Ukraine's position, however, appears to be that if the relevant conditions and circumstances are met on the date of determination, the relevant Member has the right pursuant to Article 2.1 to apply an appropriate safeguard measure whenever it sees fit thereafter. In its view, apparently, the only question that may arise from a delay in application is whether a measure that is applied following some delay is being applied, as required by Articles 5 and 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards, only to the extent necessary, and for such period as may be necessary, to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.214
7.169.
Ukraine's interpretation of Article 2.1 raises serious concerns, in our view. Under Ukraine's interpretation, a Member could apply a safeguard measure based on data that is not the most recent data available at the time of the application of the measure. Ukraine's interpretation thus raises the possibility that a few years after the end of an investigation and the making of a determination, a Member would proceed to apply a safeguard measure that would not be justified if the Member's substantive determination had been based on more recent available data.
7.170.
To us, this is a troubling prospect. The Agreement on Safeguards "permits Members to impose measures against 'fair trade'"215 and, to that end, gives Members the exceptional right, subject to certain conditions, to withdraw or modify a tariff concession or suspend another obligation under the GATT 1994 in order to take "emergency action on imports" of a particular product.216 However, the right to apply a safeguard measure, once established, cannot be saved for future use. We therefore consider that the "extraordinary nature of safeguard measures"217 militates against an interpretation of Article 2.1 under which a safeguard measure could be applied in situations that are not (or are no longer) emergencies.
7.171.
Ukraine suggests that the Panel should address these concerns, if at all, under Articles 5 and 7. However, Japan has brought relevant claims under Article 2.1.218 Even assuming that Articles 5 and 7 could be invoked as bases for similar claims, we must address Japan's claims under Article 2.1.
7.174.
Turning to the dispute before us, we begin by summarizing the relevant facts. First, there was a time gap of almost 16 months between the end of the period of investigation (2010) and the date of the substantive determination of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports (28 April 2012), and a time gap of more than two years between the end of the period of investigation and the date of the decision to apply the safeguard measure (14 March 2013). Second, the competent authorities initiated their investigation on 2 July 2011 and completed on 28 April 2012.220 Thus, the investigation, which was extended once through a public notice, took less than ten months, which, we note, is less than the 11-month maximum duration permitted under Ukraine's Safeguards Law.221 Finally, there was a time gap of ten and a half months between the substantive determination and the decision to apply the measure. Ukraine's Safeguards Law does not appear to require such a delay between the date of determination and the date of a decision to apply a safeguard measure.222 Indeed, Ukraine does not argue that its Safeguards Law mandated this particular delay. Rather, Ukraine argues that the delay resulted from the need to complete consultations with certain Members exporting passenger cars to Ukraine. We also note that no effort appears to have been made to update the data after the date of the determination and revisit the determination in that light.223
7.175.
We commence our analysis with the time gap between the end of the period of investigation and the date of determination, which amounted to a little less than 16 months. The initial six months of this time gap resulted from the fact that the competent authorities only initiated the investigation in July 2011 with a period of investigation covering data for the three most recent years for which such data was available at the time of initiation.224 Japan has not demonstrated that the competent authorities at that time or soon thereafter had access to, and could have evaluated, more recent data, not just for imports, but also for relevant injury and causal factors to be investigated at the same time. Nor has Japan established that using annual data is in itself a questionable practice.225 In the light of this, we see no reason to question the six-month time gap.
7.177.
For these reasons, we consider that in the particular circumstances of this case the 16-month time gap following the end of the period of investigation did not remove the date of the determination so far from the underlying facts as to call into question the conclusion that there was a "recent" increase in imports as of that date. We therefore find that Japan has not established that the relative increase in imports determined to have existed in this case on the basis of data covering the period 2008-2010 was not recent enough in relation to the date of determination, 28 April 2012.
7.178.
We proceed to analyse the time gap of more than two years between the end of the period of investigation in 2010 and the date of the decision to apply the safeguard measure, 14 March 2013. We have already considered the first 16 months of this time gap. All that remains for us to examine, therefore, is whether the additional ten and a half months that followed the substantive determination removed the date of the decision to apply the safeguard measure too far from the facts underlying that determination. In our view, an important consideration in this respect is whether, if the competent authorities had proceeded differently, they could have taken the decision to apply the safeguard measure on or around 14 March 2013 taking into account more recent data, although this might have entailed a new investigation. Data for the full year 2012 would probably not have been available in time to allow its consideration in the context of a decision taken in March 2013. But it is clear to us that data for the year 2011 would have been available. Thus, the competent authorities could have updated the data to take into account data for the year 2011, whether by extending the period of investigation or some other mechanism, and taken a decision to apply a safeguard measure on the basis of that more recent information in March 2013. This alternative scenario suggests that if the competent authorities had proceeded differently after they made their determination in 2012, they could have made a decision on whether to apply a safeguard measure on or around 14 March 2013, but based on more recent data that would have included the year 2011.228
7.179.
It is reasonable to assume that a change in the data being evaluated by the competent authorities could possibly have resulted in a different substantive determination in this case.229 Indeed, the jurisprudence indicates in this regard that particular importance attaches to developments in the most recent portion of a period of investigation, especially in a threat of serious injury case such as the present one.230
7.180.
Ukraine contends that the time gap between the date of the determination and the date of the decision to apply the safeguard measure was justified because it engaged in consultations on the measure with various Members. The evidence on record does not permit us to confirm whether various meetings identified by Ukraine with trade representatives of other countries concerned exclusively, or even mainly, the proposed safeguard measure, or whether meaningful efforts were in fact undertaken towards adjusting the proposed measure in response to the representations of other countries. However, Ukraine does not argue that these meetings led to any change in the proposed measure.231
7.181.
In any event, as mentioned above, we accept that consultations undertaken in good faith with other Members may, in principle, justify some delay in the application of a safeguard measure. We have also explained, however, that a delay, even an otherwise legitimate one, may remove the date of the decision to apply a safeguard measure so far from the facts underlying the substantive determination that it is no longer possible to maintain, on that date, that a product "is being imported" in increased quantities and that justifiable misgivings arise regarding the continued relevance of the existing substantive determination. For the reasons we have just explained, the dispute before us in our view fits within this latter category.
7.182.
In our assessment, the time gap between the competent authorities' determination and the decision to apply the safeguard measure was such that, on 14 March 2013, the competent authorities could no longer maintain, based on data from 2008 to 2010 alone, that passenger cars were "being imported" in increased quantities within the meaning of Article 2.1 and that the determination of, inter alia, increased imports that they made on 28 April 2012 continued to rest on a sufficient factual basis. We also note that Article 2.1 admits of no exception with regard to the requirement to ensure that a safeguard measure be applied only if a product "is being imported... in such increased quantities". Thus, even ongoing, good faith consultations would not justify a departure from the requirements of Article 2.1.
7.183.
This interpretation in our view does not hamper legitimate efforts that an importing Member might undertake with a view to crafting a safeguard measure that takes into account the concerns and interests of affected exporting countries.232 We recall that before applying a safeguard measure, the importing Member must, pursuant to Article 12.3, provide an opportunity for consultations with Members having a substantial export interest. If an importing Member wishes to engage in additional bilateral discussions with exporting countries following its substantive determination, there would appear to be ways to accomplish this. But we see no provision in the Agreement on Safeguards under which the holding of such additional bilateral discussions would excuse an inconsistency with an express obligation set out in the Agreement.
7.184.
For these reasons, we consider that in the particular circumstances of this case the time gap of more than two years following the end of the period of investigation removed the date of the decision to apply the safeguard measure at issue too far from the underlying facts for the competent authorities to be justified in concluding that there was a "recent" increase in imports as of that date. We therefore find that the relative increase in imports, which the competent authorities determined to have existed in this case on the basis of data covering the period 2008-2010, was not recent enough in relation to the date of the decision to apply a safeguard measure, 14 March 2013.
7.185.
Having regard to all of the above, we therefore conclude that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 2.1, and specifically its requirement that a product "is being imported" in increased quantities, by applying a safeguard measure that was not based on a "recent" increase in imports.

7.3.1.4 "[U]nder such conditions"

7.186.
The Panel turns, finally, to Japan's additional contention that Ukraine did not make a proper determination of "increased imports", because it failed to examine the "conditions" under which the increase in imports occurred.
7.187.
Japan argues that, pursuant to Article 2.1, the competent authorities must examine the "conditions" under which the imports occur. Relying on a statement of the Appellate Body in US – Steel Safeguards, Japan contends that the question whether "increased quantities" of imports will suffice to justify the application of a safeguard measure can be answered only in the light of the "conditions" under which those imports occur. Japan further refers to the panel report in Argentina – Footwear (EC), arguing that the phrase "under such conditions" indicates the need to analyse the conditions of competition between the imported product and the domestic like or directly competitive products in the importing country's market. Thus, Japan considers that the analysis of the conditions under which the imports occur is important in order to properly evaluate whether the increased quantities of imports are such as to qualify as "increased imports" under Article 2.1.233
7.188.
Regarding the dispute at hand, Japan submits that Ukraine failed to examine the "conditions" under which the increased imports occurred. In Japan's view, it is highly relevant that while imports increased in relative terms, the volume of imports in absolute terms decreased substantially. Japan argues that without an analysis of the relevant "conditions", Ukraine was not in a position to properly evaluate whether the imposition of a safeguard measure was warranted. According to Japan, the Notice of 14 March 2013 identifies the drop in domestic consumption and the decrease of the market share of the domestic producers, but does not identify the "conditions" under which the imports occurred. Japan argues that even if one were to assume that these developments are meant to be "conditions", the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not offer any "reasoned and adequate explanation" as to how these developments constituted "such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers".234
7.189.
In response, Ukraine argues that the lack of examination of the "conditions" of the increase in imports is not pertinent to the question whether increased imports were found to exist and concerns the different question of causation.235
7.190.
The Panel recalls that Article 2.1 contains the phrase "such product is being imported into its territory in such increased quantities … and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry…". In our view, this phrase identifies two distinct elements. The first element refers to increased quantities of imports, while the second refers to the conditions under which they occur, which must be such as to make it possible for those increased quantities to cause serious injury or threat thereof. The "conditions" under which imports occur in our view have no bearing on whether or not there have been increased quantities of imports. Consequently, we do not consider that an analysis of the "conditions" under which imports occur forms an integral part of the analysis of the quantities in which imports occur. This view is consistent with the finding of the panel in Argentina – Footwear (EC), which stated that "the phrase 'under such conditions' in fact refers to the substance of the causation analysis that must be performed under Article 4.2(a) and (b)".236 The Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten agreed with the panel's analysis and linked the phrase "under such conditions" to the analysis of causation under Article 4.2(b).237 We thus agree with Ukraine that the examination of the conditions under which the imports occur is relevant to the question of causation. Accordingly, we will consider whether Ukraine analysed the conditions under which the imports occurred when we address Ukraine's determination of the causal link between increased imports and serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry later in our report.238

7.3.1.5 Overall conclusion

7.191.
In sum, the Panel has found above that:

a. Ukraine has failed to provide an explanation in its published report regarding how intervening trends in imports relative to domestic production supported the competent authorities' determination that there was a relative increase for the period of investigation 2008-2010;

b. Ukraine has failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough;

c. there is no need to make findings regarding whether Ukraine should have provided the amounts of imports;

d. Ukraine has failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was recent enough; and

e. the issue whether Ukraine analysed the conditions under which the imports occurred is to be addressed in the context of the Panel's analysis of causation.

7.192.
Based on these findings, we therefore conclude that the competent authorities' determination of increased imports in this case is inconsistent with Article 2.1.

7.3.2 Claims under Articles 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(c), and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a)

7.193.
The Panel now turns to address the remainder of the group of claims relating to Ukraine's determination of increased imports. We first address, jointly, Japan's claims under Articles 4.2(a)239, and 11.1(a)240, and Article XIX:1(a).241

7.3.2.1 Claims under Articles 4.2(a) and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a)

7.194.
Japan claims that in making its determination on increased imports, Ukraine acted inconsistently also with Articles 4.2(a), and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a). Specifically, Japan argues that: (i) Ukraine failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, and significant enough; (ii) Ukraine failed to make a qualitative analysis of the data on imports taking into account the intervening trends; (iii) Ukraine failed to demonstrate that the increased imports were "unforeseen" or "unexpected"; and (iv) Ukraine failed to examine the "conditions" under which the increase in imports occurred.242
7.195.
Ukraine considers that Japan's claims are without merit. Ukraine submits that it has clearly established the sudden, recent, and sharp increase in imported products relative to domestic production. Ukraine contends that it has met its obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards by examining all elements related to the increase in imports.243
7.196.
The Panel has concluded above that the competent authorities' determination of increased imports is inconsistent with Article 2.1. In the light of this, we do not consider it necessary, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings on whether Ukraine, in respect of the same determination, has also acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 4.2(a), and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a). We consequently exercise judicial economy and make no findings with regard to these claims.

7.3.2.2 Claims under Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c)

7.197.
We turn, finally, to Japan's claim that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c) in respect of its determination of the increase in imports.
7.198.
Japan submits that, contrary to what is required by Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c), Ukraine failed to provide a "reasoned and adequate explanation" for the determination of "increased imports". Japan, referring to the Appellate Body Report in US – Steel Safeguards, argues that both Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) apply to the determination of increased imports. Japan points out that according to the Appellate Body the condition that there must be "increased imports" constitutes a pertinent issue of fact and law within the meaning of Article 3.1.244 Japan contends that the published report in this case, i.e. the Notice of 14 March 2013, does not set forth any findings and reasoned conclusions regarding the determination of "increased imports". According to Japan, the Notice merely states that imports of the product concerned increased in 2010 as compared to 2008 relative to domestic production by 37.9% without giving further reasoned explanations and conclusions. Japan notes that, in particular, the Notice does not give any explanation of how the fact that imports decreased in absolute terms by 71% in 2010 compared to 2008, but increased by 38% relative to domestic production, supports the determination that a safeguard measure was warranted.245
7.199.
In response, Ukraine insists that the Notice of 14 March 2013 and the Key Findings contain a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined. Ukraine further argues that a more detailed analysis and its results were presented to the Commission and were the basis for the imposition of the safeguard measure. Ukraine notes, however, that they were confidential and were therefore not disclosed to Japan.246
7.200.
The Panel has concluded above that the competent authorities' determination of increased imports is inconsistent with Article 2.1. In the light of this, we see no need to make findings on whether, in respect of the same determination, Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). We consequently exercise judicial economy and make no findings with regard to these claims.

7.4 CLAIMS RELATING TO THREAT OF SERIOUS INJURY

7.201.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claims related to the manner in which the competent authorities made their findings regarding the serious injury or threat thereof, under Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2 (b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a). We will begin our consideration with the claim under Article 4.2(a), which in our view contains the most specific rules on the injury determination Members must make in a safeguard investigation, that is to say, a determination of whether increased imports cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry.

7.4.1 Claim under Article 4.2(a)

7.202.
Article 4.2(a) provides as follows:

In the investigation to determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry under the terms of this Agreement, the competent authorities shall evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry, in particular, the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment.

7.203.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with, inter alia, Article 4.2(a) in making its serious injury and/or threat of serious injury determination on a number of bases. Japan argues that the competent authorities failed to evaluate all relevant factors. Japan notes that Article 4.2(a) sets out a non-exhaustive list of injury factors that must be evaluated by the competent authorities during a safeguard investigation. According to Japan, however, the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not even refer to one of these factors, the "share of the domestic market taken by the increased imports". Japan further asserts that, while the competent authorities referred to the rate of the increase in imports, they did not refer to, much less evaluate the "amounts" of such increase.247 In Japan's view, evaluation is a process of analysis which requires an examination of the data pertaining to each factor individually and of each factor in relation to the other factors examined.248 Japan submits that, in the Notice, the competent authorities merely listed the rate of increase or decrease for the injury factors without properly evaluating them.249
7.204.
Japan contends that it is not clear from the Notice whether the competent authorities made a finding of serious injury and/or threat of serious injury.250 Japan considers that this failure constitutes in itself a violation of the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Ukraine cannot have provided an adequate and reasoned explanation as to why the facts on the record supported the conclusion it made.251
7.205.
With regard to the competent authorities' determination of threat of serious injury, Japan argues that the determination failed to demonstrate a "significant overall impairment" that is "clearly imminent". Japan argues that the very limited reasoning in the Notice does not show that serious injury was on the very verge of occurring, nor that there was a high degree of likelihood that the anticipated serious injury will materialize in the very near future.252
7.206.
Finally, Japan argues that the competent authorities failed to make a determination based on the recent past by relying on data for the period between 2008 and 2010 while adopting the safeguard measure in 2012 and applying it in April 2013.253 Japan refers to the Appellate Body's statement in US – Lamb that in making a determination of a threat of serious injury the competent authorities should pay particular attention to the data from the most recent past in this regard.
7.207.
Ukraine submits that its competent authorities conducted a proper analysis of the relevant injury factors in making the threat of injury determination.254 Referring to a chart containing a "public summary" of the injury factors analysed by its competent authorities, Ukraine maintains that it did not exclusively rely on end-point-to-end-point comparisons, but analysed the trend over the entire investigation period as well, including the data for the intervening year of 2009.255 According to Ukraine, the deterioration of each of the factors from 2008 to 2010 shows a potential for significant injury, with certain factors such as market share providing the factual basis for a finding that serious injury is "clearly imminent".256 Ukraine adds that, in addition to the worsening condition of the domestic industry, its competent authorities also analysed the capacity for future exports by exporting countries.257
7.208.
With regard to the amounts of the increase, Ukraine argues that further to a request from the domestic industry, this information was treated as confidential under Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article 12 of its Safeguard Law.258
7.209.
According to Ukraine, Japan also fails to give full consideration to the documentation issued by Ukraine. Ukraine maintains that the competent authorities clearly analysed the market share data and stated in the Notice that "the share of domestic production in the domestic market of Ukraine also decreased by 35%".259
7.210.
In response to Japan's argument that Ukraine failed to make an injury determination on the basis of data from the recent past by applying the measure in 2013 on the basis of data from 2008 to 2010, Ukraine submits that Japan should have brought a claim under Articles 5 or 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards dealing with the application of the safeguard measure. According to Ukraine, there can be no doubt that the right to apply a safeguard measure existed at the time the determination was made.260
7.211.
Ukraine also argues that there is no need to make a discrete finding of serious injury or threat of serious injury under the Agreement on Safeguards.261 Ukraine clarifies in this respect that its competent authorities considered that the standards of serious injury were not met incontestably in the present case despite the fact that all relevant factors confirmed the worsening condition of the domestic industry. However, the competent authorities took the view that the standards concerning the threat of serious injury are "remarkably" lower if such threat is shown to be imminent262, and concluded that the worsening of all the relevant injury factors combined with the significant export potential of the notable exporters of motor cars to Ukraine constituted a threat of serious injury.263
7.212.
Japan responds that its claim is not that the competent authorities should have made a finding of serious injury only or threat of serious injury only. Rather, Japan claims that the requirement to give an adequate and reasoned explanation as to why the facts on the record support a determination of serious injury and/or threat thereof necessarily implies that the type of determination made must be clearly identified in the published report.264

7.4.1.1 The competent authorities' determination

7.213.
The Panel will first examine Japan's contention that Ukraine failed to clearly identify in the published report whether the determination was one of serious injury and/or threat of serious injury.
7.214.
As before, we base our evaluation on the Notice of 14 March 2013, which we consider is the published report within the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). So far as the injury analysis is concerned, that document contains two sections. Section 2 is headed "Research on existing or likely future export potential of countries of origin or exporting countries, as well as the possibility that such potential will be used for exports of the Product to Ukraine". As indicated by the heading of this section, the competent authorities analysed in this section the existing or likely future export potential of certain key exporting countries of passenger cars, namely Turkey, Korea, Romania, Germany, Japan, and Russia. The conclusion of that section reads as follows:

Given this, the noted trends in the development of the world automotive industry within the sense of Article 13 § 3(2) of the Law (on Safeguards of Ukraine) confirm that existing or near-future export potential in countries of origin or export countries may be used for exporting automobiles to Ukraine.265

7.215.
The other section on the injury analysis, Section 3, is headed "Examination of trends of Product import to Ukraine affecting the domestic industry and existence of causal link between increased imports of Products to Ukraine and threat of serious injury to the domestic industry".266 In this section, the competent authorities set out an analysis of the relevant injury factors during the period of investigation, i.e. from 2008 to 2010, including the production volume of the domestic industry, capacity utilisation, sales volumes within the domestic market, operating profit, employment, productivity, the volume of imports, and the share of domestic production in the domestic market. The conclusion of that section reads as follows:

In light of the increased import volume of the Product to Ukraine and conditions of such import, the domestic industry was driven out of the domestic market within Ukraine, resulting in a worsening of the poor state of the national industry and a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry.

According to the findings of the investigation carried out by the Ministry, the increase of motor cars imports into Ukraine regardless of country of origin and export, relative to domestic production and demand, was occurring under such conditions and volumes that the imports threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry, which were not caused by other factors.267

7.216.
The heading and conclusion of Section 3 explicitly refer to a finding of "threat of serious injury". Similarly, the analysis of the future export potential of certain exporting countries under Section 2 reflects a forward-looking perspective that is characteristic of a threat of injury analysis. By contrast, nowhere in the injury analysis did the competent authorities make any finding of actual serious injury. In the light of these elements in the Notice, we consider that the competent authorities made a determination of threat of serious injury only. There is no indication in the Notice that they found serious injury, or serious injury and/or a threat of serious injury.
7.217.
This is further confirmed by the unpublished Key Findings.268 Section 3 of the Key Findings is headed "Determination of serious injury or threat thereof". In this section, the competent authorities first analyse the development of the injury factors from 2008 to 2010. The Key Findings then state that:

Taking into account the unique position of the interested parties to the investigation, namely that the worsening financial and economic condition of the domestic producer in 2010 compared to 2008 was connected with the decrease of consumption level of the Product in the Ukrainian market, the Ministry has estimated the possibility of injury caused to the domestic industry in the future, in particular the existing or potential future export potential of the countries of origin or export countries, as well as the possibility of the said potential being used for the export of this product to Ukraine.

In the context of the threat of serious injury in the future, it must be noted that data furnished by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) show that in 2008 and in 2010 no vehicle producing country reduced its production of motor cars to the extent that Ukraine did (by 79%). Taking into account that certain countries decreased their production, they consequently have considerable spare capacities which can be re-directed to export markets including that of Ukraine.269

7.218.
This is followed by further detailed analysis of the export potential of certain key exporting countries including Turkey, Korea, Romania, Germany, Japan, and Russia. On this basis, the competent authorities concluded that:

An analysis of trends in the global development of the automobile industry within the meaning of clause Article 13 § 3(2) of the Law, conducted by the Ministry, showed that the existing or likely future export potential of the countries of origin and export countries, may be possibly utilized for the export of motor cars subject to investigation to Ukraine.

Research results led to the conclusions that the factors defined in Article 13 § 3 of the Law and Article 4 § 1 of the Agreement with regard to the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry, were present."270

7.219.
In our view, such references as "the possibility of injury caused to the domestic industry in the future", and "in the context of the threat of serious injury in the future" indicate that the competent authorities sought to establish a finding of threat of serious injury. Moreover, we note that the last sentence of the Key Findings cited above states that "[r]esearch results led to the conclusions that the factors … with regard to the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry, were present". It is thus clear to us that the conclusion reached is one of threat of serious injury.
7.220.
In the light of the above, and in spite of the fact that there might have been some initial ambiguities in this respect resulting from the Notice of Initiation, we find that in the Notice of 14 March 2013 the competent authorities identified sufficiently clearly that they made an affirmative determination of a threat of serious injury. Consequently, we reject Japan's argument that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards because it failed to clearly identify in the published report whether the determination made was one of serious injury and/or threat of serious injury.
7.221.
We note that Japan makes arguments concerning both the competent authorities' analysis of serious injury and their analysis of threat of serious injury. As we have found above that the competent authorities made only a finding of a threat of serious injury in the Notice of 14 March 2013, we will address Japan's claim only insofar as it concerns the threat of serious injury determination.

7.4.1.2 Analysis of threat of serious injury

7.222.
Article 4.1(b), which defines "threat of serious injury" and sets out certain requirements for a determination of such threat, reads:

"threat of serious injury" shall be understood to mean serious injury that is clearly imminent, in accordance with the provisions of [Article 4.2]. A determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility.

This definition refers to "serious injury" which is defined, in turn, in Article 4.1(a) as follows:

"serious injury" shall be understood to mean a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic industry.

Thus, a competent authority making a determination of threat of injury must establish (i) the clear imminence of (ii) significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic industry.

7.4.1.2.1 "Significant overall impairment"

7.223.
We begin our examination with the second element, "significant overall impairment". The parties disagree on whether the standard of injury for a finding of threat of serious injury is lower than or the same as for a finding of actual serious injury. Ukraine considers that it is widely recognized that the standard for a finding of threat of serious injury" is remarkably lower than for a finding of "serious injury", provided that such threat is shown to be imminent.271 Japan argues that the Appellate Body in US – Lamb when addressing the concept of "serious injury" referred to a "very high standard of injury". According to Japan, this very high standard applies equally to serious injury and the threat thereof.272
7.225.
Regarding the concept of "serious injury", the Appellate Body has on several occasions underscored the very high standard of injury embodied by the concept of serious injury. In US – Wheat Gluten, the Appellate Body referred to that standard as "exacting".273 In US – Lamb, the Appellate Body reaffirmed this high standard in the context of "threat of serious injury", observing that:

[T]he word "injury" is qualified by the adjective "serious", which, in our view, underscores the extent and degree of "significant overall impairment" that the domestic industry must be suffering, or must be about to suffer, for the standard to be met.

We are fortified in our view that the standard of "serious injury" in the Agreement on Safeguards is a very high one when we contrast this standard with the standard of "material injury" envisaged under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "SCM Agreement") and the GATT 1994. We believe that the word "serious" connotes a much higher standard of injury than the word "material". Moreover, we submit that it accords with the object and purpose of the Agreement on Safeguards that the injury standard for the application of a safeguard measure should be higher than the injury standard for anti-dumping or countervailing measures ….274

The Appellate Body in the same dispute further stated that:

[I]n making a determination on either the existence of "serious injury" or on a "threat" thereof, panels must always be mindful of the very high standard of injury implied by these terms.275

7.226.
Having clarified that in common with the concept of "serious injury" the concept of "threat of serious injury" reflects a very high level of injury to be established, it is necessary to look in more detail at the difference between these two concepts. In US – Line Pipe, the Appellate Body underscored that the respective definitions of "serious injury" and "threat of serious injury" must be given independent meaning and stated that:

[T]hese two definitions reflect the reality of how injury occurs to a domestic industry. In the sequence of events facing a domestic industry, it is fair to assume that, often, there is a continuous progression of injurious effects eventually rising and culminating in what can be determined to be "serious injury". Serious injury does not generally occur suddenly. Present serious injury is often preceded in time by an injury that threatens clearly and imminently to become serious injury, as we indicated in US – Lamb. Serious injury is, in other words, often the realization of a threat of serious injury. Although, in each case, the investigating authority will come to the conclusion that follows from the investigation carried out in compliance with Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the precise point where a "threat of serious injury" becomes "serious injury" may sometimes be difficult to discern. But, clearly, "serious injury" is something beyond a "threat of serious injury".

In our view, defining "threat of serious injury" separately from "serious injury" serves the purpose of setting a lower threshold for establishing the right to apply a safeguard measure. Our reading of the balance struck in the Agreement on Safeguards leads us to conclude that this was done by the Members in concluding the Agreement so that an importing Member may act sooner to take preventive action when increased imports pose a "threat" of "serious injury" to a domestic industry, but have not yet caused "serious injury". And, since a "threat" of "serious injury" is defined as "serious injury" that is "clearly imminent", it logically follows, to us, that "serious injury" is a condition that is above that lower threshold of a "threat". A "serious injury" is beyond a "threat", and, therefore, is above the threshold of a "threat" that is required to establish a right to apply a safeguard measure.276 (Emphasis added; original emphasis omitted)

7.227.
In our view, the Appellate Body's reference to a "lower threshold for establishing the right to apply a safeguard measure" is in respect of the fact that, by definition, a finding of a "threat" of serious injury allows a Member to apply a safeguard measure even though there is not yet any observable serious injury, although such serious injury is clearly imminent, or "just around the corner", as it were. The Agreement on Safeguards reserves this right to Members so that they may take protective action to prevent imminent serious injury rather than wait for serious injury to materialize and then remedy it afterwards. It is in this sense of enabling such preventative action even though there is no actual serious injury that we understand the Appellate Body to have referred to the Agreement setting a lower threshold.
7.228.
Significantly, however, neither the Agreement nor logic suggests that merely because the Agreement allows application of a safeguard measure even before serious injury has actually occurred, the relevant degree of injury should be easier to demonstrate in such cases. Indeed, this would have the perverse consequence of making it more difficult for a Member whose domestic industry is already suffering actual serious injury to apply a safeguard measure than it would be for the same Member in a case where the same domestic industry is facing a threat of serious injury, but not yet experiencing such injury. We also find relevant Article 4.1(b), which states that a "determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility". In our view, this requirement confirms that a threat of serious injury determination must be grounded in facts, just like a finding of serious injury.
7.229.
Moreover, we note that Articles 3.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 15.8 of the SCM Agreement specifically indicate that "special care" should be taken when deciding to apply anti-dumping or countervailing measures in threat of material injury cases.277 In our view, "special care" is warranted because a determination of a threat of material injury requires no demonstration of actual, or present, material injury, and there always remains the possibility that the threatened injury would not actually materialize for reasons that were not foreseen at the time of the determination. The same possibility logically exists in the context of a determination of a threat of serious injury in a safeguard investigation. We recognize that neither Article 4.2(a) nor any other provision of the Safeguard Agreement contains the phrase "special care". Nonetheless, the similarities between the definitions and analysis of material injury and threat thereof in the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, and those of serious injury and threat thereof in the Agreement on Safeguards underscore and support our concern about Ukraine's view that it should be easier to establish a threat of serious injury than actual serious injury.
7.230.
In sum, we agree that the concept of "threat of serious injury" implies a lower threshold for establishing the right to apply a safeguard measure, in the sense that it allows a Member to apply a safeguard measure even in the absence of demonstrated serious injury. But, for the reasons explained above, we are unable to agree that the Agreement on Safeguards makes threat of serious injury easier to establish than actual serious injury, such that it would be easier to justify the application of a measure in situations where no actual serious injury has arisen, but a threat thereof exists. In our view, the nature and extent of "serious injury" is the same in both cases – only the timing of that injury is different in the two contexts. Thus, we consider that in both contexts a Member must be able to demonstrate the same elements regarding serious injury. In the threat context, it must be demonstrated in addition that such injury is "clearly imminent". And, like a determination of present serious injury, a determination of threat must be based on facts. In that regard, of course, it must be kept in mind that by its nature, a finding of a threat of serious injury is a forward-looking predictive finding based on facts concerning the present state of the domestic industry.

7.4.1.2.2 "Clearly imminent"

7.231.
Regarding the other element of the definition of the concept of "threat of serious injury", which is that serious injury must be "clearly imminent", we recall that the Appellate Body found in US – Lamb that:

The word 'imminent' relates to the moment in time when the 'threat' is likely to materialize. The use of this word implies that the anticipated "serious injury" must be on the very verge of occurring. Moreover, we see the word 'clearly', which qualifies the word 'imminent', as an indication that there must be a high degree of likelihood that the anticipated serious injury will materialize in the very near future. We also note that Article 4.1(b) provides that any determination of a threat of serious injury 'shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility.' To us, the word 'clearly' relates also to the factual demonstration of the existence of the 'threat'. Thus, the phrase 'clearly imminent' indicates that, as a matter of fact, it must be manifest that the domestic industry is on the brink of suffering serious injury.278

7.232.
Thus, in making a determination of a threat of serious injury the competent authorities need to demonstrate, on the basis of facts rather than conjecture, that serious injury is highly likely to occur in the very near future, unless protective action is taken. In our view, this specific inquiry involves not only an assessment of historical and existing facts but also involves making fact-based projections concerning future developments in the domestic industry's condition.

7.4.1.2.3 Evaluation of relevant factors in a threat of serious injury determination

7.233.
Before examining the competent authorities' determination of threat of serious injury in the investigation at issue, we wish to highlight one further element. Article 4.2(a) provides as follows:

In the investigation to determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry under the terms of this Agreement, the competent authorities shall evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry, in particular, the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment.279

7.235.
In this context, we consider that data pertaining to the latter part of the period of investigation are of particular relevance to assessing the likely immediate future developments in the injury factors for an analysis of a threat of serious injury.281

7.4.1.3 The competent authorities' analysis of threat of serious injury

7.236.
With the above considerations in mind, we now go on to examine whether the competent authorities' determination of a threat of serious injury in the present case satisfies the requirements of Article 4.2(a).
7.237.
Japan argues that the competent authorities failed to examine all relevant factors, in particular the "amounts" of the increase in imports and the "share of the domestic market taken by increased imports".282 Regarding the amounts of the increase, Japan submits that both the amounts and rate of increase are relevant factors to be evaluated. Japan submits that, depending on the amounts, the relative increase in the present case may not be significant.283
7.238.
Furthermore, Japan submits that Ukraine failed to evaluate the injury factors, especially the intervening trends over the period of investigation. Japan asserts that the competent authorities' injury analysis in the Notice of 14 March 2013 consists of merely reporting the rate of change between 2008 and 2010, which in Japan's view does not amount to an "evaluation". In Japan's view, an "evaluation" implies (i) an assessment of the role, relevance and relative weight of each factor, and (ii) an analysis of data through placing it in context in terms of the particular evolution of the data pertaining to each factor individually, as well as in relation to other factors.284 Japan argues in particular that an examination of the intervening trend during the period of investigation is indispensable in making a determination of serious injury or threat of serious injury.285
7.239.
Japan also argues that Ukraine failed to demonstrate, on the basis of data from the recent past, that a significant overall impairment was clearly imminent. In this connection, Japan observes that neither the Notice nor the Key Findings contain any analysis of the data for 2010 in comparison to 2009.286 According to Japan, an analysis of that information was particularly important in view of the positive trend in certain of the injury factors at the end of the period of investigation. Furthermore, Japan argues that the Notice and the Key Findings do not contain a prospective analysis as to why the future evolution of injury factors indicates a high degree of likelihood that serious injury is on the verge of occurring.287 Japan notes that the Notice contains a section on the export potential of certain exporting countries, but provides no explanation as to why that potential would be used for exports to Ukraine, and how the domestic industry would be affected by such future exports, as reflected in the injury factors, so as to justify the conclusion that serious injury was clearly imminent.288 Finally, Japan argues that Ukraine failed to base its measure on a finding of a threat of serious injury based on data from the recent past, since it applied the measure from 2013 on the basis of data relating to the period 2008-2010.289
7.240.
Ukraine responds that its competent authorities made a proper determination of threat of serious injury and that all relevant factors were examined, based on the facts on the record, in making this determination. With regard to the amounts of the increase in imports, Ukraine contends that it treated this information as confidential, based on the request of the domestic industry, but provided an indexed, non-confidential summary.290 Concerning the "share of the domestic market taken by the increased imports", Ukraine argues that Japan fails to give full consideration to the documentation issued by Ukraine, in which it clearly analysed the market share indicator and stated that "the share of domestic production in the domestic market of Ukraine also decreased by 35%".291
7.241.
Ukraine further argues that its competent authorities did not exclusively rely on end-point-to-end-point comparisons.292 Ukraine maintains that its competent authorities conducted a proper analysis of the data trend, as evidenced by its public summary of the evolution of all injury factors, which it provided to Japan during the course of the consultations preceding the establishment of the Panel.293 Ukraine considers that the deterioration of each of the factors from 2008 to 2010 shows a potential for significant injury.294 In particular, Ukraine points out that the smallest decrease from 2008 to 2010 was the decrease in market share of 35.45%. According to Ukraine, certain factors in particular (including market share) provide the factual basis justifying the finding that serious injury was 'clearly imminent'.295 Finally, Ukraine argues that, in addition to the worsening condition of the domestic industry, its competent authorities also analysed the export capacity in the exporting countries.296
7.242.
In response, Japan notes that the public summary referred to by Ukraine and the related explanation in Ukraine's first written submission were not included in the Notice or the Key Findings, and are consequently irrelevant for the Panel's assessment.297
7.243.
The Panel will start by examining the relevant sections of the Notice of 14 March 2013. As mentioned above in paragraph 7,214, the competent authorities' injury analysis is contained in two separate sections of the Notice. Section 2 analyses the existing or likely future export potential of certain key countries exporting passenger cars to Ukraine, namely Turkey, Korea, Romania, Germany, Japan and Russia.298 The competent authorities started from the premise that these countries had reduced their production during the period of investigation and consequently had considerable spare capacity that could be re-directed to export markets, including Ukraine. For each of these exporting countries, the Notice then analyses the production and export development from 2008 to 2010. In addition, for Turkey and Korea, the Notice infers from their increased share in total imports into Ukraine that the Ukrainian market was attractive to them. For Romania, the Notice infers from the increased share of exports in its total production that Romania's car industry was export-oriented. Further details regarding the analysis of the competent authorities are summarized in the table below.

Exporting Country299Analysis in the Notice of Imposition of 14 March 2013
Turkey - Production dropped from 622,000 in 2008 to 603,000 cars in 2010; - In the meantime, exports dropped from 526,000 (85% of total production) to 440,000 cars (73% of total production); - Share of Turkish cars in the total imports into Ukraine increased by 17% from 2008 to 2010, showing the attractiveness of the Ukrainian market for Turkish exporters.
Korea, Republic of - Production increased from 3,450,000 in 2008 to 3,866,000 cars in 2010; - In the meantime, exports increased from 2,509,000 (73% of total production) to 2,611,000 cars (68% of total production). - Share of Korean cars in the total imports into Ukraine increased by 79% from 2008 to 2010, showing the attractiveness of the Ukrainian market for Korean exporters.
Romania - Production increased from 231,000 in 2008 to 324,000 in 2010; - In the meantime, exports increased from 154,000 cars (67% of total production) to 290,000 cars (90% of total production). - The increase of the share of exports shows the export-oriented nature of the Romanian industry. - The share of Romanian cars in the total imports into Ukraine increased by 33% from 2008 to 2010.
Germany - Production increased from 5,532,000 cars in 2008 to 5,552,000 cars in 2010; - In the meantime, exports increased from 4,132,000 cars (75% of total production) to 4,239,000 cars (76% of total production); - The share of German cars in the total imports into Ukraine increased by 197%, reaching 12%.
Japan - Production decreased from 9,916,000 cars in 2008 to 8,307,000 cars in 2010; - In the meantime, exports decreased from 5,915,000 cars (60% of total production) to 4,272,000 cars (51% of total production). - The share of Japanese cars in the total imports into Ukraine was 15% in 2010. The numbers show that Japanese producers are able to increase production and, possibly, use existing capacity to export to foreign markets, including Ukraine.
Russian Federation - Production decreased from 1,470,000 cars in 2008 to 1,210,000 cars in 2010. - Exports to Ukraine were 17,000 cars in 2010. - Production capacity was 1,979,600 in 2009 and is planned to increase to 3,150,000 in 2020 according to the "Development Strategy for the Automotive Industry in the Russian Federation by 2020". Approximately 8% of the total production (252,000 cars) is planned for export, mainly to CIS countries. - Existing trends in the development of the Russian automotive industry suggest that Russia's production capacity will likely be used for export of automobiles, inter alia, to Ukraine.

7.244.
In Section 3 of the Notice300, the competent authorities analysed the development of the relevant injury factors during the period of investigation, i.e. 2008-2010. That analysis reads as follows:

The following indicators in 2010 as compared to 2008 provide evidence of the negative impact of imports of the Product to Ukraine on the domestic industry:

- Production volume of the domestic industry decreased by 78.9%;

- Capacity utilization decreased by 74.86%;

- Sales volumes within the domestic market decreased by 86.33%;

- Operating profit decreased by 89.9%;

- Employment decreased by 51.56%;

- Productivity numbers fell by 46.3%.

At the same time, the volume of imports of motor cars to Ukraine in absolute terms in 2010 compared to 2008 decreased by 71%, but increased by 38% in relation to domestic production within Ukraine. The demand for the Product within Ukraine's domestic market fell by 78.8% between 2008 and 2010, while the share of domestic production in the domestic market of Ukraine also decreased by 35%.

In light of the increased import volume of the Product to Ukraine and conditions of such import, the domestic industry was driven out of the domestic market within Ukraine, resulting in a worsening of the poor state of the national industry and a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry.301

7.245.
In considering the above analysis, it is important to note that it compares the situation of the domestic industry in 2010 to its situation in 2008, but does not contain any data or analysis regarding the intervening period, nor any trends.
7.246.
Examining Sections 2 and 3 of the Notice together, we note that the competent authorities' determination of a threat of serious injury in the present case rests on two findings: one regarding the situation of the domestic industry, which had seen a deterioration in all relevant injury factors from 2008 to 2010; and the other regarding the export potential of certain exporting countries, primarily on the basis of the development of their production and exports between 2008 and 2010. The Notice concludes from these two findings that the worsening of the situation of the domestic industry coupled with the export potential of certain exporting countries supports a finding of a threat of serious injury.
7.247.
As the parties have also made reference to the Key Findings, we observe that they follow essentially the same structure and have essentially the same content as the Notice with regard to the injury analysis.302

7.4.1.3.1 The share of the domestic market taken by increased imports

7.249.
Among the mandatory injury factors that competent authorities must evaluate are the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, and the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms. Regarding the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, the Notice states only that "the share of domestic production in the domestic market of Ukraine also decreased by 35%". However, this does not describe "the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports" as contemplated by Article 4.2(a). The text requires consideration of the market share of increased imports, not the percentage change in the domestic industry's market share. In any event, the fact that domestic market share was 35% lower in 2010 than in 2008 does not necessarily mean that imports picked up the market share that the domestic industry lost. Where, as in the present case, not all domestic producers (or production) are part of the domestic industry as defined by the competent authorities305, it is possible that the domestic industry as defined lost market share to other domestic producers (or domestic production) not part of the domestic industry, in addition to losing market share to imports Finally and significantly, the Notice provides no analysis or projection as to the likely development of the import market share in the very near future.
7.250.
Ukraine states that its domestic industry requested confidential treatment of "the domestic industry's production and sales in Ukraine, as well as other [sensitive] information concerning the domestic industry".306 However, this statement about information relating to the domestic industry does not suggest to us that the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports was covered by the domestic industry's request. Ukraine further asserts that "the specific market shares are confidential pursuant to Article 3.2 of the Agreement [on Safeguards] and Article 12 of the [Safeguards] Law".307 In the absence of any explanation by Ukraine, we also fail to see how the import market share in this case could be considered to be "by nature confidential" within the meaning of Article 3.2. And even if it could be considered confidential in some cases, the import market share is one of the injury factors that is identified in Article 4.2(a) and that must be evaluated by the competent authorities, whether on the basis of confidential or public information. That evaluation must then be published under Article 4.2(c), which may be constrained by the need to protect confidential information, but must nonetheless be complied with. In any event, we note that Ukraine itself submitted a private-sector publication from 2012 that contains market share data of individual producers of passenger cars for 2010 and 2011, including for imported brands, and even gives the production volumes in units of domestic producers.308
7.251.
Ukraine also argues that if its competent authorities had provided the absolute figures of any "relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of [the domestic] industry", confidential data of the domestic industry would be "vulnerable to a simple numerical analysis".309 However, it is not apparent to us how the disclosure of the import market share in the present dispute could reveal the market share of the domestic industry, since the domestic market in the present dispute comprises (i) the domestic industry as defined in the Notice of Imposition (composed of three producers, namely ZAZ CJSC, Eurocar CJSC, and a subsidiary of Bogdan Motors310), (ii) domestic producers or production not forming part of the domestic industry as defined in the Notice of Imposition311, and (iii) imports. In such a situation, to derive the market share of the domestic industry that requested confidential treatment of its data, one would need to know both the import market share and the market share of the domestic producers (or domestic production) not forming part of the domestic industry as defined in the Notice of Imposition.
7.252.
For all these reasons, we find that the competent authorities have failed to properly evaluate, and give a reasoned explanation of, the likely development of the import market share and its likely effect on the situation of the domestic industry in the very near future.

7.4.1.3.2 The rate and amount of the increase in imports

7.253.
Regarding the rate and amount of the increase in imports, our analysis will focus on the rate of the increase, because Ukraine provided no information on the amount of the increase, following a request from the domestic industry to treat such information as confidential.312 Concerning the rate of the increase in imports, we note that the only reference in the Notice to this factor is that imports decreased by 71% in absolute terms in 2010 compared to 2008, but increased by 38% relative to the production of the domestic industry. The Notice contains no analysis or projections of the likely imminent future development of imports, either in absolute terms, or relative to domestic production.
7.254.
In our view, the rate and amount of an increase in imports during the period of investigation may indicate a likelihood of increased importation into the domestic market in the very near future. We therefore consider that the rate and amount of an increase in imports are relevant also to an analysis of threat of serious injury.313 Thus, in a situation where imports have increased relative to domestic production during the period of investigation, there may be a basis for concluding that the trend will continue in the very near future. As we have noted, however, there is no such conclusion in the Notice. We express no opinion as to whether a conclusion that imports were likely to continue to increase relative to domestic production (or in absolute terms) could have been made in the present case. Even if such a conclusion could have been drawn, it is not sufficient for the competent authorities to have merely noted the percentage of the relative increase without explaining what inferences were drawn from it with regard to the likely development of imports in the imminent future. As the Appellate Body has pointed out, "[a] panel must not be left to wonder why a safeguard measure has been applied".314
7.255.
Therefore, we find that the competent authorities have failed to properly evaluate and give a reasoned explanation of, the likely development of imports, either in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and their likely effect on the situation of the domestic industry in the very near future.

7.4.1.3.3 Capacity of key exporting countries to generate exports

7.256.
The Notice discusses the capacity of key exporting countries to generate exports. In our view, this information is relevant to consideration of the likelihood of further increased imports in the future, and thus is a "relevant factor" within the meaning of Article 4.2(a) that has a bearing on the likely future situation of the domestic industry. Clearly, the current or imminent capacity of exporting countries to export will affect the likelihood of substantially increased exports to the importing Member's market, and thus is relevant to the question of threat of serious injury. As Article 4.2(a) requires competent authorities to consider "all" relevant factors, it does not matter that this is not a factor explicitly identified in Article 4.2(a).315
7.257.
Nonetheless, there is an important caveat. A demonstration that exporting countries have or soon will have capacity to produce and/or export is not sufficient by itself to show that imports to the Member considering whether to impose a safeguard measure are likely to continue at an increased level or to increase further. This is because the export potential of exporting countries will not necessarily give rise to an increase in imports to the importing Member considering imposing a safeguard measure, since there may be other markets which together or alone can absorb all additional exports. In our view, this is a consideration that would also be relevant in the context of a safeguard investigation such as is at issue in this dispute.
7.258.
Turning to the dispute before us, the Notice provides information on the development of the production and exports of certain exporting countries. Japan and Russia showed a decrease in production and exports during the period of investigation, and the Notice implies that existing spare capacity in these two countries could be re-directed to export markets, including that of Ukraine. There is no analysis of spare or future additional export capacity of the other exporting countries considered, i.e. Turkey, Korea, Romania and Germany.316
7.259.
The Notice refers to the attractiveness of Ukraine as an export market in addressing Turkey's and Korea's export potential, referring to the increase of Turkey's and Korea's shares in total imports into Ukraine as evidence of the attractiveness of the Ukrainian market to producers in these two countries. However, changes in their share of total imports into Ukraine do not necessarily indicate the attractiveness of Ukraine as an export market for Turkish or Korean producers. Their increased shares might merely reflect a redistribution of import shares among the key exporting countries.317
7.260.
In any event, even if Ukraine's market were particularly attractive to Turkey and Korea, it does not follow that the same would be true for Japan and Russia. Yet it was those countries that the competent authorities determined to have the capacity to increase exports, which could, of course, be directed to any export markets, and not only to Ukraine. However, there is no discussion in the Notice of the availability or attractiveness of other export markets as compared to the Ukrainian market. Other markets could be as attractive as Ukraine's (or more so), such that additional exports from Japan and/or Russia might be directed to those markets.
7.261.
Finally, in the overall conclusion, the Notice refers to existing or near-future export potential of exporting countries that "may be" used for exporting passenger cars to Ukraine.318 Thus, the Notice concluded that there was a possibility, or a potential, to export, but does not reach a conclusion on the likelihood of a future increase in exports to Ukraine's market arising from that export potential.319 Thus this section of the Notice does not demonstrate, in terms of the Appellate Body's decision in US – Lamb, that there is "a high degree of likelihood" that an increase in exports of passenger cars to Ukraine "will materialize in the very near future".320
7.262.
In sum, the Notice determines that there was capacity in certain exporting countries (namely Japan and Russia) to export more, but fails to consider whether any increased exports were likely to enter Ukraine's market, for instance by addressing the availability of other export markets to absorb additional exports from these countries. With respect to other exporting countries, the Notice does not address, at all, whether they might have the capacity to export increased quantities to Ukraine, noting only that Ukraine's market was "attractive" to Korean and Turkish producers – a conclusion that is open to question, as discussed above. The Notice therefore fails to properly assess the likelihood of a future increase in exports to Ukraine's market, and in fact reaches no conclusion in this respect.
7.263.
In our view, the failure of the competent authorities to assess (i) whether the facts before them indicated a current, and/or projected, increase in capacity to export on the part of relevant exporting countries; and (ii) whether other export markets are available that could absorb additional exports from these countries, rather than or in addition to the Ukrainian market, leaves unclear how the information on export capacity in exporting countries was considered in the determination of threat of serious injury.
7.264.
For all these reasons, we find that the competent authorities have failed to properly evaluate, and give a reasoned explanation of, the increase in the very near future in exports to Ukraine's market, anticipated to arise from current or imminent capacity of exporting countries to export.

7.4.1.3.4 Injury factors pertaining directly to the situation of the domestic industry

7.265.
We will now consider the competent authorities' evaluation of the factors that relate directly to the situation of the domestic industry, specifically, production volume, capacity utilization, domestic unit sales, operating profit, employment, and labour productivity. The analysis of these injury factors in the Notice consists of a simple end-point-to-end-point comparison of the data for 2008 and 2010, and the implication that the direction and extent of the change in these factors are evidence of a negative impact of imports on the domestic industry. The Notice notably provides no projections as to likely developments in these factors in the very near future. Thus, the Notice fails to evaluate and give a reasoned explanation of the likely developments in these factors and their likely effect on the situation of the domestic industry in the very near future.
7.266.
The absence of such an evaluation assumes particular significance in view of information that Ukraine has submitted to the Panel in the present proceedings. That information shows that, from 2009-2010 - towards the end of the period of investigation - the condition of the Ukrainian industry was improving with regard to several of the relevant factors identified, namely production, capacity utilization, labour productivity, and operating profit (income from operational activity), as shown in the following table:321

Indicator200820092010
Production, units [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--81.3-78.9
Capacity utilization, % [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--79.30-74.86
Domestic sales, units [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--83.76-86.33
Employment [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--37.63-51.56
Labour productivity, units per employed [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--71.1-46.3
Income from operational activity, USD [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--116.2-89.9
Market share, % [ ] [ ] [ ]
Change compared to 2008, %--2.16-35.45

7.267.
However, there is no recognition or discussion of these improvements in the Notice. As we discussed above, the more recent data from the period of investigation are of particular relevance to an analysis of a threat of serious injury. In these circumstances, the competent authorities should have provided some explanation in the published report as to why, despite positive developments in respect of several injury factors towards the end of the period of investigation, they concluded that it was likely that the situation of the domestic industry would deteriorate in the imminent future to a condition of serious injury.
7.268.
In this context, we find relevant the following observation by the Appellate Body in US – Lamb:

[D]ata relating to the most recent past will provide competent authorities with an essential, and, usually, the most reliable, basis for a determination of a threat of serious injury. The likely state of the domestic industry in the very near future can best be gauged from data from the most recent past. Thus, we agree with the Panel that, in principle, within the period of investigation as a whole, evidence from the most recent past will provide the strongest indication of the likely future state of the domestic industry.

However, we believe that, although data from the most recent past has special importance, competent authorities should not consider such data in isolation from the data pertaining to the entire period of investigation. The real significance of the short-term trends in the most recent data, evident at the end of the period of investigation, may only emerge when those short-term trends are assessed in the light of the longer-term trends in the data for the whole period of investigation. If the most recent data is evaluated in isolation, the resulting picture of the domestic industry may be quite misleading.322

7.270.
For these reasons, we find that the competent authorities have failed to properly evaluate, and give a reasoned explanation of, the likely developments in the injury factors relating directly to the situation of the domestic industry and the likely effect of these developments on the situation of the domestic industry in the very near future.

7.4.1.3.5 Overall conclusion

7.271.
Overall, we thus find that the competent authorities have failed to properly evaluate and give a reasoned explanation of their conclusions regarding: the likely future development of imports relative to domestic production; the import market share; the examined injury factors that relate directly to the position of the domestic industry; and their bearing on the likely situation of the domestic industry in the very near future. Consequently, we agree with Japan that the competent authorities did not properly evaluate all relevant factors; did not evaluate the intervening trends for relevant injury factors in circumstances where it was appropriate to do so; and did not properly demonstrate a significant overall impairment in the position of the domestic industry that was clearly imminent. We therefore conclude that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(a).
7.272.
Having concluded that the competent authorities have acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(a), we see no need to make additional findings regarding whether the competent authorities have also acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(a) by failing to base their finding of a threat of serious injury on data from the recent past.

7.4.2 Claims under Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(b), 4.2(c), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a)

7.273.
The Panel now turns to the remainder of the claims relating to Ukraine's determination of a threat of serious injury. We first address, jointly, Japan's claims under Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a).

7.4.2.1 Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(b), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a)

7.274.
Japan also argues that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(b), and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) in its determination of serious injury or threat thereof.323
7.275.
Ukraine responds that it acted in conformity with the requirements of each of those provisions.324
7.276.
The Panel notes that it found that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(a) because, inter alia, it has not demonstrated a significant overall impairment in the position of the domestic industry that is clearly imminent. In the light of this, we see no need, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to offer additional findings regarding whether Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(b), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) in relation to its threat of serious injury determination. We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings with respect to these claims.

7.4.2.2 Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c)

7.277.
The Panel turns, finally, to Japan's claims under Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c).
7.278.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2 (c) by failing to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation as to how the facts support a determination of a threat of serious injury in its published report.325 Japan puts forward three arguments in support of this claim. The first is that the published report contained only the changes in indicators by reference to the changes in percentages between 2008 and 2010, and that no data were provided for 2009. Japan's second argument is that data provided by Ukraine in its first written submission regarding 2009 reveal that this data could and should have been provided in the published report.326 Japan's final argument is that Ukraine failed to provide any absolute figures even in aggregate form.
7.279.
Ukraineargues that the information stated above was treated as confidential information under the Agreement on Safeguards and the Ukrainian Safeguards Law, following a request from the domestic industry. Ukraine submits that such information could not have been disclosed without the permission from the domestic industry.327 According to Ukraine, the non-confidential figures regarding the domestic production of passenger cars published by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine and the association of car manufacturers represent the aggregate data.328
7.280.
In response, Japan argues that protection of confidential information cannot be a justification not to comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c).329
7.281.
The Panel recalls that it found above that Ukraine has not demonstrated, through reasoned and adequate explanations, a significant overall impairment in the position of the domestic industry that is clearly imminent. In the light of this, we see no need, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings regarding whether Ukraine also acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) in relation to the account it gave of the aforementioned determination in its published report. We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings with respect to these claims.

7.5 CLAIMS RELATING TO CAUSATION

7.282.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claims relating to the competent authorities' determination of the causal link between increased imports and the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry. While it is true that, as the Appellate Body noted in Argentina – Footwear (EC), "[i]t would be difficult, indeed, to demonstrate a 'causal link' between 'increased imports' that did not occur and 'serious injury' that did not exist"330, unlike the panel in that case, here, we have not determined that there were no increased imports of passenger cars into Ukraine. Nor have we determined that there was no threat of serious injury to the Ukrainian industry. What we have concluded, inter alia, is that Ukraine's competent authorities failed to fully examine the facts and provide adequate explanations in support of their determinations of increased imports and threat of serious injury. In these circumstances, we consider it useful to go on to consider the determination of causation, in the interest of effective dispute resolution, for the benefit of eventual implementation of any DSB recommendations and rulings in this case by the competent authorities. We therefore proceed to an analysis of Japan's claims relating to causation.
7.283.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) regarding the determination of the causal link between the increased imports and the threat of serious injury because (i) it failed to demonstrate the existence of a causal link between the increased imports and the threat of serious injury, in particular, by not examining the conditions of competition between the domestic and imported products; and (ii) it failed to ensure that injury caused, or threatened to be caused, by factors other than the increased imports was not attributed to the increased imports. Japan also claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) by failing to provide reasoned and adequate explanations in its published report.331
7.284.
Ukraine responds that, first, there was a clear correlation between the increase in imports and the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry producing a directly competitive product and, second, it ensured that any injury caused by other factors was not attributed to the increased imports. Consequently, Ukraine requests the Panel to reject Japan's claims under Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a).332
7.285.
The Panel will begin its analysis by examining Japan's claims under Article 4.2(b), since it sets forth specific obligations relating to the required determination of causation.

7.5.1 Claims under Article 4.2(b)

7.286.
Article 4.2(b) provides as follows:

The determination referred to in subparagraph (a) [of Article 4] shall not be made unless this investigation demonstrates, on the basis of objective evidence, the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product concerned and serious injury or threat thereof. When factors other than increased imports are causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time, such injury shall not be attributed to increased imports.

7.287.
Thus, Article 4.2(b) establishes two distinct legal requirements that competent authorities must fulfil before deciding to apply a safeguard measure. First, they must demonstrate the "existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product concerned and serious injury or threat thereof". Second, when factors other than increased imports are causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time, the competent authorities must not attribute injury caused by these other factors to increased imports.333
7.288.
We will first address Japan's claim regarding the existence of a causal link and will then consider Japan's claim regarding Ukraine's failure to conduct a proper non-attribution analysis.

7.5.1.1 Demonstration of the existence of a causal link

7.290.
Japan also argues that the threat of serious injury must be the result of an increase in imports, which in turn must come as a result of unforeseen developments that change the conditions of competition between the imported and domestic products. Japan submits that since Ukraine failed to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments and a change in the competitive relationship between the domestic and imported products, it could not correctly perform the causation analysis.338
7.291.
Ukraine submits that imports of passenger cars increased in 2010 by 38% relative to Ukrainian domestic passenger car production compared to 2008, although imports decreased by 71% in absolute terms.339 Ukraine argues that this relative increase in imports coincided in time with the significant overall impairment of the domestic industry. According to Ukraine, WTO jurisprudence confirms that such coincidence amounts to a prima facie demonstration of causation. Ukraine submits that it is for Japan to demonstrate that despite this correlation in time, Ukraine's causation analysis was in any way "wanting".340
7.292.
As regards Japan's arguments regarding the analysis of the conditions of competition, Ukraine responds that the conditions in this case were such that there cannot be any doubt about the direct effect in terms of sales and prices between imported and domestic products. Ukraine submits that there exists a relationship between the depth of detail and degree of specificity required in a causation analysis and the breadth and heterogeneity of the like or directly competitive product definition, such that if products are narrowly defined, as they were in this case, not much analysis of the conditions of competition is required.341
7.293.
Japan responds to Ukraine's arguments regarding the "clear coincidence" in time between the increase in imports and the impairment of the domestic industry by stating that such a coincidence by itself cannot prove causation, and that its absence may be of importance because it creates "serious doubts as to the existence of a causal link".342 Japan submits that Ukraine ignores the fact that although there was an increase in imports in relation to domestic production and consumption, there was at the same time a substantial decrease in imports in absolute terms. Japan considers that the competent authorities did not make any analysis as to the relevance of this decrease, either in the Notice of 14 March 2013 or the Key Findings.343
7.294.
Japan argues that this failure is compounded by the fact that between 2008 and 2009, imports actually decreased even in relative terms. Japan also points out that while the injury indicators deteriorated between 2008 and 2009, most of them actually improved between 2009 and 2010. Therefore Japan submits that there is no clear coincidence in time between the movements in imports and the movements in the injury factors. For Japan, this "disconnect" would have required a compelling explanation as to why a causal link existed in a situation where imports increased relative to domestic production during 2010, when most of the injury factors were actually improving. Japan submits that Ukraine failed to give such a "compelling explanation".344
7.295.
Japan responds, finally, that neither the Notice of 14 March 2013 nor the Key Findings contain any analysis of the conditions of competition in the domestic market for the product in question, in which the interaction of the imports with the domestic product is explained. Japan argues that mere ex post assertion of an existence of a causal link cannot cure the lack of a proper analysis of the conditions of competition in the published report of the competent authorities.345
7.297.
Nonetheless, the Appellate Body has given some guidance in this respect, stating that the relationship between the movements in imports and the movements in injury factors is central to a causation analysis and determination.349 Previous panels have followed this guidance in evaluating determinations of a causal link under Article 4.2(b), considering, among other things, whether upward trends in imports coincided with downward (i.e. worsening) trends in the injury factors, and if not, whether an adequate explanation was provided as to why the data nevertheless show causation. Panels have also considered whether the analysis by the competent authorities of the conditions of competition between the imported and domestic product supported the authorities' conclusion regarding the existence of a causal link between the increased imports and injury to the domestic industry.350
7.298.
Regarding the coincidence in movements, we agree with the panel in US – Steel Safeguards that upward movements in imports shouldnormally occur at the same time as downward movements in injury factors in order for coincidence to be indicative of a causal link.351 However, this coincidence, by itself and without explanation, is not sufficient to establish a causal link between increased imports and serious injury or threat thereof.352 A worsening in the condition of a domestic industry may be wholly unconnected to increased imports and may instead be caused by one or more other developments, occurring at the same time as increased imports, such as declining consumption, inefficient production methodologies, increased costs, etc. Indeed, Article 4.2(b), second sentence, confirms that factors other than increased imports may be causing injury at the same time as increased imports. By requiring that injury caused by such factors not be attributed to increased imports, this provision seeks to ensure that safeguard measures are only applied in appropriate circumstances, that is, when increased imports are causing or threatening to cause serious injury. We therefore reject Ukraine's view that a coincidence between increased imports and the worsening in the injury factors is sufficient in itself to raise a presumption that a causal link exists between these two developments. For completeness, we also note that the absence of coincidence does not necessarily rule out the existence of a causal link.353 In a finding upheld by the Appellate Body, the panel in Argentina – Footwear (EC) stated:

While such a coincidence by itself cannot prove causation (because, inter alia, Article 3 requires an explanation – i.e., "findings and reasoned conclusions"), its absence would create serious doubts as to the existence of a causal link, and would require a very compelling analysis of why causation still is present.354

7.299.
Regarding the conditions of competition, we recall that we stated earlier in section 7.3.1.4 that the conditions under which increased imports occurred is an element to be considered as part of the causation analysis. We also note that the panels in Argentina – Footwear (EC) and in US – Wheat Gluten assessed the competent authorities' consideration of the conditions of competition when assessing their determinations of the existence of a causal link355 within the meaning of Article 4.2(b). In this regard, we recall that the Appellate Body in the first case expressly approved the panel's conclusion that the determination was not consistent with the requirements of Article 4.2(b), in part because the conditions of competition had not been adequately analysed by the competent authorities in that case.356
7.300.
Turning to the facts of this dispute, the Notice of 14 March 2013 addresses the issue of whether a causal link existed between increased imports and the threat of serious injury as follows:

The following indicators in 2010 as compared to 2008 provide evidence of the negative impact of imports of the Product to Ukraine on the domestic industry:

- Production volume of the domestic industry decreased by 78.9%;

- Capacity utilization decreased by 74.86%;

- Sales volumes within the domestic market decreased by 86.33%;

- Operating profit decreased by 89.9%;

- Employment decreased by 51.56%;

- Productivity numbers fell by 46.3%.

At the same time, the volume of imports of motor cars to Ukraine in absolute terms in 2010 compared to 2008 decreased by 71%, but increased by 38% in relation to domestic production within Ukraine.

The demand for the Product within Ukraine's domestic market fell by 78.8% between 2008 and 2010, while the share of domestic production in the domestic market of Ukraine also decreased by 35%. In light of the increased import volume of the Product to Ukraine and conditions of such import, the domestic industry was driven out of the domestic market within Ukraine, resulting in a worsening of the poor state of the national industry and a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry.357

7.301.
This assessment of the causal link is divided into three parts. The first part states that some indicators of the situation of the industry decreased in 2010 compared to 2008. The second part states, inter alia, that the volume of imports of passenger cars increased in 2010 relative to domestic production compared to 2008, despite an absolute decrease in imports. The third part concludes from the previous two parts that the domestic industry was driven out of the domestic market in Ukraine and that this resulted in a worsening of its poor state and a threat of serious injury. Thus, in the first two parts, the Notice of 14 March 2013 points to a coincidence ("at the same time") between increased imports and the poor state of the domestic industry that is based on an end-point-to-end-point comparison, comparing data for 2010 to data for 2008. In the third part, the Notice of 14 March 2013 goes on to conclude from this coincidence that there is a causal link ("resulting in") between increased imports and a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry.
7.302.
In considering the explanation provided in the Notice of 14 March 2013, we recall as an initial matter that coincidence between two developments does not necessarily imply a causal link between the two. As mentioned above, although a coincidence between upward movements in imports and downward movements in injury factors might support a finding of the existence of a causal link between increased imports and a threat of serious injury, it is not sufficient by itself and without explanation to make such a finding. Moreover, we note in this regard that evidence submitted to us by Ukraine shows that between 2008 and 2009, imports decreased in absolute and relative terms and injury factors showed a deterioration, while between 2009 and 2010, imports increased in relative terms as compared to 2008, but some injury factors actually improved, as compared to 2008.358 We are not concluding from these trends that no coincidence in movements of imports and injury factors existed in this case. However, in view of the fact that injury factors worsened when there was a relative decrease in imports and began to improve even as there was a relative increase in imports, the Notice of 14 March 2013 should have addressed these movements, which seem counter to findings of coincidence and causation, and given reasoned and adequate explanations as to why a causal link nevertheless existed.
7.303.
The only explanation we find in the Notice of 14 March 2013 is the statement that the relative increase in imports drove the domestic industry out of the Ukrainian market. However, the Notice of 14 March 2013 provides no further elaboration as to how this happened. We note that the Key Findings also state that the domestic industry was driven out of the domestic market by increased imports. The Key Findings further state as follows:

The rate of decrease of domestic production and sale exceeded the rate of decrease of import of the Product subject to investigation to Ukraine in terms of absolute values. As a result of the disproportionate reduction in the import of investigated Products to Ukraine and the domestic manufacturers' sale of the Products on the internal market, the structure of domestic market share was changed in favour of the imported products, which affected the position and development of the domestic car industry.359

7.304.
While this paragraph states that the domestic industry lost market share to imports because domestic production decreased more significantly than imports, which also decreased, it contains no explanation as to how the lesser decrease in imports contributed to bringing about a threat of serious injury. In particular, it fails to explain how imports could take market share from the domestic industry in a contracting market. The domestic industry could have been losing market share for reasons unrelated to the relative increase in imports. Thus, the Key Findings shed no additional light on the content of the Notice of 14 March 2013. We therefore maintain our view that the Notice of 14 March 2013 fails to adequately explain the determination in this regard.
7.305.
We observe, finally, that the relevant section of the Notice of 14 March 2013 contains no forward-looking analysis of the existence of a causal link.360 We recall that the Notice of 14 March 2013 finds that the domestic industry faced a threat of serious injury. Article 4.1(b) defines "threat of serious injury" as serious injury that is "clearly imminent". We have stated earlier that the term "clearly imminent" indicates that the competent authorities not only have to perform an assessment of historical facts, but must also make fact-based projections concerning future developments affecting the domestic industry's position.361 In our view, this reasoning must logically also extend to the analysis of the causal link in threat of serious injury cases. We thus consider that in such cases the competent authorities must likewise make fact-based projections with a view to ascertaining whether there is a high degree of likelihood that a causal link will exist in the very near future, when serious injury is expected to materialize.362 Indeed, it is at least conceivable that a current causal link established based on the data for the period of investigation will no longer exist in the very near future. We consider that the competent authorities should have considered this scenario and explained in the Notice of 14 March 2013 whether there was a high degree of likelihood that a causal link would still exist in the very near future.
7.306.
We thus conclude that the competent authorities did not undertake a proper analysis of the relationship between movements in imports and movements in injury factors. Having reached this conclusion, we see no need to go on to examine whether in the circumstances of the present dispute the competent authorities were also required to and, if so, did examine the conditions of competition between the imported and domestic product in order to meet the requirements of Article 4.2(b), first sentence. We, accordingly, do not address this issue further.
7.307.
In the light of the foregoing, we find that the competent authorities have not demonstrated, through reasoned and adequate explanations, how the developments identified in the Notice of 14 March 2013 support their determination that a relative increase in imports contributed to bringing about a threat of serious injury. We thus conclude that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(b), first sentence.

7.5.1.2 Non-attribution analysis

7.308.
According to Japan, it is an "uncontested fact" that the competent authorities acknowledged that other factors were having injurious effects on the domestic industry, since the Key Findings expressly stated that "special attention was given to the influence of other factors". Japan considers that having identified that other factors were causing injury to the domestic industry, the competent authorities were required to carry out a proper non-attribution analysis. In Japan's view, Ukraine failed to do so.363
7.309.
Japan claims that while the competent authorities noted in the Notice of 14 March 2013 that some interested parties had claimed that the negative situation of the domestic industry "was due to, among other things, other factors", Ukraine failed to identify those "other factors", and a fortiori failed to identify and examine the nature and extent of the injurious effects of these other factors. Japan argues that the competent authorities merely stated that serious injury to the domestic industry had not been caused by other factors, without providing an analysis of what those other factors are and what their effects were. In Japan's view, this demonstrates that Ukraine failed to carry out a non-attribution analysis as required by Article 4.2(b).364
7.310.
Japan notes that only the Key Findings identify four other factors which had a bearing on the domestic industry at the same time as the increased imports: (i) the global financial and economic crisis, (ii) the non-competitiveness of the domestic products, (iii) the 13% percent additional duty rate, and (iv) the end of the government support that was granted to the automobile industry between 1997 and 2008. Japan argues that the Notice of 14 March 2013, which is the relevant document for purposes of the Panel's examination, is silent on this issue since it does not contain any analysis of these "other factors". Japan therefore considers that Ukraine has failed to ensure non-attribution.365
7.311.
Ukraine submits that the Key Findings gave special attention to the influence of the four other factors referred to by Japan. Regarding the global financial and economic crisis, Ukraine argues that although it influenced the position of the domestic manufacturers of passenger cars, the competent authorities found that no company was immune from the effects of the global crisis, including producers of passenger cars in foreign markets. In Ukraine's view, the global financial and economic crisis could not, therefore, have caused the worsening of the domestic producers' position, while at the same time allowing for an increase in imports of passenger cars relative to domestic production. Ukraine infers from this that the global crisis was not a factor that could break the causal link between increased imports and the threat of serious injury.366
7.312.
Ukraine states that the government support that the Ukrainian car industry enjoyed was granted from 1997 to 2008. Ukraine explains that, since the government support ended on 1 January 2008, no analysis of its effects was conducted because it was not appropriate to consider the trends in the passenger car industry during the ten-year period preceding the investigation period, 2008 to 2010.367
7.313.
As concerns the lack of competitiveness of the domestic products, Ukraine notes that, as stated in the Key Findings, this factor could cause a deterioration in the situation of the domestic industry, but could not explain the coinciding increase in imports. Ukraine further argues that a deterioration in the situation of the domestic industry could be attributed to the sudden lack of competitiveness caused by the abolition of government support, if the investigation period had included the year 2007. But, in Ukraine's view, the claim that it could influence the domestic industry negatively 3 years later is "presumptuous".368
7.314.
Ukraine submits, finally, that the additional 13% surcharge imposed on imports of passenger cars could have influenced the extent of injury caused to the domestic industry only in a limited way, as it was in force for only a short period, from March until September 2009. According to Ukraine, the trends in 2008 and 2010 could not therefore be attributed to the temporary surcharge.369
7.315.
Japan responds that the Key Findings contain no assessment of the injurious effects of these other factors, and that such an analysis has been provided only in Ukraine's submissions to the Panel. Japan submits that such "ex post justifications" are irrelevant for the Panel's analysis.370
7.316.
The Panel starts by recalling that, to satisfy the requirements of Article 4.2(b) the competent authorities must separate and distinguish the injurious effects of the increased imports from the injurious effects of other factors causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time.371 According to the Appellate Body, this notably means that the competent authorities must "identify" the nature and extent of the injurious effects of the known factors other than increased imports, as well as "explain" satisfactorily the nature and extent of the injurious effects of those other factors as distinguished from the injurious effects of increased imports.372
7.317.
Regarding the required explanation, the Appellate Body has stated that the competent authorities must establish explicitly, through a reasoned and adequate explanation, that injury caused by factors other than increased imports is not attributed to increased imports. Such "explanation must be clear and unambiguous. It must not merely imply or suggest an explanation. It must be a straightforward explanation in express terms".373
7.318.
As recognized by the Appellate Body in US – Lamb, the "method and approach" Members choose to carry out the process of separating the effects of increased imports and the effects of other causal factors is not established in the Agreement on Safeguards. However, Members are required to explain the particular method and process they have used to separate and distinguish other causal factors, and how they have ensured that injurious effects arising from other causal factors were not included in the assessment of the injury ascribed to increased imports.374
7.319.
Regardless of the method used by the competent authorities when performing a non-attribution analysis, cases involving a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry should, in our view, include a forward-looking assessment of whether other factors currently causing injury to the domestic industry will continue to do so in the very near future.
7.320.
Turning now to the facts of the present dispute, we note that the published report, i.e. the Notice of 14 March 2013, provides the following statement regarding other causal factors:

Within the framework of the present investigation some interested parties claimed that a significant deterioration of the production, trade and financial situation of the domestic industry was due to, among other things, other factors, and serious injury caused by these other factors should not be attributed to losses due to increased imports.

According to the findings of the investigation carried out by the Ministry, the increase of motor cars imports into Ukraine regardless of country of origin and export, relative to domestic production and demand, was occurring under such conditions and volumes that the imports threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry, which were not caused by other factors. (emphasis added)

7.321.
We note that the Notice of 14 March 2013 refers to, but does not identify, causal factors other than increased imports that were causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time.
7.322.
In addition to a reference to the views presented by interested parties on the subject, there is only one other statement in the relevant section of the Notice of 14 March 2013 that refers to "other factors". The Notice of 14 March 2013 states that "the increase of motor cars imports into Ukraine regardless of country of origin and export, relative to domestic production and demand, was occurring under such conditions and volumes that the imports threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry, which were not caused by other factors."375
7.323.
This sentence is somewhat opaque. In the light of its structure and the use of the plural "were", it could be understood to suggest that the increased imports were not caused by other factors. At the same time, the clause referring to other factors immediately follows a reference to the threat of serious injury, which could suggest that threat of serious injury is not caused by the other factors referred to. Contextually, the statement appears intended to respond to the arguments of certain interested parties that other factors were causing injury. These two different possible understandings to us suggest that the plural "were" may reflect a typographical or translation error and should be read as "was", and the sentence should be understood as a statement that the threat of serious injury was not caused by other factors. It strikes us as implausible that the competent authorities, in the statement at issue, were referring to a determination of the causes of the increased imports rather than the causes of the threat of serious injury, which is the subject of this portion of the Notice of 14 March 2013. However, this still leaves open the question whether the competent authorities determined (i) that other factors were not threatening serious injury to the domestic industry at the same time as increased imports or (ii) that other factors were threatening serious injury at the same time, but that some of the threat of serious injury was caused by increased imports alone. Ukraine's notification to the WTO of its decision to apply a safeguard measure seven days after publishing the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not shed any useful light on this issue.376
7.324.
As regards the alternative interpretations, given the lack of clarity of the Notice of 14 March 2013, we find it appropriate to look to the record of the investigation, and specifically the Key Findings, in order to see whether they assist in elucidating the relevant statement in the Notice of 14 March 2013.
7.325.
The Key Findings address the issue of other factors causing injury as follows:

Special attention was also given to the influence of other factors; the injury caused by these factors cannot be considered as injury caused as a result of the increase in and the conditions of the import. In particular, the negative impact of the global financial and economic crisis resulted in decreased consumption, non-competitiveness of the domestic products, and the 13-percent additional duty rate that was valid in 2009.

The Ministry also considered the position of interested parties that the Ukrainian car industry had enjoyed specific government support between 1997 and 2008 in the form of Ukrainian car manufacturers' exemption from paying import duties, VAT and land tax, and enjoyed a preferential rate on income taxes, under the Ukrainian Car Manufacturer Stimulation Law. At the same time, WTO accession of Ukraine and its commitments to reduce the import duty from 25% to 10% as well as the abolition of government support could have negatively impacted the domestic car industry's financial condition, rather than this being a consequence of growing import of cars to Ukraine. However, 2008 was the beginning of the period of the safeguard investigation, and therefore it was not considered as appropriate to consider the trends in the car industry in the preceding ten-year period.

The results of the global crisis are objective causes of their influence on the position of any companies, including the manufacturers of the Product concerned.

As for the 13-percent additional duty rate that was valid in 2009, it is worth noting that the said rate was valid in 2009 and did not rule out the import of the Product subject to investigation to Ukraine. In addition, the 13-percent additional duty rate did not apply to the import of the Product to Ukraine if they originated from countries that were parties to free trade agreements.

Given the foregoing and results of analysis of information obtained in the course of the safeguard investigation, the Ministry concludes that there is sufficient evidence and grounds for having the Commission to review the proposals concerning application of safeguard measures regarding the import of motor cars to Ukraine regardless of the country of origin and export, for a three-year period.377

7.326.
Thus, the Key Findings identify three factors that might be causing or explaining the observed worsening in the position of the domestic industry: (i) the global financial and economic crisis with its negative impact on domestic consumption; (ii) the non-competitiveness of the domestic products, which appears to be considered a possible result of, on the one hand, the lifting of government support that the Ukrainian car industry received from 1997 to 2008, and, on the other hand, the commitment undertaken by Ukraine to reduce import duties from 25% to 10% upon accession to the WTO in May 2008; and (iii) the removal of the 13% additional duty, that was in effect for six months beginning 7 March 2009.378
7.327.
In relation to these three factors, the Key Findings state that "the injury caused by these factors cannot be considered as injury caused as a result of the increase in and the conditions of the import".379 It is unclear to us whether this summarizes a conclusion reached by the competent authorities or merely recalls the legal standard to be followed when establishing the causal link. The Key Findings also do not explicitly state whether the three factors were causing or threatening to cause serious injury at the same time as the increased imports.
7.328.
Regarding non-competitiveness of the domestic product, the Key Findings indicate that the reduction in the tariff rate following Ukraine's WTO accession and the lifting of government support380 "could" have negatively affected the domestic industry's financial condition, but then note that the government support ended before the start of the investigation period and was therefore not taken into account. Thus, non-competitiveness resulting from the lifting of government support was not treated as a factor that was causing injury at the same time as increased imports. The Key Findings do not state whether the reduction in the tariff rate following Ukraine's WTO accession was considered in the investigation, or whether it had an impact on the domestic industry. Regarding the 13% additional duty, the Key Findings merely state that it was in effect in 2009 and note that it did not stop imports and also did not apply to imports from countries with whom Ukraine had free trade agreements. This may imply that the removal of the temporary duty would have had some impact on the domestic industry, but the Key Findings suggest that any such impact should not be overestimated.381
7.329.
Finally, as concerns the global crisis, the Key Findings are less than clear. The relevant sentence reads: "The results of the global crisis are objective causes of their influence on the position of any companies, including the manufacturers of the Product concerned".382 According to Ukraine, this means that no company was immune from the effects of the global financial crisis and that the global financial and economic crisis could not have caused the worsening of the position of domestic producers of passenger cars, while at the same time allowing an increase in imports of passenger cars relative to domestic production.383 Subsequently, Ukraine also observed that the decrease in consumption due to the global financial crisis "counts as 'other factor'".384 We consider that the point made in the Key Findings can be reasonably understood as meaning that the global crisis had an impact on all sectors of the economy, including the manufacturers of passenger cars. Hence, the Key Findings appear to acknowledge that the global crisis had some negative impact on the domestic industry, though they do not use the term "injury".
7.330.
Based on the above, it appears to us that the Key Findings support the view that the competent authorities agreed that there were at least two other factors – the global financial and economic crisis and the 13% additional duty – that had a negative impact on the domestic industry at the same time as increased imports. But the Key Findings are not explicit in this respect. What seems reasonably clear, though, from the Key Findings is that the competent authorities were of the view that increased imports were an independent cause of a threat of serious injury, and that there was an imminent negative impact on the position of the domestic industry that could be attributed only to increased imports.
7.331.
Having reviewed the Key Findings, we are of the view that it is reasonable to understand the Notice of 14 March 2013 as making a determination that increased imports were causing the threat of serious injury, along with other factors. On that basis, we therefore find that:

a. the Notice of 14 March 2013 fails to identify any other factors causing injury at the same time, even though (i) the Notice itself points out that such factors had been raised for discussion by the registered interested parties and (ii) the Key Findings specifically identify such factors;

b. the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not identify the nature and extent of the injurious effects of any factors other than increased imports;

c. the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not explain the nature and extent of the injurious effects of those other factors as distinguished from the injurious effects of increased imports; and

d. the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not explain the particular method and process that was used by the competent authorities to separate and distinguish other causal factors.

7.332.
It is clear, as discussed at paragraphs 7,316 to 7,319above, that the competent authorities should have identified and explained in the published report, in clear and unambiguous terms, the nature and extent of the injurious effects of those other factors as distinguished from injurious effects of increased imports, as well as the particular method used to separate and distinguish other causal factors. As the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not meet any of these requirements, we conclude that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with its obligations under the second sentence of Article 4.2(b).
7.333.
Since the Key Findings address other factors in more detail than the Notice of 14 March 2013, we emphasize that our conclusion on this claim does not depend on an analysis of the Key Findings. We referred to the Key Findings in order to better understand the Notice of 14 March 2013, which is the relevant document, and which we have found to be deficient. In any event, while the Key Findings identify other factors, they do not address the "extent" of the injurious effects of those other factors as distinguished from the injurious effects of increased imports, and also do not describe the method used to separate and distinguish other causal factors.

7.5.2 Claims under Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 4.2(c), 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a)

7.335.
The Panel now turns to address the remainder of Japan's claims relating to Ukraine's determination of the causal link.

7.5.2.1 Claims under Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a)

7.336.
The Panel first addresses, jointly, Japan's claims under Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a).
7.337.
Japan claims that as a consequence of the competent authorities' failure (i) to determine the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the product concerned and the threat of serious injury and (ii) to carry out a proper non-attribution analysis, Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a).386
7.338.
Regarding the analysis of the conditions of competition in the domestic market, Japan argues that as part of a causation analysis, the competent authorities must also carry out an assessment of the conditions of competition between imported products and like or directly competitive domestic products. Japan submits that among other elements, the evaluation of the prices is an important factor as far as conditions of competitions are concerned. Japan claims there was no such analysis and therefore there is an incomplete analysis of the causal link.387
7.339.
Ukraine responds to Japan's claim mainly with the same arguments already outlined in sections 7.5.1.1 above. Regarding the analysis of the conditions of competition, Ukraine argues that the conditions in this case were such that there cannot be any doubt about the direct effect in terms of sales and prices between the two types of products.388
7.340.
The Panel notes that it found that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(b) since it has failed to demonstrate the existence of the causal link between increased imports and the injury or threat thereof suffered by the domestic industry and to conduct a proper non-attribution analysis. In the light of this, we see no need, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings regarding whether Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a), 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a), including regarding whether the competent authorities have properly analysed as part of their causation analysis whether imported products were being imports "under such conditions" as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury, in relation to the account it gave of the aforementioned determination in its published report. We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings with respect to these claims.

7.5.2.2 Claims under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c)

7.341.
The Panel turns, finally, to Japan's claims under Articles 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c).
7.342.
Japan asserts that since the Notice of 14 March 2013, i.e. the published report, does not contain reasoned and adequate explanations regarding the existence of a causal link between the increased imports and the alleged serious injury or threat of serious injury, nor includes a proper non-attribution analysis, and therefore Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c).389
7.343.
Ukraine does not specifically address Japan's claims under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) in the context of causation.
7.344.
The Panel recalls that it found above that Ukraine has not demonstrated, through reasoned and adequate explanations, the existence of a causal link between increased imports and the threat of serious injury and has also not conducted a proper non-attribution analysis. In the light of this, we see no need, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings regarding whether Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) in relation to the account it gave of the aforementioned determination in its published report. We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings with respect to these claims.

7.6 CLAIMS RELATING TO THE APPLICATION, DURATION, AND LIBERALIZATION OF THE SAFEGUARD MEASURE AT ISSUE

7.345.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claims under Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, 7.4, and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) relating to the application, duration, and liberalization of the safeguard measure at issue.
7.346.
Japan claims that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, 7.4, and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) because Ukraine failed to (i) apply the safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury"; (ii) apply the safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to facilitate adjustment"; (iii) progressively liberalize the safeguard measure; and (iv) provide reasoned and adequate explanations and conclusions in its published report.390
7.347.
Ukraine submits that Japan's claim that it has acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, 7.4, and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) in relation to its imposition of the measure to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment is without merit. Ukraine contends that it has acted in accordance with Articles 5.1, 7.1, 7.4 and 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a) by (i) applying the safeguard measure only to the extent necessary to prevent the threat of serious injury since the duty level and the length of the application were appropriate; (ii) applying the safeguard measure to facilitate adjustment; and (iii) implementing a plan of progressive liberalization. Further, in Ukraine's view, by taking into account all of these factors, its investigation and determination are in line with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(a).391
7.348.
The Panel begins its analysis with Japan's claim under Article 7.4, first sentence. This claim concerns a substantive requirement – the requirement of progressive liberalization of a safeguard measure at regular intervals – that is different in nature from those imposed by Articles 5.1 and 7.1, which concern the appropriateness of the particular safeguard measure chosen in terms of its nature and duration.

7.6.1 Claim under Article 7.4, first sentence

7.349.
Article 7.4, first sentence, provides as follows:

In order to facilitate adjustment in a situation where the expected duration of a safeguard measure as notified under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 12 is over one year, the Member applying the measure shall progressively liberalize it at regular intervals during the period of application.

7.350.
Article 12.2 sets forth a procedural requirement related to this substantive requirement. Pursuant to Article 12.2, in making the mandatory notifications to the WTO Committee on Safeguards under Article 12.1392, the Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure must, inter alia:

[P]rovide the Committee on Safeguards with all pertinent information, which shall include... [a] timetable for progressive liberalization.

7.351.
Japan submits that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 7.4 because it failed to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure. According to Japan, Article 7.4, first sentence, contemplates progressive liberalization as a means to achieve the purpose of facilitating adjustment. In Japan's view, progressive liberalization is a mandatory requirement, which must be provided for together with the safeguard measure during its application. Japan further contends that the requirement to provide for progressive liberalization, by submitting a relevant timetable, has to be satisfied before a safeguard measure is applied. According to Japan, the text of Article 12.2 confirms this understanding. Japan maintains that the requirements of Articles 7.4 and 12.2 are intrinsically linked, and that Article 12.2 provides the necessary context for the correct interpretation of the scope of the obligation in Article 7.4, in particular for the purpose of determining "when" that obligation must be complied with.393
7.352.
As regards the safeguard measure at issue, Japan asserts that Ukraine introduced the measure for a period of three years, but did not provide for its progressive liberalization when it imposed the safeguard measure through the Notice of 14 March 2013. Japan acknowledges that Ukraine's competent authorities provided for progressive liberalization of the safeguard measure through the Commission decision of 12 February 2014.394 In Japan's view, such an a posteriori decision does not render the safeguard measure at issue consistent with Article 7.4. Thus, Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 7.4 by failing to progressively liberalize its safeguard measure.395
7.353.
Ukraine acknowledges that Article 7.4 requires the Member concerned to progressively liberalize a safeguard measure imposed for more than one year. Ukraine considers Japan's reference to Article 12 irrelevant to this particular claim, since Article 7.4 imposes a substantive obligation to liberalize a measure at regular intervals, whereas Article 12 sets forth notification requirements. According to Ukraine, the obligations under Articles 7.4 and 12.2, although related, are different because the substantive obligation to liberalize a safeguard measure requires only that a plan be put in place and then implemented, whereas the timing for notification of the timetable is an obligation that must be addressed separately under Article 12.2.396
7.354.
Ukraine contends that it satisfied the requirement of Article 7.4 by implementing a plan of progressive liberalization. According to Ukraine, its Decision on Liberalization was published and immediately notified to the WTO Committee on Safeguards on 28 March 2014, and the notified plan provided for a phased reduction in the duty level after 12 months of implementation and then again after 24 months. Ukraine maintains that by devising, implementing and notifying this plan, it has satisfied its obligation under Article 7.4.397
7.355.
The Panel recalls that, under Article 7.4, the requirement to progressively liberalize at regular intervals extends to safeguard measures with an expected duration of more than a year. In the case of the safeguard measure at issue, Ukraine notified an expected duration of three years.398 Accordingly, it is clear that the progressive liberalization requirement applies to the safeguard measure in question.
7.356.
Japan claims that Ukraine was in breach of Article 7.4 when the DSB established this Panel on 26 March 2014. The record indicates that Ukraine's competent authorities published and notified a liberalization schedule for the first time two days later, on 28 March 2014.399 The liberalization schedule provides for a reduction in the applicable duty rates in two steps. The initial reduction was to go into effect within 12 months from the date of introduction of the safeguard measure (14 April 2013), i.e. in mid-April 2014;400 a further reduction was to enter into force one year later, i.e. in mid-April 2015. Thus, on the date of establishment of this panel, a liberalization of the safeguard measure had neither occurred nor been publicly announced or notified to the WTO, although these steps were taken shortly afterwards.
7.357.
The first issue presented by Japan's claim is whether Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 7.4 because it did not provide a timetable for its progressive liberalization before applying its safeguard measure. Japan argues that the obligation to progressively liberalize a safeguard measure can only be met if a timetable for progressive liberalization has been provided in advance of the measure being applied. Ukraine, however, considers that the obligation to notify a timetable for progressive liberalization is separate from the substantive obligation under Article 7.4 to progressively liberalize a safeguard measure.401
7.358.
The first clause of Article 7.4, first sentence, refers to situations "where the expected duration of a safeguard measure as notified under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 12 is over one year". Thus, it contains a reference to the notification under Article 12.1. However, we consider that the term "as notified" in this phrase relates to "the expected duration" of a safeguard measure, and does not refer to the notification of a timetable for progressive liberalization. As we have explained, the quoted phrase limits application of the liberalization obligation of Article 7.4 to safeguard measures with an expected duration of over one year. It further clarifies, in our view, that the "expected duration" to be used for determining whether Article 7.4 applies is the duration that has been "notified" to the WTO Committee on Safeguards. Thus, we consider that the reference to the notification under Article 12.1 must be seen in this context. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the second clause of the first sentence of Article 7.4 refers to the obligation of progressive liberalization at regular intervals, and there is no similar reference to the notification under Article 12.1 in that clause. The second clause of the first sentence does not say that a safeguard measure must be progressively liberalized at regular intervals "as notified under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 12". In our view, the conspicuous absence of a reference in the second clause of the first sentence of Article 7.4 to a notification under Article 12.1, particularly in the light of the reference in the first clause, suggests that failure to notify a timetable for progressive liberalization in advance of the application of a safeguard measure does not necessarily result in an inconsistency with Article 7.4. Nor do we see any reason to conclude that a breach of Article 7.4 would necessarily occur if a timetable has not been made available otherwise than through a notification under Article 12.1.
7.359.
We certainly agree that a timetable made available in advance would greatly assist exporting Members in monitoring compliance with Article 7.4 by the importing Member, since they would know when they should expect to see progressive liberalization occurring, and what that progressive liberalization would consist of. It would also allow them to raise any concerns at an early stage, and even give them the possibility, in the consultations mandated under Article 12.3402, to seek a change to the timetable, where it has been duly notified pursuant to Article 12.1. A timetable provided in advance would also provide security and predictability for exporters regarding the future market access terms of the Member applying a safeguard measure.
7.360.
Significantly, however, a Member can, in our view, comply with its obligation in Article 7.4 even if it has not previously provided a timetable for progressive liberalization. Article 7.4 is a substantive provision that requires actual liberalization of the measure. The mere fact that a Member has failed to provide a timetable for such liberalization does not preclude that Member from taking the required liberalization steps regardless. We see nothing in Article 7.4 that prohibits a Member from taking liberalization steps pursuant to a decision that post-dates the decision to apply a safeguard measure.403 Moreover, as we discuss below404, our conclusion does not render Article 7.4 inoperative, as it remains possible, even in the absence of a timetable provided in advance, for a complaining party to demonstrate and a panel to determine whether a Member has acted inconsistently with Article 7.4, by failing to actually progressively liberalize its safeguard measure.
7.361.
Based on the foregoing, we reject Japan's argument that failure to provide a timetable before a safeguard measure is applied establishes, by itself, that a Member has acted inconsistently with Article 7.4.
7.362.
The second issue raised by Japan's claim is whether Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 7.4 because, as of the date of establishment of this panel, it had failed to liberalize the safeguard measure.405 We recall that the relevant requirement is to liberalize "at regular intervals during the period of application". The word "regular" is defined as "recurring or repeated at fixed times, recurring at short uniform intervals".406 Applying this definition in the specific context of Article 7.4, we consider that regular intervals of liberalization are uniform intervals, that is to say, intervals that are equally separated in time. We find further support for this view from the reference in Article 7.4 itself to the purpose of the requirement in question, which is to "facilitate adjustment". Progressive liberalization that proceeds at equal intervals over the period of application facilitates the adjustment of the domestic industry by exposing it to greater foreign competition following a pattern that allows – and forces – the industry to adjust to each stage of that liberalization, and prepare itself for the next one, at equal time intervals. The requirement of progressive liberalization also and notably precludes the importing Member from back-loading liberalization, i.e. not taking any liberalization steps until a late stage in the period of application of a safeguard measure. Delaying liberalization in this way could create a disincentive for the domestic industry to undertake appropriate efforts at adjustment from the outset of the period of application, thus providing increased protection and diminishing the impetus to adjust to competition from imports.
7.363.
Article 7.4 does not establish any requirements or guidelines as to how long the regular intervals should be. The only constraint it imposes is that the intervals be such as will "facilitate adjustment" of the domestic industry. In this case, Ukraine decided to progressively liberalize the measure that was to apply for three years after 12 and 24 months, that is, at regular intervals of 12 months.407 In our view, for a safeguard measure with an expected duration of 36 months, liberalization at the 12- and 24-month marks does not seem unreasonable.408 Such two-step liberalization ensures liberalization that is not only regular as well as progressive, but also apt to facilitate adjustment of the domestic industry by increasing its exposure to foreign competition.
7.364.
Moreover, as there is nothing in the Agreement on Safeguards that required Ukraine to have begun the progressive liberalization of its safeguard measure at any given point in time, the lack of any liberalization as of the date of establishment of this Panel does not of itself require the conclusion that Ukraine failed to liberalize its safeguard measure at regular intervals.
7.365.
For all the reasons cited above, we thus conclude that, as of the date of establishment of this Panel, Ukraine had not acted inconsistently with Article 7.4, first sentence, by failing to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure at issue.

7.6.2 Claims under Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), 5.1, 7.1, and 11.1(a), and Article XIX:1(a)

7.366.
The Panel now turns to address the remainder of this group of claims. We begin with the claims under Articles 5.1 and 7.1, and then move to the claims under Article 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a), before turning to Japan's claims under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c).

7.6.2.1 Claims under Articles 5.1 and 7.1

7.367.
The Panel notes that Japan makes two distinct claims under Articles 5.1 and 7.1. The first claim is based on both provisions, and relates to whether Ukraine's safeguard measure is applied to "the extent necessary to facilitate adjustment"; the second claim is based on Article 5.1 only and relates to whether the safeguard measure is applied to "the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury". We will address these claims in turn.
7.368.
Before proceeding further, we note that in its second written submission, Japan appears to state that to the extent that the duration of Ukraine's safeguard measure had been set taking into account "the entirety of the serious injury", the duration of the measure exceeds what is permitted under Article 7.1.409 However, Japan did not make specific reference to Article 7.1, let alone claim a violation of Article 7.1, in the conclusion of the relevant section of the second written submission or any other submission. We therefore consider that Japan has failed to properly state a claim under Article 7.1 relating to "the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury".

7.6.2.1.1 Claims under Articles 5.1 and 7.1 concerning "the extent necessary to facilitate adjustment"

7.369.
The Panel recalls that Article 5.1, first sentence, provides that:

A Member shall apply safeguard measures only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.

7.370.
Article 7.1, for its part, provides that:

A Member shall apply safeguard measures only for such period of time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment. The period shall not exceed four years, unless it is extended under paragraph 2.

7.371.
Japan notes that Articles 5.1 and 7.1 expressly provide that a safeguard measure shall be applied only "to the extent necessary to facilitate adjustment". Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with these provisions because it failed to provide for a progressive liberalization of the safeguard measure in the Notice of 14 March 2013, which is necessary "to facilitate adjustment". According to Japan, Article 7.4 contemplates progressive liberalization as a means of facilitating adjustment. In Japan's view, progressive liberalization is a mandatory requirement to facilitate adjustment, which must be provided for together with the safeguard measures during their application.410
7.372.
Ukraine submits that in its investigation and determination it acted consistently with Articles 5.1 and 7.1 because it applied the safeguard measure to facilitate adjustment in every relevant aspect: the level of the duty, the duration of the measure, and the scheduled progressive liberalization. Ukraine argues that the duty level, the duration of the measure, and the liberalization of the measure are designed to facilitate adjustment of the domestic industry in that the safeguard measure eases the process of economic adjustment to foreign competition.411
7.373.
The Panel notes that Japan bases its claims with respect to "the extent necessary to facilitate adjustment" on its separate claim that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 7.4 because it failed to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure. We have found in the immediately preceding section that when this Panel was established, Ukraine was not acting inconsistently with Article 7.4, first sentence. We also note that Ukraine's competent authorities published and notified a liberalization schedule on 28 March 2014.
7.374.
In examining the claims under Articles 5.1 and 7.1, we note that the reasons we have developed in the preceding section in support of our interpretation of Article 7.4 also apply, mutatis mutandis, to Articles 5.1 and 7.1.412 Accordingly, we do not accept Japan's argument that failure to provide a timetable before a safeguard measure is applied establishes, by itself, that a Member has acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 7.1. We also do not consider that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 7.1 because it had not yet progressively liberalized the safeguard measure at issue as of the date of establishment of this Panel. As discussed above, there is nothing that requires Ukraine to have begun that liberalization at any given point in time.413 Finally, we observe that it is in any event unclear to us how a failure to provide for progressive liberalization would give rise to a breach of Article 7.1. As we understand it, the requirement in Article 7.4, first sentence, to progressively liberalize a safeguard measure only applies to measures whose duration, as notified under Article 12.1, is over one year. Thus, Article 7.4, first sentence, takes as a given that the duration of a safeguard measure has been notified, and is over one year. The fact that a Member fails to provide for progressive liberalization of a notified measure does not demonstrate that the duration of the measure is excessive and that the Member concerned is therefore not complying with its obligation to apply its safeguard measure only for such period of time as is necessary to facilitate adjustment.
7.375.
Based on the above considerations, we conclude that Japan has failed to establish that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 7.1 because it failed to provide for progressive liberalization of the safeguard measure.

7.6.2.1.2 Claim under Article 5.1 concerning necessity "to prevent or remedy serious injury"

7.376.
The Panel now turns to examine Japan's claim under Article 5.1 that the safeguard measures must only be applied to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury.
7.377.
Japan claims that Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 because it failed to apply the safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury". First, Japan argues that Ukraine failed in its causation and non-attribution analysis by setting the rate of duty and the duration of the safeguard measure in such a manner that it also addresses injury attributed to factors other than increased imports. Relying on the findings of the Appellate Body in US – Line Pipe, Japan argues that the "non-attribution" requirement of Article 4.2(b) provides the necessary context for the application of Article 5.1 and establishes a benchmark against which the competent authorities should determine the permissible extent of their safeguard measures. Japan contends that the rate of duty applied by Ukraine must be found to exceed the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to the domestic industry. In Japan's view, to the extent that the applied rate of duty was "sufficient to remedy the entirety of the serious injury", Ukraine has acted inconsistently with Article 5.1 because Ukraine itself acknowledged in its Key Findings that at least part of the injury had been caused by other factors.414
7.378.
Japan further submits that Ukraine did not clarify why and how its tariff concession prevented it from taking measures to offset the change generated by the unforeseen development and therefore failed to establish that the safeguard measure was applied only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy such serious injury. Finally, Japan maintains that the safeguard measure cannot be regarded as having been applied "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury" because Ukraine applied the measure only in April 2013 on the basis of an analysis of imports and of the situation of the industry concerning the period prior to 2011.415
7.379.
Ukraine counters that it acted in accordance with Article 5.1 because its safeguard measure was imposed strictly to the extent necessary to prevent the threat of serious injury. In addition, as regards Japan's first argument, Ukraine submits that it took into account the level of causal impact of the increase in imports on the serious injury to the domestic industry when it set the level of the duty. Ukraine maintains that it was appropriate to apply a rate of duty sufficient to remedy the entirety of the serious injury that was threatened to be caused by the increased imports.416
7.380.
The Panel notes that Japan's claim under Article 5.1 relates to the particular nature and level of the safeguard measure Ukraine chose to apply as well as to the timing of its application. In the light of our findings above that Ukraine's safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4, and that Ukraine therefore lacked a legal basis for applying its safeguard measure, we do not consider it necessary, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings on whether, by applying the measure at issue, Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 5.1. We consequently exercise judicial economy and make no findings with regard to this claim.

7.6.2.2 Claims under Article 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a)

7.381.
Japan also raised claims under Article 11.1(a)417 and Article XIX:1(a)418 relating to the application and duration of the safeguard measure at issue. Japan submits that Ukraine failed to apply its safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury" and has thereby acted inconsistently with Article 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a).419
7.382.
Ukraine responds that Japan's claims under Article 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a), insofar as they relate to the application of its safeguard measure at the selected level and for the expected duration must fail because Ukraine took into account the level of causal impact of the increase in imports on the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry when it set the level of duty, the duration of the measure, and the scheme for progressive liberalization of the measure. Accordingly, Ukraine requests the Panel to reject these claims.420
7.383.
The Panel recalls its findings above that Ukraine's safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4, and that Ukraine therefore lacks a legal basis for applying its safeguard measure. In the light of this, we do not consider it necessary, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings on whether, by applying the safeguard measure at issue, Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11.1(a) and Article XIX:1(a). We consequently exercise judicial economy and make no findings with regard to these claims.

7.6.2.3 Claims under Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c)

7.384.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claims under Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c).
7.385.
Japan submits that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) as its Notice of 14 March 2013 failed to provide (i) a timetable for progressive liberalization and (ii) reasoned and adequate explanations as to why its safeguard measure is "necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury".421 Regarding the failure to provide a timetable for progressive liberalization, Japan submits that a timetable of progressive liberalization constitutes a "pertinent issue of fact and law" within the meaning of Article 3.1 and therefore should be part of the report published by the competent authorities. Japan considers that, likewise, the lack of a timetable for progressive liberalization also constitutes a breach of Article 4.2(c), which requires the publication of a detailed analysis of the case and a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined.422
7.386.
Ukraine submits that it has not acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) because the Notice of 14 March 2013 took into account all of the relevant factors.423
7.387.
The Panel notes that the first asserted basis for Japan's claim concerns Ukraine's undisputed failure to provide a timetable for progressive liberalization in its Notice of 14 March 2013. Japan argues in this respect that a timetable for progressive liberalization constitutes a "pertinent issue of fact and law" within the meaning of Article 3.1 and, as such, should figure in the published report. In considering this issue, we recall at the outset that Article 3.1 requires publication of a report "setting forth [the competent authorities'] findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law". Thus, the report must cover pertinent issues in respect of which the competent authorities reach findings and reasoned conclusions. We further observe that Article 3 is entitled "Investigation". Article 4.2(a) clarifies that safeguard investigations serve "to determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry under the terms of [the] Agreement".424 The word "determine" confirms that the competent authorities are required to make determinations, or reach "findings" and "reasoned conclusions", on the issues to be investigated. These issues – whether there has been an increase in imports, serious injury or threat thereof, and causation– all go to whether there is a legal basis for applying a safeguard measure, and if so, what kind of measure. In contrast, the establishment of a timetable for progressive liberalization at regular intervals is not an issue that by its nature requires an "investigation" that culminates in "findings" and "reasoned conclusions". Also, the issue of liberalization is not directly linked to whether there is a sufficient legal and factual basis for applying a particular safeguard measure. Nor is the competent authorities' decision on this issue governed by the findings and conclusions on the issues that must be investigated.
7.388.
Consideration of Article 4.2(c) leads to similar misgivings about Japan's claim. It requires publication of a "detailed analysis of the case under investigation" and a "demonstration" of the relevance of the "factors examined". As we have explained, how and when to liberalize a safeguard measure are not issues to be considered and decided in the investigation underlying the decision to impose a safeguard measure, but rather come afterwards, and are subject to different governing provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards.
7.389.
We recognize that Article 12.2 identifies the timetable for progressive liberalization as "pertinent information" that must be notified under Article 12.1(c) upon taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure. This confirms that the timetable is pertinent "information" for Members to receive.425 It does not demonstrate, however, that the timetable is a "pertinent issue of fact and law" that must first be investigated by the competent authorities and on which they must reach "findings" and "reasoned conclusions" or provide a detailed analysis and demonstration.
7.390.
In the light of the above, we see no basis for interpreting Article 3.1, last sentence, or Article 4.2(c), as requiring that the published report, or analysis and demonstration, contain a timetable for the progressive liberalization of the measure at regular intervals. We consequently conclude that Ukraine did not act inconsistently with Article 3.1, last sentence, or Article 4.2(c) by failing to provide a timetable for progressive liberalization in its Notice of 14 March 2013.
7.391.
Next, we turn to the second asserted basis for Japan's claim. According to Japan, Ukraine's Notice of 14 March 2013, contrary to Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c), fails to provide reasoned and adequate explanations as to why the safeguard measure at issue is "necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury". We understand this quotation to refer to Japan's claim under Article 5.1. Since we have found above that Ukraine's safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4 and that Ukraine therefore lacked a legal basis for applying its safeguard measure, and since we made no findings on Japan's substantive claims under Article 5.1, we do not consider it necessary, for the purposes of resolving this dispute, to make findings on Japan's claims under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). In the light of this, we also exercise judicial economy with respect to these claims and make no findings regarding them, insofar as they concern the explanations provided in the Notice of 14 March 2013 as to why the safeguard measure is necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury.

7.7 CLAIMS UNDER ARTICLE II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994

7.392.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claims under Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, which provides:

The products described in Part I of the Schedule relating to any contracting party, which are the products of territories of other contracting parties, shall, on their importation into the territory to which the Schedule relates, and subject to the terms, conditions or qualifications set forth in that Schedule, be exempt from ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth and provided therein. Such products shall also be exempt from all other duties or charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with the importation in excess of those imposed on the date of this Agreement or those directly and mandatorily required to be imposed thereafter by legislation in force in the importing territory on that date.

7.393.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article II:1(b) because Ukraine imposes duties that are in excess of those set forth in its schedule through the unlawful safeguard measure at issue.426
7.394.
Ukraine responds that Japan's claim under Article II:1(b) is a consequential claim. It argues that its safeguard measure was lawfully implemented in accordance with Article XIX and the Agreement on Safeguards, and was permitted as "emergency action on imports of particular products". Accordingly, Ukraine concludes that Japan's claim must fail.427
7.395.
The Panel found above that Ukraine (i) acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XIX:1(a) by failing to make a proper determination regarding the existence of unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations; (ii) acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.1 by failing to make a proper determination regarding increased imports; (iii) acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(a) by failing to make a proper determination regarding threat of serious injury to the domestic industry; and (iv) acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(b) by failing to conduct a proper causation analysis. In the light of this, we see no need, for the purpose of resolving this dispute, to make additional findings regarding whether Ukraine has also acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article II:1(b). We therefore exercise judicial economy and decline to make findings with respect to this claim.

7.8 CLAIMS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE INVESTIGATION REPORT

7.396.
The Panel notes that Japan put forward three different claims under Article 3. The first claim is based on Article 3.1, second sentence, concerning reasonable public notice and public hearings or other appropriate means to present evidence and views, including an opportunity to respond to the presentations of others. The second claim is based on Article 3.1, first sentence, which concerns the obligation to make a proper investigation. The third claim is based on Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c), concerning the obligation to publish a report. We will address these claims in turn.

7.8.1 Claim under Article 3.1, second sentence

7.397.
Article 3.1, second sentence, provides as follows:

This investigation shall include reasonable public notice to all interested parties and public hearings or other appropriate means in which importers, exporters and other interested parties could present evidence and their views, including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties and to submit their views, inter alia, as to whether or not the application of a safeguard measure would be in the public interest.

7.398.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, second sentence, because Ukraine failed to provide (i) reasonable public notice and (ii) appropriate means through which Japan as an interested party could present evidence and its views, including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties. Japan argues that although registered as an interested party, it received very little information from the authorities and few submissions or presentations made by the other parties, and that this prevented it from presenting its views in a meaningful way.428
7.399.
Ukraine submits that Japan's claim is not supported by the facts on the record. Ukraine observes that it involved Japan and other interested parties in the course of the investigation and provided appropriate means for the defence of their interests, as required by Article 3.1. In this regard, Ukraine recalls that it sent several letters to the Embassy of Japan and provided Japan with an opportunity to participate in the hearing organised in March 2012. Ukraine considers that in doing so the competent authorities adequately discharged their obligations under Article 3.1.429
7.400.
As concerns the obligations set forth in the second sentence of Article 3.1, Japan submits that the second sentence elaborates on the specific content of the term "investigation". It provides certain procedural guarantees, namely the requirements of reasonable public notice and public hearings or other appropriate means in which interested parties could present evidence and their views.430
7.401.
Ukraine responds that Article 3.1 contains only very limited procedural obligations that Members must comply with when conducting a safeguard investigation and that this due process provision is of a general nature and does not specify how the various due process obligations listed therein are to be complied with. Nevertheless, Ukraine acknowledges that Article 3.1 obliges the competent authorities of a Member to provide reasonable public notice to all interested parties and to provide all such parties with the opportunity to present evidence and their views and to respond to the presentations of other parties.431
7.402.
The Panel notes that both parties agree that Article 3.1, second sentence, provides certain procedural guarantees to interested parties, notably "reasonable public notice" and "public hearings or other appropriate means … [to] present evidence and their views including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties".432 This was also confirmed by the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten:

The focus of the investigative steps mentioned in Article 3.1 is on 'interested parties', who must be notified of the investigation, and who must be given an opportunity to submit 'evidence', as well as their 'views', to the competent authorities. The interested parties are also to be given an opportunity to 'respond to the presentations of other parties'.433

7.403.
We note that Article 3, second sentence, does not define the term "interested parties". Nevertheless, it makes clear that the term "interested parties" at a minimum includes importers and exporters. In addition, it refers to "other interested parties", without qualification. In our view, therefore, the term "interested parties" also includes Members such as Japan whose interest in the proceeding is self-evident, as its exporters would be affected by the imposition of a safeguard measure. We find relevant in this regard that the importing Member must, under Article 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards immediately on initiating a safeguard investigation. One of the reasons why Article 12.1 requires immediate notification in our view is to ensure that potentially affected exporting Members do not miss the opportunity to present their views to the competent authorities as interested parties.
7.404.
In the investigation at issue in this dispute, Ukraine in fact registered as interested parties not only importers and foreign producers, but also eight authorities of foreign countries, including the Embassy of Japan in Ukraine, and international organizations.434 We thus proceed on the same basis as the parties – that an exporting Member such as Japan can properly be viewed as an "interested party" within the meaning of Article 3.1, second sentence. More specifically, we consider that Japan falls within the category of "other interested parties".
7.405.
Turning now to Japan's claim, and having regard to the text of Article 3.1, second sentence, we consider that Japan, in order to sustain its claim under that provision, must establish that Ukraine:

a. failed to provide reasonable public notice; or

b. failed to provide public hearings or other appropriate means through which Japan as an interested party could present evidence and its views, including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties.

7.8.1.1 Reasonable public notice

7.406.
The Panel will begin its analysis with an examination of Japan's contention that Ukraine has failed to provide reasonable public notice.
7.407.
Japan argues that Article 3.1 provides certain procedural guarantees to interested parties such as "reasonable public notice".435 Further, according to Japan, although registered as an interested party in the investigation, it received very little information from the competent authorities. Japan argues that Exhibit JPN-13 demonstrates Ukraine's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Article 3.1. Japan submits that only six letters and two verbal notes were communicated to Japan during the investigation, and that these communications were merely procedural and did not contain any substantive information.436
7.408.
Ukraine responds that Japan's claim is contradicted by the facts on the record. Ukraine argues that there is no express provision guaranteeing interested parties access to the file, apart from the very general requirement to provide "reasonable public notice to all interested parties," and that the Agreement on Safeguards does not contain any disclosure obligations as set forth in, for example, Articles 6.4 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Furthermore, in Ukraine's view, Exhibit JPN-13, which indicates that Ukraine sent six letters to the Embassy of Japan during the investigation and contacted the Embassy of Japan via telephone on two additional occasions, makes it clear that Ukraine gave Japan reasonable public notice. Ukraine asserts that the index of Exhibit JPN-13 also indicates that Japan had notice of the 22 March 2012 hearing. Ukraine also points out that in the Notice on Initiation the interested parties were also provided with a 45-day period to send their comments and views to the Ministry for consideration.437
7.409.
The Panel notes that while the parties disagree whether Ukraine gave reasonable public notice to all interested parties, neither party has been specific about what constitutes reasonable public notice within the meaning of Article 3.1. In our view, in interpreting the phrase "reasonable public notice", it is necessary to bear in mind that interested parties play a central role in safeguard investigations and that they are a primary source of information for the competent authorities.438 In the light of this, we consider that the competent authorities must certainly notify interested parties of a decision or action, such as the initiation of an investigation, that impacts on whether or how interested parties can discharge their role as providers of evidence and views. As we mentioned above, the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten also stated that interested parties must be notified of an investigation.
7.410.
Furthermore, absent further elaboration in Article 3.1, we consider that the adjective "reasonable" when used in conjunction with "public notice" is susceptible of being interpreted to relate to several relevant aspects, including the timing of the public notice, the manner of publication of the notice, and its content. Here as well, a determination of whether public notice is "reasonable" in terms of its timing, manner of publication and content may, in our view, affect the ability of interested parties to perform their role in the investigative process.
7.411.
With these considerations in mind, we now turn to the safeguard investigation at issue in this dispute. Ukraine issued three public notices in connection with the investigation at issue: (i) the Notice of Initiation (Exhibit JPN-3), (ii) the Notice of Extension (Exhibit JPN-5), and (iii) the Notice of Imposition (Exhibit JPN-2).
7.412.
Japan has not addressed the latter two notices in its arguments pertaining to its claim under the second sentence of Article 3.1. We therefore do not consider them further. As regards the Notice of Initiation, Japan has not specifically identified in what way the Notice in its view was not "reasonable" in terms of its timing, manner of publication or content. We note that it was published in the Uryadovyi Kuryer, the official government gazette of Ukraine, on 2 July 2011. The Notice indicates that the competent authorities would register the interested parties within 30 days of publication of the Notice; that they would review requests for hearings within the same timeframe; and that they would review written comments and information within 45 days of publication.439 As regards the content of the Notice, it sets forth: (i) the date of initiation of the investigation; (ii) the products subject to the investigation; (iii) the reasons for the initiation of investigation; and (iv) deadlines and procedures applicable to interested parties. In view of these elements, we see no basis on which to conclude that the public notice given by Ukraine of the initiation of the investigation at issue was not reasonable in terms of its timing, manner of publication or content.
7.413.
As regards Japan's argument that it received very little substantive information from the competent authorities during the investigation, we see nothing in Article 3.1 that would require the competent authorities to provide substantive information beyond what is necessary to provide reasonable public notice.440 We have just found that Japan has failed to establish that the Notice of 2 July 2011 falls short in this respect. Also, we observe that Japan has not been specific about what additional information Ukraine should have provided. For all these reasons, we reject Japan's argument that it received too little substantive information from Ukraine's competent authorities.
7.414.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Japan has not demonstrated that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, second sentence, because the investigation did not include reasonable public notice to all interested parties.

7.8.1.2 Public hearings or other appropriate means to present evidence and views, including an opportunity to respond to the presentations of others

7.415.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, second sentence, because it failed to provide an appropriate means through which Japan as an interested party could present evidence and its views, including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties.
7.416.
Japan argues that the competent authorities are responsible for providing "appropriate means" to ensure meaningful opportunities for the interested parties to present evidence and their views as well as to respond to the presentations of other parties. Japan contends that these "appropriate means" must, among other things, include specific rules for the distribution of relevant documents, in order to ensure such meaningful opportunities. In Japan's view, this requirement flows from the competent authorities' duty to carry out an "investigation" which precludes "them from remaining passive".441 Japan maintains that the competent authorities must ensure that all interested parties receive the relevant documents submitted by the other parties.442
7.417.
Japan submits that it was prevented from effectively presenting its views in a meaningful way in the investigation at issue, as it did not have adequate opportunity to respond to the few submissions and presentations made by the other interested parties that it received. Japan asserts that it sent the competent authorities two sets of written comments during the investigation that were limited to brief general observations, due to the very limited information that had been provided to it. According to Japan, Ukraine's assertion that the competent authorities are not obliged by the Safeguards Law443 to provide such information to the interested parties, unless the authorities received a written request, must be rejected, because Ukraine cannot justify its failure to respect the requirements of Article 3.1 on the basis of its domestic legislation.444
7.418.
Japan further contends that, while it could and did participate in the public hearing of March 2012, it cannot be said that it was provided with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and its views, given the very limited information concerning the elements of the investigation that had been provided to Japan prior to the hearing, and in view of the time constraints of the hearing. Moreover, Japan argues that the Ukrainian authorities did not ensure the appropriate means for the interested parties to familiarize themselves with the other parties' evidence and views. According to Japan, in view of the unclear and ambiguous wording of Article 9.6 of Ukraine's Safeguards Law445, Ukraine did not provide an appropriate means of ensuring communication between, and participation of, the interested parties in this investigation. Japan maintains that the requirements of Article 9.6 are contradictory and ambiguous and that it remains unclear who and under what conditions should supply the relevant information.446
7.419.
Ukraine submits that Japan's claim is not supported by the facts on the record because Ukraine involved the interested parties in the course of the investigation and provided appropriate means for the defence of their interests, in accordance with the procedural obligation of Article 3.1. Ukraine argues that, under Article 3.1, second sentence, the competent authorities are obliged to provide an opportunity for participation, but obviously cannot force the interested parties to present their interests. Relying on a statement by the panel in US – Steel Safeguards, Ukraine maintains that "inviting comments in response to the questionnaires, and addressing the issue during its public hearings" is enough for a Member to comply with the obligation under Article 3.1 to provide "appropriate means in which importers, exporters and other interested parties [can] present evidence and their views".447
7.420.
According to Ukraine, its competent authorities provided the interested parties with a mechanism to actively participate in the investigation according to its Safeguards Law and the Notice on Initiation. Ukraine points out that interested parties were provided with a 45-day period to send comments and information to the Ministry. Ukraine considers that Exhibit JPN-13 also makes clear that it gave Japan the opportunity to present evidence and its views at the March 2012 public hearing. Ukraine notes that Japan had a possibility to meet all other interested parties as well as to present its views at the hearings and send a written version of its views to the Ministry. Ukraine considers that Japan could have participated much more actively in the investigation, as other interested parties did, and that Japan did not fully exercise its rights. Thus, Ukraine does not consider that Japan's lack of participation was the fault of the Ministry.448
7.421.
Ukraine further argues that Japan did not request access to the application by the domestic industry or the information provided by other interested parties, and did not complain about not being provided such information by these parties automatically. Ukraine contends that according to its Safeguards Law, registered interested parties are to provide all other interested parties with the evidence and information they submit to the Ministry, and that the Ministry is not obliged under the Safeguards Law to provide such information to the interested parties, unless they submit a written request to that effect. Ukraine notes that the Ministry sent a letter to the Embassy of Japan in Ukraine, and to all the other registered interested parties, with a summary of their rights and obligations, which included providing all the information supplied to the Ministry directly to other interested parties. Ukraine observes that many interested parties, but not the Embassy of Japan in Ukraine, sent the Ministry appropriate information.449
7.422.
The Panel begins by observing that the second sentence of Article 3.1 requires that the competent authorities hold public hearings "or" provide other appropriate means for interested parties to present evidence and views, including responses to presentations of other parties. The word "or" makes clear that when public hearings are held, there is no obligation to provide, in addition, any "other appropriate means" of giving input.
7.423.
As regards access to substantive information on the investigation at issue, nothing in the text of the second sentence of Article 3.1, or any other provision of the Agreement on Safeguards cited by Japan, indicates that the importing Member must provide substantive information in advance of any public hearings to the interested parties. While Article 3.1 refers to an opportunity to "respond" to presentations of other parties, this is in the context of the public hearings or other appropriate means which must be provided for all interested parties to present evidence and their views.
7.424.
We now turn to examine the facts of the present dispute. The evidence on record indicates that Ukraine's competent authorities undertook relevant steps as indicated in the following table:

DateStepDescription
2 July 2011 Publication of the Notice of Initiation (Exhibit JPN-3) The Ministry of Economy informed the public about the deadline for requesting registration as interested party (within 30 days after publication of the Notice), reviewing requests for hearings (within 30 days after publication of the Notice), and submitting written comments and other information (within 45 days after publication date of the Notice).
25 August 2011 Letter from Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine to the interested parties (Exhibit UKR-2) The Ministry provided a list of registered interested parties, informed registered interested parties that Ukraine's Safeguards Law established the rights and obligations of interested parties and provided an annotated list of selected provisions of the Safeguards Law. The Ministry also informed interested parties that they were required to send their written comments and other information directly to all other interested parties within five days of submitting them to the competent authorities; and that they could submit a request to the competent authorities to see all information submitted to them by another interested party, subject to certain conditions.
18 January 2012 Letter from Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine to Embassy of Japan in Ukraine (Exhibit UKR-2) The Ministry informed about the date of the public hearing to be held – 7 February 2012 – and the agenda for the hearing. The agenda indicates that for each item of the agenda, the complainant would make a presentation, followed by presentations of the interested parties and, lastly, debate.
3 February 2012 Letter from Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine to interested parties (Exhibit UKR-2) The Ministry postponed the public hearing date until further notice.
7 March 2012 Letter from Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine to interested parties (Exhibit UKR-2) The Ministry fixed 22 March 2012 as the new hearing date and informed the interested parties that information provided by interested parties orally during the hearing would be considered in the Minister's special investigation only if it was submitted in writing no later than 27 March 2012.
22 March 2012 Public hearing, Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine, Kiev (Exhibit UKR-2) The public hearing took place.

7.425.
As is apparent from the table, the competent authorities in the investigation at issue:

a. informed all interested parties of the procedure for registration and subsequently of the identities of the interested parties that were registered;

b. informed interested parties of the date of the public hearing and the agenda450;

c. gave interested parties an opportunity to (i) submit written comments and other information within 45 days after publication of the Notice; and (ii) make oral presentations at the public hearing, to be considered by the competent authorities subject to submission of a written version after the public hearing451;

d. informed interested parties (i) of the obligation to send their written comments and other information directly to all other interested parties within five days of submitting them to the competent authorities; and (ii) that they could submit a request to the competent authorities to see all information submitted to them by another party, subject to certain conditions452; and

e. gave interested parties an opportunity at the public hearing, either as part of their own presentations or during the subsequent debate, to respond to written comments and other information submitted by other parties in advance of the hearing.

7.426.
Furthermore, the competent authorities informed interested parties that its investigation would be conducted in accordance with the Safeguards Law of Ukraine. Article 9.5 of the Safeguards Law provides that interested parties participating in a public hearing on an investigation may supply additional information in the course of such hearings, to be considered by the competent authorities subject to submission of a written version after the public hearing. Article 9.6 further provides that interested parties may comment on all information submitted by another interested party, and that comments must be considered by the competent authorities if they are "well grounded" and submitted within the deadline set by the competent authorities.453 Thus, Ukraine's domestic legislation establishes specific opportunities and means for interested parties to participate in the investigation and provide information.454
7.427.
Particularly in the light of the additional opportunities for participation and access to information provided for under Ukrainian law, the interested parties in this investigation could "present evidence and their [own] views", both in writing and orally at the public hearing. They also had an "opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties" – that is to say, presentations of evidence or views submitted by other parties. Interested parties could do so either orally at the public hearing (and provide a written version of their responses after the hearing by 27 March 2012455) or, in the case of new presentations of other parties at the public hearing, after the public hearing pursuant to Article 9.6 of the Safeguards Law.456 Regarding the time constraints at the public hearing to which Japan has referred, the initial agenda for the public hearing communicated to Japan on 18 January 2012 suggests that the time set aside for the public hearing permitted only brief responses to presentations by other parties. However, there is no evidence, and Japan does not contend, that it or any other interested party sought and was denied additional time to respond to other parties' presentations.457
7.428.
Japan observes that it received little substantive information from the competent authorities. As already mentioned, however, Article 3.1 imposes no obligation on the competent authorities to provide interested parties with substantive information over and above that needed to satisfy the requirement to give "reasonable public notice" of an investigation.
7.429.
Japan further maintains that it received few submissions made by other parties, and that the competent authorities failed to ensure that interested parties had an opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties. We have already observed that, first, Article 3.1, second sentence, requires public hearings "or" other appropriate means in which interested parties could present evidence, views, and responses to others' evidence and views, and that, secondly, in the investigation at issue there was an opportunity for interested parties to make their own presentations in the course of the public hearing and to respond to other parties' presentations during the public hearing. As identified above, Ukraine's Safeguards Law provides additional opportunities for participation, including the opportunity to submit written comments within 45 days after publication of the Notice. Japan asserts that, despite what is provided for in the Safeguards Law458, it did not receive all written submissions directly from the other parties.459 We note, however, that Article 9.5 of the Safeguards Law affords the possibility to interested parties to request access to all information submitted to the competent authorities by another interested party. There is no evidence on record to show that Japan made inquiries with the competent authorities to satisfy itself that it had received all submissions of other parties. Ukraine has stated that it received no such request from Japan. Having opted for the public hearings route to provide opportunities for participation, we do not agree that Ukraine was required under Article 3.1 to do more than it did to ensure access to such written submissions.
7.430.
In sum, for the reasons cited above, we are unable to accept Japan's contention that it was prevented from presenting evidence and views in a meaningful way, and that the investigation did not include appropriate means through which Japan and other interested parties "could present evidence and their views, including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties", as required by Article 3.1, second sentence.

7.8.1.3 Conclusion

7.431.
In the light of the above, we conclude that Japan has failed to establish that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, second sentence, by failing to provide reasonable public notice or not providing public hearings or other appropriate means to present evidence and views, including an opportunity to respond to the presentations of others.

7.8.2 Claims under Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c)

7.432.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claims under Article 3.1, last sentence, and Article 4.2(c).460
7.433.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). First, Japan argues that Ukraine's Notice of 14 March 2013, i.e. the "published report", does not set forth the competent authorities' findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law and does not contain a detailed analysis of the case as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined with respect to various issues, including the unforeseen developments, the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994, the increase in imports, the serious injury or threat of serious injury, causation, etc. Japan contends that Ukraine cannot remedy its failure with its claim of confidentiality. Japan argues that what is confidential pursuant to Article 3.2 is the information and not certain categories of reports, documents or analysis. In Japan's view, a party cannot invoke Article 3.2 in relation to entire reports, documents or analysis solely because they were issued by the authorities or designated as confidential by the government. Referring to the panel reports in US – Steel Safeguards, Japan argues that, in any event, neither the protection of confidential information nor Ukraine's domestic law, notably Article 12.3 thereof, can excuse the authorities' failure to comply with the obligation to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts support their conclusions in a published report.461
7.434.
Japan further claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) because it failed to publish its report and detailed analysis "promptly". Japan considers that the temporal parameter regulating the publication obligation in Article 3.1 is the term "promptly" in Article 4.2(c). In Japan's view, whether a publication has been made "promptly" is to be determined by reference to the date of the conclusion of the investigation, i.e. the date of the determination. Japan maintains in this respect that the determination was made in the present case on 28 April 2012. Japan thus concludes that publication of the competent authorities' report in the form of a Notice one year later cannot be viewed as "prompt".462
7.435.
Ukraine contends that Japan's claims under Articles 3.1 and 4.2 (c) are not well founded. According to Ukraine, Japan did not substantiate its claim that the Notice of 14 March 2013 was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Agreement on Safeguards. Ukraine contends that it published a sufficiently detailed report. In Ukraine's view, the Key Findings, Notice of 14 March 2013, and its WTO notification contain a non-confidential summary of findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law concerning the application of the safeguard measure, consistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c).463
7.436.
As regards the second basis for Japan's claim, Ukraine submits that it published its detailed analysis of the investigation promptly upon adoption of the decision on a measure. Ukraine argues that Article 3.1 does not prescribe any deadline for the publication requirement. As regards Article 4.2(c), Ukraine relies on the express textual link to Article 3 to argue that the obligation to publish the report promptly under Article 4.2(c) arises only at the time of adoption of a safeguard measure, and not before that time. Ukraine contends that the record shows that it published its detailed analysis "promptly" upon having decided to adopt the measure in March 2013 and before the measure was actually applied.464
7.437.
The Panel notes that Japan submits two separate bases in support of its claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c). Specifically, Japan argues that these Articles have been breached because (i) Ukraine did not publish a report setting forth the competent authorities' findings and reasoned conclusions, as well as a detailed analysis of the case; and (ii) Ukraine failed to publish its report and its detailed analysis "promptly". We recall that Japan argues that the "published report" within the meaning of Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) is the Notice of 14 March 2013.465
7.438.
Regarding the first of the two bases asserted by Japan, we note that Japan has discussed this extensively in the context of its other claims concerning (i) the various determinations made by Ukraine's competent authorities, that is to say, the competent authorities' determinations on unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT 1994 obligations, increased imports, the threat of serious injury and causation and (ii) the application and duration of the safeguard measure at issue. We have, likewise, addressed this first basis for Japan's claims in the sections of our Findings addressing those other claims, as appropriate.466 Japan has presented no different or additional arguments in support of this aspect of its claim that would require separate consideration in this section. Consequently, we do not further address this aspect of Japan's claim here.
7.439.
We therefore turn to the second basis asserted by Japan in support of its claims, namely Japan's contention that Ukraine has failed to publish its report and its detailed analysis "promptly". We begin our analysis by noting that Article 3.1, last sentence, refers to a requirement to "publish" a report setting forth the competent authorities' findings and reasoned conclusions. But it establishes no requirements with respect to the timing of such publication. In contrast, Article 4.2(c) contains an express requirement to "publish promptly", "in accordance with the provisions of Article 3", a "detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined". Also, whereas Article 4.2(c) thus includes an explicit cross-reference to Article 3, the converse is not true. In our view, the cross-reference in Article 4.2(c) to Article 3 makes it clear that the analysis and demonstration to be promptly published under Article 4.2(c) are to be published in the form of a report, as contemplated by Article 3.1. Thus, we conclude that Article 4.2(c) requires "prompt" publication of the report required by Article 3.1.
7.440.
Article 3.1 does not explicitly require the competent authorities to publish their report "promptly". As the wording of Article 4.2(c) is different from that of Article 3.1 also in other respects, it is reasonable to assume that the difference in the wording of Article 4.2(c) was intended to produce at least some different effects, including with regard to certain aspects of the publication requirement.467 It therefore strikes us as improper to read a word – "promptly" – into the text of Article 3.1 that would add to, and amplify, the basic publication requirement that is imposed in Article 3.1. As emphasized by the Appellate Body in India – Patents (US), the principles of treaty interpretation "neither require nor condone the imputation into a treaty of words that are not there or the importation into a treaty of concepts that were not intended".468 We, thus, do not agree with Japan that Article 3.1 imposes an obligation on competent authorities to publish their report "promptly". Accordingly, we conclude that Japan has failed to establish that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.1, last sentence, because its competent authorities did not publish their report "promptly".
7.441.
Turning to Japan's identical claim under Article 4.2(c), we begin by considering the triggering event that will enable us to determine whether the competent authorities published their report, or analysis and demonstration, promptly. Article 4 is entitled "Determination of Serious Injury or Threat Thereof", whereas Article 3, to which Article 4.2(c) refers, is entitled "Investigation". Moreover, Article 4.2(a) indicates that an "investigation" in the sense of Article 3 serves to "determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury to a domestic industry …". Thus, unless terminated or suspended, the investigation culminates in a determination of whether serious injury or threat thereof has been caused by increased imports.
7.442.
As noted, Article 4.2(c) refers to the requirement in Article 3.1, last sentence, that the competent authorities publish a report that provides the findings and reasoned conclusions reached on "all pertinent issues of fact and law". Since Article 3 is entitled "Investigation", the phrase "all pertinent issues of fact and law" in our view includes all issues of fact and law that are pertinent to the investigation undertaken by the competent authorities. This unquestionably includes those issues that the competent authorities must address to arrive at the determination referred to in Article 4.2(a).
7.443.
If the competent authorities determine that the relevant conditions and circumstances are satisfied, they may decide to apply a safeguard measure. If they decide to apply a safeguard measure, they need to establish parameters such as the date of introduction of the measure, its form and level (i.e. the rate of duty in the event the measure takes the form of a duty, as in the present dispute), and its expected duration. Articles 5.1 and 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards stipulate in this regard that the competent authorities may apply a safeguard measure only to the extent and for such period of time as may be "necessary" to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment. The question arises whether the rate of duty and the expected duration are issues on which the competent authorities' report must include findings and reasoned conclusions, or a detailed analysis and demonstration. We find instructive in this context the following observations of the Appellate Body in US – Line Pipe:

It is clear, therefore, that, apart from one exception, Article 5.1, including the first sentence, does not oblige a Member to justify, at the time of application, that the safeguard measure at issue is applied "only to the extent necessary". The exception we identified in Korea – Dairy lies in the second sentence of Article 5.1. That exception concerns safeguard measures in the form of quantitative restrictions, which reduce the quantity of imports below the average of imports in the last three representative years. That exception does not apply to the line pipe measure.

This does not imply, as Korea seems to assert, that the measure may be devoid of justification or that the multilateral verification of the consistency of the measure with the Agreement on Safeguards is impeded. The Member imposing a safeguard measure must, in any event, meet several obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards. And, meeting those obligations should have the effect of clearly explaining and "justifying" the extent of the application of the measure. By separating and distinguishing the injurious effects of factors other than increased imports from those caused by increased imports, as required by Article 4.2(b), and by including this detailed analysis in the report that sets forth the findings and reasoned conclusions, as required by Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c), a Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure should provide sufficient motivation for that measure. Compliance with Articles 3.1, 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards should have the incidental effect of providing sufficient "justification" for a measure and … should also provide a benchmark against which the permissible extent of the measure should be determined.469

7.444.
We understand and conclude from this statement that the report that a Member must publish under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) need not address whether the established rate of duty and expected duration of the measure are "necessary" within the meaning of Articles 5 and 7.470 That being the case, even if in some Members' legal system the decision to apply a safeguard measure is customarily taken sometime after the determination referred to in Article 4.2(a), there is no need to delay the publication of the report until the decision to apply a safeguard measure has been made and its form and level, expected duration and date of introduction have been established.
7.445.
In the light of the foregoing, we consider that the competent authorities' report, or analysis and demonstration, must be promptly published once the competent authorities have made the determination referred to in Article 4.2(a), that is to say once they have made a determination of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports. We thus consider that whether a Member "promptly" published its report, or analysis and demonstration, has to be examined by reference to when the aforementioned determination was made.
7.446.
We now turn to the concept of "promptness" in Article 4.2(c). The dictionary defines the word "prompt" as "quick; and without delay".471 Accordingly, Article 4.2(c) requires that the relevant report, or analysis and demonstration, be published quickly and without delay, once the relevant determination has been made. Nevertheless, the assessment of whether a report has been published promptly must, in our view, be made on a case-specific basis, taking account of the circumstances of the dispute.
7.447.
Turning to the facts of this dispute, we recall that Japan's claim concerns the Notice of 14 March 2013, and that we agree that the Notice is the type of report, or analysis and demonstration, that Ukraine was required to publish "promptly". The Notice was published in the official gazette on 14 March 2013. However, as confirmed by Ukraine, the investigation in this case was concluded on 28 April 2012.472 Moreover, as we explain below473, the competent authorities made a determination of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports on 28 April 2012. The date of introduction, and also the proposed form and level (increased rates of duty) and expected duration of the safeguard measure, were only established on 14 March 2013.474 As we have explained, in our view these subsequent actions did not warrant a delay in publication of the competent authorities' report. Furthermore, as noted below at paragraph 7,453, Ukraine argues that after making its finding on 28 April 2012, it held consultations with various exporting countries. However, Ukraine has not argued, and we do not consider, that such consultations affected the competent authorities' ability to publish their report quickly and without delay after having made the determination referred to in Article 4.2(a).475 In the light of this, we consider that since the competent authorities published their report in this case almost 11 months after the determination of 28 April 2012, they failed to publish their report, or analysis and demonstration, "promptly".
7.448.
We therefore conclude that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(c) because it did not publish its report, or analysis and demonstration, "promptly".

7.8.3 Claim under Article 3.1, first sentence

7.449.
We now address Japan's claim under Article 3.1, first sentence, which concerns whether Ukraine failed to make a proper investigation. Article 3.1, first sentence, provides as follows:

A Member may apply a safeguard measure only following an investigation by the competent authorities of that Member pursuant to procedures previously established and made public in consonance with Article X of GATT 1994.

7.450.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 because it failed to make a "careful study", and in particular because it did not examine data for the period 2011–2012. In interpreting the term "investigation", Japan, relying on the Appellate Body Report in US – Wheat Gluten, contends that the ordinary meaning of the word "investigation" suggests that the competent authorities should carry out a "systematic inquiry" or a "careful study" into the matter before them and that authorities charged with conducting an inquiry or a study, i.e. an "investigation", must actively seek out pertinent information.476 According to Japan, there is an obligation to seek out pertinent information about the "recent past". Japan contends that this obligation flows from the interpretation of the term "investigation" in the light of its context, in particular Articles 2.1 and 4.2, and the object and purpose of the Agreement on Safeguards, as well as the urgent nature of the safeguard measures contemplated in the Agreement. In Japan's view, safeguard measures should logically be applied immediately after the conclusion of an investigation finding serious injury or a threat thereof caused by increased imports because of the emergency nature of safeguard measures. According to Japan, a significant delay in applying a safeguard measure requires an update of the data.477
7.451.
Regarding the investigation at issue, Japan submits that Ukraine failed to carry out an investigation as required by Article 3.1 because it failed to seek out pertinent information, in particular data for the period 2011–2012, which is the most recent period given that the safeguard measure was applied in April 2013. Japan observes that the safeguard measure at issue was applied more than two years after the end of the period of investigation (2008–2010). Japan maintains that a two-year gap between the end of the period of investigation and what it considers to be the date of imposition of the safeguard measure is clearly excessive and that this excessive delay cannot be justified by any efforts on the part of Ukraine to conduct negotiations with exporting countries. Japan argues that the fact that the competent authorities examined additional data from the first half of 2011 regarding "certain factors" does not imply that the period of investigation was extended so as to also include the first half of 2011. According to Japan, the Notice of 14 March 2013 does not include any analysis relating to the first half of 2011; and even in the Key Findings, the competent authorities only examined one factor from the first half of 2011, namely the ratio of imports in relation to domestic production.478
7.452.
Ukraine responds that the authorities conducted the investigation in accordance with the limited obligations of Article 3.1. Ukraine disagrees with Japan's interpretation that the competent authorities should have continued to update the information even after the end of the investigation and argues that such interpretation is not supported by the text of the Agreement on Safeguards and must be rejected. In Ukraine's view, there is no requirement under the Agreement on Safeguards to continue to update the information following the end of the period of investigation and certainly not following the end of the investigation. Ukraine argues that nothing in the Agreement on Safeguards requires that the application of the measure must follow the termination of the investigation immediately or within a certain period of time. According to Ukraine, when a Member is to impose a safeguard measure is a matter that does not concern the "investigation" but only the application of the safeguard measure. Ukraine maintains that the time gap between the end of the investigation and the imposition of a safeguard measure is not determined by the Agreement on Safeguards, and that the time gap is therefore for a Member to decide upon.479
7.453.
Regarding the investigation at issue, Ukraine argues that its investigation took into account all of the data relating to the period of investigation and that it updated this information with more recent information that was available before the investigation was concluded. Ukraine contends that it set the period of investigation as 2008 through 2010 when it initiated the safeguard investigation on 2 July 2011 and carefully investigated the information concerning this period. Ukraine notes that its competent authorities in the Key Findings also presented some more recent data for the first half of 2011, particularly concerning the further increase in import volumes in relative terms, that was available before the initiation of the investigation. Ukraine considers, however, that the competent authorities are not obliged to review data outside the period of investigation as asserted by Japan. Ukraine submits that Japan is in fact complaining that there was a gap between the date of the termination of the investigation and the date of application of the measure. Ukraine argues that the time gap in this case was not the result of an arbitrary decision of the competent authorities, but was caused by the need to exchange views with exporting countries, particularly the European Union, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Korea.480
7.454.
The Panel notes that Japan's claim arises from the fact that Ukraine relied on data concerning a period of investigation ending more than one year before the finding of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports and two years before its introduction. We have already concluded above, however, that Ukraine's determination of increased imports does not meet the requirements of Article 2.1, inter alia because it is not based on an increase of imports that was recent enough. Therefore, we see no need to make findings on whether Ukraine also acted inconsistently with Article 3.1, first sentence, because it did not seek out pertinent information about the most recent past, in particular information about the period 2011–2012. We consequently exercise judicial economy and make no findings with regard to this claim.

7.9 CLAIMS RELATING TO NOTIFICATIONS, PRIOR CONSULTATIONS, AND THE LEVEL OF CONCESSIONS

7.455.
The Panel notes that Japan put forward various claims under Article 12 relating to Ukraine's obligations concerning notifications to the WTO and prior consultations with other Members as well as a claim under Article 8 relating to the obligation to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations.

7.9.1 Claims under Article 12.1

7.456.
The Panel first turns to assess Japan's claims regarding Ukraine's alleged failure to comply with the notification requirements set out in Article 12.1, which provides as follows:

A Member shall immediately notify the Committee on Safeguards upon:

(a) initiating an investigatory process relating to serious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it;

(b) making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports; and

(c) taking a decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure.

7.457.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligation to notify "immediately" upon initiating a safeguard investigation pursuant to Article 12.1(a).481 Japan further claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 12.1(b) to notify "immediately" upon making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof, as well as its obligation under Article 12.1(c) to notify "immediately" upon taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure.482
7.458.
Ukraine submits that its notifications to the WTO were timely and should therefore be found to be consistent with its WTO obligations. Ukraine therefore argues that Japan's claims under Articles 12.1 must fail.483
7.459.
The Panel will first address some general interpretative issues concerning Article 12.1. After that, Japan's claims will be addressed in order they are presented.

7.9.1.1 Notification requirements under Article 12.1

7.460.
Article 12.1 requires WTO Members to notify the Committee on Safeguards upon the occurrence of the "events"484 specified in the subparagraphs of this provision, namely, (i) initiating an investigatory process, (ii) making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof, and (iii) taking a decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure.485
7.461.
Article 12.1 requires that these notifications be made "immediately" upon the occurrence of the specified events. The word "immediately" is defined as "most urgent; occurring or taking effect without delay; done at once".486 The Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten stated that the word "immediately" "implies a certain urgency" and that the degree of urgency required depends on a case-by-case assessment, account being taken of the administrative difficulties involved in preparing the notification and the character of the information supplied. The Appellate Body clarified in particular that relevant factors in assessing the degree of urgency may include the complexity of the notification to be made and the need for translation into one of the WTO's official languages. However, the Appellate Body has cautioned that the amount of time taken to prepare and submit a notification must, in all cases, be kept to a minimum, as the underlying obligation is to notify "immediately".487
7.462.
Finally, the Appellate Body has also stated that an "'immediate" notification is that which allows the Committee on Safeguards, and Members, the fullest possible period to reflect upon and react to an ongoing safeguard investigation.488 This suggests that a determination of whether a notification was "immediate" does not require consideration of whether the Committee or Members received the notification early enough to still allow them in fact to reflect on, or react to, it.489
7.463.
As regards the events described in the three subparagraphs of Article 12.1, we note that they reflect a logical sequence in the internal decision-making process preceding the application of a safeguard measure: first initiation, then making a determination on the conditions that must be satisfied before a safeguard measure may be applied, and finally the decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure. We note that the final step in the process envisaged by Article 12.1 – the taking of a decision to apply – may in the legal system of some Members coincide with the second step.490 In the system of other Members, it may come after the second step.491
7.464.
In the case of Members whose internal decision-making process provides for a gap between, on the one hand, a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports and, on the other hand, the decision to apply a safeguard measure, the relevant events may, of course, be notified separately and successively. In the case of Members where these events occur at the same time, nothing precludes notification of the relevant events simultaneously, whether in a single or separate notifications.
7.465.
To assess whether or not a notification under Article 12.1 was "immediate", it is necessary to establish both the date on which the relevant triggering event occurred and the date of the notification. The latter is generally taken to correspond to the date on which the notification was sent to the Committee on Safeguards, but the position is less clear with regard to the former. An issue may arise as to whether the Panel should assess the immediacy of the notifications under Article 12.1 by reference to: (i) the date of adoption of the relevant decision on the action concerned (i.e. the decision to initiate, the decision to make a finding or the decision to apply or extend a safeguard measure), (ii) the date of publication of that decision, or (iii) the entry into force of that decision. We observe in this regard that in some domestic legal systems, for some relevant actions and in some situations, some or all of these dates may coincide, such that there may be no need to distinguish between these dates.

7.9.1.1.1 Claim under Article 12.1(a)

7.466.
The Panel will now assess Japan's claim under Article 12.1(a).
7.467.
Japan asserts that by notifying the Committee on Safeguards of the initiation of the investigation 11 days after publication of the initiation decision notice in the Official Journal, Ukraine failed to comply with the requirement of "immediate" notification, in particular in the light of the minimal information contained in the notification.492
7.468.
Ukraine argues that its notification of the initiation of the investigation was "immediate" given that the working language of Ukraine is not one of the WTO working languages. Ukraine notes that it took the decision to initiate the investigation on 30 June 2011, published that decision on 2 July 2011, and notified the WTO on 13 July 2011, that is to say, 11 days after the publication of that decision.493 Ukraine points out that in the US Wheat Gluten dispute, the notification under Article 12.1(a) was made 16 days after publication of the decision to initiate investigation, which was found not to be "immediate". Ukraine notes in this connection that the United States' investigating authority works and publishes in a WTO working language.494
7.469.
Ukraine submits that the timeliness of a notification under Article 12.1 is to be determined on a case-by-case basis after assessing all factors influencing the time to respond. Ukraine argues that the case-by-case nature of the assessment derives from the fact that no specific time period is mentioned in Article 12 to explain the term "immediately". Ukraine submits that in this case, the fact that the official language of the investigating authority is not one of the three official working languages of the WTO is reason to provide flexibility to Members.495
7.470.
Ukraine submits that the key date for determining the timeliness of a notification under Article 12.1(a) is the date of publication of the relevant decision.496 Ukraine refers to the Appellate Body report in US – Wheat Gluten that used the date of publication as the relevant reference.497
7.471.
Japan responds that translation issues cannot justify the 11-day delay in the notification, in particular in the light of "the character of the information supplied". Japan submits in this respect that the need to translate a document of only 604 words into one of the WTO's languages cannot justify a delay of 11 days in view of the obligation to limit the amount of time taken to prepare a notification under Article 12.1 to a "minimum".498
7.472.
Japan points in this regard to the report in Korea – Dairy, where the panel concluded that a delay of 14 days between the publication of the decision on initiation and its notification to the WTO was not "immediate" notification and was therefore inconsistent with Article 12.1. Japan highlights that in that case the language of the decision, Korean, was also not a WTO working language.499
7.473.
The Panel observes that it is common ground that Ukraine made a notification to the Committee on Safeguards regarding the initiation of its safeguards investigation. The parties disagree, however, over whether Ukraine's notification was "immediate". On 30 June 2011, Ukraine took Decision No. SP–259/2011/4402-27 "On Initiation of the Safeguard Investigation on Import of Motor Cars to Ukraine Regardless of Country of Origin and Export".500 On 2 July 2011, Ukraine published the "Notice of Initiation and Conducting of the Safeguard Investigation on Import of Motor Cars to Ukraine Regardless of Country of Origin and Export" in the Uryadovyi Kuryer, which made reference to the decision to initiate the safeguard investigation and established that it would enter into force on the date of publication of the notice.501 Ukraine notified the Committee on Safeguards of the initiation of the investigation on 13 July 2011.502 We note that in its notification, Ukraine points to 2 July 2011 as the date of initiation of the investigation.503
7.474.
The parties agree that for purposes of Article 12.1(a) the date on which an investigatory process is considered to have been "initiated" is the date of publication of the decision to initiate.504 The Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten used the date of publication for determining whether a delay in notifying the initiation of a safeguard investigation meant that the notification was not immediate.505 We therefore use the date of publication as the relevant date for determining whether a notification to the Committee on Safeguards of the initiation of a safeguards investigation was "immediate" within the meaning of Article 12.1. Thus, the question before us is whether a notification made 11 days after the publication on 2 July 2011 can be considered "immediate" within the meaning of Article 12.1(a).
7.475.
We recall that Ukraine's investigation was not conducted in a WTO working language, and the published notice was also not in a WTO working language.506 However, Ukraine's notification addresses only five elements: the initiation date of the investigation; the products subject to the investigation; the reasons for initiating the investigation; the contact point; and the deadlines and procedures for parties to present evidence.507 None of these elements is unusual or complicated, and the notice does not contain any particularly complex information. The document is less than two pages long and contains approximately 600 words. It therefore seems to us that translation in this instance should not have been a time-consuming process.508 Thus, in our view, neither the nature of the information nor the length of the document justify a translation delay of 11 days.

7.9.1.1.2 Claims under Articles 12.1(b) and (c)

7.477.
The Panel now turns to assess Japan's claims under Articles 12.1(b) and (c).
7.478.
Japan asserts that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligation to notify "immediately" upon making a finding of a serious injury or threat thereof pursuant to Article 12.1(b), and "immediately" upon taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure pursuant to Article 12.1(c).509 Japan argues that in US – Wheat Gluten, the Appellate Body found that the relevant triggering event in the context of Article 12.1(c) is the taking of a decision, and that this provision focuses on whether a decision has occurred or has been taken, and not on whether that decision has been given effect.510 Japan submits that this same analysis is applicable to Article 12.1(b), as this provision focuses on whether a finding of serious injury or threat of serious injury has been made.511
7.479.
Japan submits that in the present case, Ukraine took the decision to apply a safeguard measure on 28 April 2012, published its decision on 14 March 2013 and notified the Committee on Safeguards on 21 March 2013. Japan argues that since the triggering event is the taking of the decision, which took place on 28 April 2012, the notification was made almost one year after the taking of the decision and is therefore inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 12.1(b) and (c).512
7.480.
Ukraine responds that according to the Appellate Body, the triggering event under Article 12.1(c) is the date when the decision becomes official and not when it enters into force.513 Ukraine also submits that it follows from the panel report in Dominican Republic – Safeguard Measures and from statements of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten that the key obligation regarding a definitive measure is that it is notified prior to its entry into force. Ukraine argues that in its view the date of publication is key in considering the timeliness of a notification.514
7.481.
Ukraine considers that 28 April 2012 cannot be viewed as the date of the taking of a decision to apply a safeguard measure. Ukraine asserts that the relevant decision is a document for internal use, and it cannot be considered as an appropriate legal document until its official publication. Ukraine therefore submits that it is the publication of the notice that is the key date for purposes of the timeliness of Ukraine's notifications under Articles 12.1(b) and (c).515 Ukraine submits that since the triggering event occurred on 14 March 2013 and the notifications to the Committee on Safeguards were made on 21 March 2013, only seven days later, the notifications were "immediate"516 and therefore consistent with Articles 12.1(b) and (c).517
7.482.
Japan does not agree with Ukraine's assertion that the relevant triggering event under Article 12.1 is the date of publication or "when the decision becomes 'official'".518 Japan asserts that Ukraine's view is not supported by the text of Article 12.1 and is based on an erroneous reading of the Appellate Body's findings in US – Wheat Gluten.519 Japan considers that Ukraine's argument that the relevant triggering event for the purposes of Article 12.1(c) must also be the "date of publication" is contrary to the text of Article 12.1 and the intention of the drafters, since the different triggering events under Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(c) reflect a substantive difference in the position of the WTO Members and their consequences.520 Japan also does not agree that "the key obligation regarding the notification of a definitive measure is that it is notified prior to entry into force". Japan notes in this context that the Appellate Body emphasized that "the timeliness of a notification under Article 12.1(c) depends only on whether the notification was immediate".521
7.483.
Japan also submits, in the alternative, that if the Panel were to conclude that the relevant triggering event is the "publication" on 14 March 2013, then a delay of seven days between the date of publication and the date of notification does not comply with the requirement of "immediacy", in particular taking into account the very long delay between the actual taking of the decision on 28 April 2012 and its publication on 14 March 2013. Japan claims that administrative difficulties, such as translation into a working language of the WTO, cannot be invoked as a justification for a delay of almost a year between the taking of the decision and its publication in the Official Journal.522

7.9.1.1.2.1 Notification under Article 12.1(b)

7.484.
The Panel begins with the notification under Article 12.1(b). It is common ground that Ukraine made a notification to the Committee on Safeguards after making a finding on injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports. The parties disagree, however, whether that notification was "immediate". Ukraine notified the making of a finding of serious injury or threat thereof to the Committee on 21 March 2013.523 This was a joint notification under Articles 12.1(b) and (c), concerning both the finding of threat of serious injury and the application of the safeguard measure.
7.485.
The notification refers to the Notice of 14 March 2013 concerning the Decision of 28 April 2012 of the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Trade No. SP-275/2012/4423-08, which according to item 9 of the notification, was published on 14 March 2013.524 The notification also states that the introduction of the measure was to occur 30 days after publication of the Notice of Imposition on 14 March 2013.
7.486.
The Notice of 14 March 2013 states that the Commission "has decided that import of motor cars to Ukraine […] increased relative to domestic production by the domestic industry, and that such increase took place under conditions and volumes which threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry" and that "the national interests of Ukraine require imposition of safeguard measures against such imports".525 Thus, it is clear from the Notice of 14 March 2013 that the Commission "[made] a finding of [threat of] serious injury … caused by increased imports" within the meaning of Article 12.1(b). The text of the 28 April 2012 decision was not submitted to the Panel. The Notice of 14 March 2013 indicates that the Commission decided to impose a safeguard measure based on the decision and underlying findings adopted on 28 April 2012.
7.487.
After referring to, and endorsing, the findings in the Commission's 28 April 2012 decision, the Notice of 14 March 2013 goes on to state that a safeguard measure "shall be imposed" in the form of a special duty, and specifies the applicable rates of duty and the duration of the measure.526 The Notice of 14 March 2013 states that this decision is to enter into force 30 days after publication of the Notice. As already mentioned, it was not published until much later after the decision of 28 April 2012 was taken, this is, on 14 March 2013.
7.488.
We note that the Notice of 14 March 2013 incorporates and endorses but does not modify or supersede the finding of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports made on 28 April 2012. The only new element evident from the Notice of 14 March 2013 in respect of the 28 April 2012 finding is the publication of the Commission's decision. Indeed, neither party has suggested that the Commission's finding of 28 April 2012 was merely preliminary or incomplete. Moreover, the fact that the finding of 28 April 2012 was part of the Notice of 14 March 2013, which contains other findings and is broader in scope, does not detract from the fact that the Notice of 14 March 2013, at a minimum, incorporates the relevant finding.
7.489.
On these facts, we find that the competent authorities on 28 April 2012 adopted a decision making a finding of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports within the meaning of Article 12.1(b). The decision that contained this finding was not published, however, until 14 March 2013, and the decision to apply a safeguard based on that finding only entered into force one month later.
7.490.
The issue to which we now turn our attention is which of these dates – the date of adoption or publication of the finding of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports, or the date of entry into force of that finding through the application of a safeguard based on it – is the relevant triggering date for purposes of assessing whether Ukraine's notification under Article 12.1(b) was "immediate".
7.491.
The context of Article 12.1 suggests that we should not base our assessment on the date of entry into force of the finding. Article 12.3 requires the Member "proposing to apply" a safeguard measure to grant adequate opportunity for "prior" consultations. It follows from this requirement in Article 12.3 that these consultations need to take place before a safeguard measure is applied, i.e. before a finding of threat of serious injury enters into force through application of a safeguard measure. Article 12.3 also states that the consultations serve, inter alia, to allow exporting Members to review the information provided under Article 12.2. That provision identifies information to be included in notifications, inter alia, "evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by imports", that is, evidence supporting the finding referred to in Article 12.1(b). All of this indicates to us that the notification under Article 12.1(b) must also precede the date of entry into force of the finding referred to in that provision.
7.492.
In this case there was a gap of more than ten months between the date of adoption of the finding of serious injury caused by increased imports and the date of publication of that decision. Moreover, the record indicates that there was no intervening change to the substance of the finding at issue, nor was there any supplementary investigation after the date of adoption of that finding. We note that Ukraine's Safeguards Law does not appear to provide for separate publication of this finding527, and that the finding on 28 April 2012 may have been an internal decision without the status of a legal norm under Ukrainian law. However, neither consideration demonstrates that WTO rules, specifically those set forth in Article 12.1(b), do not require a Member to notify a finding of threat of serious injury immediately after the relevant finding is made, in this case by Ukraine's competent authorities on 28 April 2012.
7.493.
For all these reasons, we consider that, in the circumstances of this case, a finding of threat of serious injury was made on 28 April 2012. That finding was neither preliminary nor incomplete, and the decision to make that finding was not altered, rescinded or suspended after 28 April 2012. Ukraine was therefore required by Article 12.1(b) to notify this finding immediately after it was made, regardless of the provisions of Ukraine's Safeguards Law or the fact that it was not separately published.

7.9.1.1.2.2 Notification under Article 12.1(c)

7.495.
The Panel observes that it is common ground that Ukraine made a notification to the Committee on Safeguards after taking the decision to apply a safeguard measure, but again, the parties disagree whether Ukraine's notification under Article 12.1(c) was "immediate". As noted above, Ukraine made a joint notification under Articles 12.1(b) and (c) on 21 March 2013.528 The notification refers to the Notice of 14 March 2013 and states that the introduction of the measure will occur 30 days after publication of the Notice.
7.496.
As also noted above, the Notice of 14 March 2013 incorporates the Commission decision of 28 April 2012, and describes the decision of 28 April 2012 as the decision "according to which safeguard measures were imposed".529 The Notice of 14 March 2013 mentions that the decision of 28 April 2012 was taken pursuant to Article 16 of Ukraine's Safeguards Law. According to Article 16(3)of that Law, a Commission decision on application of a safeguard measure must contain, inter alia, the duration of a measure and the date of its entry into force:

The decision of the Commission on application of the safeguard measures shall contain the information on:

[…] the date of commencement of application of the safeguard measures, the date of the Commission's decision entering into force, other information and regulations of application of the safeguard measures.530

7.497.
Nothing in the Notice of 14 March 2013 indicates that the decision of 28 April 2012 established the parameters of application such as the duration of the measure or its date of entry into force. But even if it did, we note that the Notice of 14 March 2013 establishes the date of entry into force by stating that the decision to apply a safeguard measure will enter into force 30 days after its publication. Even if the decision of 28 April 2012 had similarly indicated that the measure would enter into force after publication, that decision was not in fact published until 14 March 2013. Consequently, the decision of 28 April 2012 did not establish a date for its entry into force. Therefore, we consider that the decision of 28 April 2012 does not constitute a "decision of the Commission on application of … safeguard measures" within the meaning of Article 16(3) of the Safeguards Law. In contrast, the Notice of 14 March 2013 unquestionably is such a decision, as it makes clear when the decision to apply a safeguard measure, based on the decision of 28 April 2012, will enter into force – 30 days after publication of the Notice of 14 March 2013.
7.498.
As Article 12.2 makes clear, the date of entry into force – or the date of introduction in the language of Article 12.2 – is information that must be provided to the Committee on Safeguards in making a notification under Article 12.1(c). This suggests to us that the "taking of a decision to apply … a safeguard measure" under Article 12.1(c) necessarily includes a decision on the date of introduction of the measure. Absent such a decision by the competent authorities that commits them to a date of introduction, the decision on application remains incomplete in a significant respect.
7.499.
As discussed above, the Notice of 14 March 2013 establishes the date of the entry into force of Ukraine's safeguard measure on passenger cars – the date of introduction. It also explicitly imposes a safeguard measure in the form of a special duty, and specifies the applicable rates of duty and the duration of the measure. For the foregoing reasons, we consider that the Notice of 14 March 2013 sets out all the essential elements of a "decision to apply … a safeguard measure". Moreover, the fact that the publication of the Notice of 14 March 2013 necessarily meant, by its own terms, that the safeguard measure would enter into force 30 days later supports our conclusion that the competent authorities "took" a decision to apply a safeguard measure, that is, they committed themselves to a particular date of introduction. Accordingly, we find that the competent authorities "[took] a decision to apply … a safeguard measure" within the meaning of Article 12.1(c) on 14 March 2013, the date on which the Notice was published.
7.500.
In contrast, while it seems clear that the Commission decision of 28 April 2012 contained the substantive basis on which a "decision to apply … a safeguard measure" was based, we cannot conclude that the competent authorities on 28 April 2012 went as far as "taking" a decision to apply a safeguard measure. Notably, there is no indication in the evidence before us that they committed to any particular date for the introduction of such a measure. It is clear, however, that a date for introduction of the measure was fixed as of the publication of the Notice of 14 March 2013.
7.501.
We now turn to the date to be used for assessing whether Ukraine's notification under Article 12.1(c) was made "immediately" upon taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure. Based on the foregoing, we consider that, in the specific circumstances of this case, the competent authorities took their decision to apply a safeguard measure only on 14 March 2013, when they published the Notice.531 We therefore find that the relevant date by reference to which we must assess whether Ukraine's notification under Article 12.1(c) was "immediate" is 14 March 2013.

7.9.2 Claim under Article 12.2

7.503.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 12.2 in making its notification to the WTO Committee on Safeguards. Article 12.2 provides that:

In making the notifications referred to in paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c), the Member proposing to apply or extend a safeguard measure shall provide the Committee on Safeguards with all pertinent information, which shall include evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, precise description of the product involved and the proposed measure, proposed date of introduction, expected duration and timetable for progressive liberalization. In the case of an extension of a measure, evidence that the industry concerned is adjusting shall also be provided. The Council for Trade in Goods or the Committee on Safeguards may request such additional information as they may consider necessary from the Member proposing to apply or extend the measure.

7.504.
Japan claims that the notification made by Ukraine pursuant to Articles 12.1(b) and (c) on 21 March 2013 is inconsistent with Article 12.2 because it did not contain all pertinent information.532 More specifically, it argues that Ukraine's notification does not include certain essential evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, and does not include a timetable for progressive liberalization.533
7.505.
Ukraine argues that its notification to the WTO Committee on Safeguards of 21 March 2013 included the requisite pertinent information on the injury determination and the decision to impose the safeguard measure and was sufficient to be consistent with its WTO obligations.534 Ukraine adds that in assessing whether or not Article 12.2 has been complied with, it is important to focus on the overarching goals of notifications.535 Referring to Argentina – Footwear (EC), Ukraine argues that the notification must be sufficiently descriptive of the actions taken or proposed, and of the bases for those actions, so that Members with an interest in the matter can decide whether and how to pursue it further.536
7.506.
In response, Japan argues that a Member must not only comply with the spirit of Article 12.2 but also its letter. Japan takes the view that the notification must at a minimum address all the items specified in Article 12.2 as constituting all pertinent information as well as the factors listed in Article 4.2 that are required to be evaluated in a safeguard investigation.537
7.507.
The Panel notes that this claim concerns the content of Ukraine's notification of 21 March 2013 under Articles 12.1(b) and (c).538 The parties disagree whether that notification provides sufficient information to comply with the minimum requirement imposed by Article 12.2. We will examine the notification in question to determine if it meets the minimum requirement imposed by Article 12.2.

7.9.2.1 "All pertinent information"

7.508.
The Panel recalls that Article 12.2 sets forth the required content of notifications to the WTO Committee on Safeguards under Articles 12.1(b) or 12.1(c). Such notifications must provide "all pertinent information" with respect to several matters concerning the investigation, determinations, and the proposed safeguard measure. Article 12.2 indicates that information that is pertinent in all cases "include[s]" certain specified information. This was confirmed by the Appellate Body in Korea – Dairy:

The text of Article 12.2 makes it clear that a Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure is required to provide the Committee on Safeguards with all pertinent, not just any pertinent, information. Moreover, it provides that such information shall include certain items listed immediately after the phrase "all pertinent information", namely, evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, a precise description of the product involved and the proposed measure, the proposed date of introduction, the expected duration of the measure and a timetable for progressive liberalization. These items, which are listed as mandatory components of "all pertinent information", constitute a minimum notification requirement that must be met if a notification is to comply with the requirements of Article 12.539

So far as the evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports is concerned, the Appellate Body further clarified that:

We believe that "evidence of serious injury" in the sense of Article 12.2 should refer, at a minimum, to the injury factors required to be evaluated under Article 4.2(a). In other words, according to the text and the context of Article 12.2, a Member must, at a minimum, address in its notifications, pursuant to paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article 12, all the items specified in Article 12.2 as constituting "all pertinent information", as well as the factors listed in Article 4.2 that are required to be evaluated in a safeguards investigation.540

7.510.
As these fourteen items all form part of the minimum content to be included in a notification under Articles 12.1(b) and (c), this necessarily means that if any one of these items is missing, the notification concerned fails to meet the requirements of Article 12.2.
7.511.
With these considerations in mind, we now turn to assess Ukraine's notification.

7.9.2.2 The competent authorities' notification

7.512.
Japan contends that the notification does not contain all pertinent information regarding evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports. More specifically, Japan asserts that the following information was absent from the notification:

i. the amounts of the decrease in imports in absolute terms and the amounts of the increase in imports in relative terms over the period of investigation;

ii. the intervening trends for 2008 to 2009 and for 2009 to 2010 in relation to each of the injury factors;

iii. the absolute figures for each of the injury factors; and

iv. information concerning the causal link between increased imports of the product concerned and the serious injury or threat thereof.542

7.513.
Japan submits that the notification likewise does not include a timetable for progressive liberalization.543 Japan argues that the timetable for progressive liberalization is part of the pertinent information that is required in a notification under Article 12.1, and therefore the absence of such a timetable defeats the fundamental goal of transparency and information.544
7.514.
Ukraine considers that Japan's procedural claim under Article 12.2 must fail.545 Ukraine maintains that its notification under Articles 12.1(b) and (c) was sufficient under WTO rules.546 In particular, Ukraine considers that its notification included the requisite pertinent information on the determination of serious injury or threat thereof and the decision to impose the safeguard measure. The supplement to the notification of 21 March 2013, notified to the WTO Committee on Safeguards on 28 March 2014, provided further pertinent information on the application of the measure.547
7.515.
Ukraine acknowledges that it did not notify any timetable for progressive liberalization until 28 March 2014.548 However, Ukraine submits that its notification of 21 March 2013 satisfied its obligations under Article 12.2 with respect to the liberalization timetable, based on what Ukraine views as the overarching goals of Article 12.549 In particular, Ukraine considers it relevant that its authorities had sent a number of letters to Japan between 25 August 2011 and 25 March 2013, which Ukraine alleges provided Japan with the information needed to undertake consultations with Ukraine under Article 12.3.550 Ukraine further emphasizes that the initial proposed safeguard rate of duty for cars with an engine volume in the range of 1500 cm3 but not exceeding 2200 cm3 was reduced from 15.1% to 12.95% as a result of the consultations with Japan that were held on 19 April 2012. Ukraine argues that as one of the purposes of the notification is to inform Members of the circumstances of the case and the intentions of the imposing Member with a view to allowing any interested Member to decide whether to request consultations which may lead to the modification of the proposed measure, it is relevant that this purpose of the notification was met in the present case, given that Japan had the information and had the consultations which lead to the modification of the proposed measure.551
7.516.
In response, Japan argues that the supplementary notification of 28 March 2014 does not contain any of the information concerning injury and causal link identified by Japan as absent from the notification of 21 March 2013.552 Moreover, in Japan's view, the fact that Ukraine's subsequent notification of 28 March 2014 contains a timetable for progressive liberalization does not render the notification of 21 March 2013 consistent with Article 12.2.553 Finally, Japan adds that the letters sent to Japan are irrelevant for determining Ukraine's compliance with Article 12.2, as such a determination depends on the content and extent of the information Ukraine made available to the Committee on Safeguards in its notifications.554
7.517.
The Panel will begin its analysis by addressing the issue of whether the notification contains a timetable for progressive liberalization555, as required by Article 12.2. Ukraine's notification of 21 March 2013 contains information on the determination of injury or threat thereof, in particular the trends of certain injury indicators of the domestic industry during the period of investigation, and on the assessment of the export potential of certain exporting countries. Additionally, the notification contains information about the proposed measure, specifically, on its form and the applicable rates of duty; a description of the product involved; the proposed date of introduction; and the expected duration of the safeguard measure. However, the notification provides no timetable for progressive liberalization. This fact is not in dispute between the parties.556
7.518.
Following the notification of 21 March 2013, Ukraine applied its safeguard measure as from 14 April 2013. It subsequently decided, on 12 February 2014, to liberalize that measure by reducing the duty rates in two successive steps, after 12 and 24 months.557 This decision was published in the official gazette on 28 March 2014 and notified to the WTO Committee on Safeguards on the same day.558 We note that the notification of 28 March 2014 does contain a timetable for progressive liberalization.
7.519.
Ukraine's supplementary notification of 28 March 2014 came almost one year after the entry into force of the safeguard measure. However, the text of Article 12.2 clearly imposes an obligation to provide a timetable for progressive liberalization on "the Member proposing to apply or extend a safeguard measure" (emphasis added). The term "proposing" entails that the Member has not applied, but intends to, or is about to, apply a safeguard measure. If a safeguard measure had already been adopted, the Member would no longer be "proposing" to apply it. Thus, it seems clear to us that a timetable notified after the measure has already been imposed cannot satisfy Article 12.2.
7.520.
The panel in Korea – Dairy similarly found that Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3559, taken together, impose an obligation to notify the details of a proposed safeguard measure before it is applied, so that affected Members may consult on it before it takes effect.560 The Appellate Body confirmed that the requirement in Article 12.2 to provide all pertinent information, which includes the timetable for progressive liberalization, allows exporting Members with a substantial interest to engage in prior consultations:

In this way, exporting Members with a substantial interest in the product subject to a safeguard measure will be in a better position to engage in meaningful consultations, as envisaged by Article 12.3, than they would otherwise be if the notification did not include all such elements.561

7.522.
As regards the letters that Ukraine's authorities sent to Japan, we note that Article 12.2, read together with Article 12.1, establishes an obligation to provide information not just to one Member, but to the WTO Committee on Safeguards, and that under Article 12.3 all Members having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned must be given an opportunity for prior consultations. But even leaving that aside, the letters identified by Ukraine in any event do not contain a proposed timetable for progressive liberalization.
7.523.
Furthermore, we recall that this Panel was established on 26 March 2014, i.e. two days before Ukraine's supplementary notification of 28 March 2014. Therefore, as of the date of the Panel's establishment, Ukraine had not notified any timetable for progressive liberalization to the WTO Committee on Safeguards. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Ukraine's notification of 21 March 2013, the only notification submitted as of the date of this Panel's establishment, does not satisfy the requirement to provide "all pertinent information", since it failed to provide one of the mandatory elements identified in Article 12.2 as being part of "all pertinent information", i.e. a proposed timetable for progressive liberalization.
7.524.
For all the above reasons, we conclude that, as of the date of this Panel's establishment, i.e. 26 March 2014, Ukraine was acting inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.2 because it had not provided, in its notification of 21 March 2013, "all pertinent information" as required under that provision. Ukraine's supplementary notification of 28 March 2014 does not affect our conclusion.
7.525.
The Panel recalls that Japan also argues that other information is missing from the notification of 21 March 2013. Since we have already found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.2 by failing to provide a proposed timetable for progressive liberalization as required, we do not consider it necessary to go on to make additional findings regarding whether Ukraine also acted inconsistently with Article 12.2 by failing to provide the other information identified by Japan. We therefore decline to make findings regarding Japan's claim so far as those arguments are concerned.

7.9.3 Claim under Article 12.3

7.526.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim that Ukraine failed to provide Japan with an adequate opportunity for prior consultations under Article 12.3, which reads as follows:

A Member proposing to apply or extend a safeguard measure shall provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations with those Members having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned, with a view to, inter alia, reviewing the information provided under paragraph 2, exchanging views on the measure and reaching an understanding on ways to achieve the objective set out in paragraph 1 of Article 8.

7.527.
Japan claims that Ukraine failed to provide an adequate opportunity for consultations after it made a notification under Articles 12.1(b) and (c) on 21 March 2013.563 Japan argues that Article 12.3 provides that one of the objectives of the opportunity for prior consultation is to allow for "reviewing the information provided under paragraph 2 (of Article 12)". Japan therefore considers that the opportunity for prior consultations should be provided after the notification containing information identified in Article 12.2 has been made. Japan submits that despite its repeated requests after Ukraine's notification on 21 March 2013, Ukraine failed to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations on the proposed safeguard measure.564
7.528.
Japan adds that the consultations held between Japan and Ukraine on 19 April 2012 did not fulfil the requirements of Article 12.3. Japan argues that Article 12.3 requires the Member imposing a safeguard measure to provide affected exporting Members sufficient time and sufficient information for meaningful consultations. In Japan's view, the reference in Article 12.3 to "the information provided under paragraph 2 (of Article 12)" indicates that the information listed in Article 12.2 is the minimum information that the imposing Member has to provide to enable meaningful consultations. Japan contends that the information provided to it in advance of the consultations of 19 April 2012, namely the Key Findings,565 did not contain all of the minimum information required by Article 12.2, in particular, the proposed date of application, the precise rate of duty and certain pertinent information concerning injury and causation.566
7.529.
Ukraine responds that Japan's focus on the notification under Article 12.1 and on the pertinent information required by Article 12.2 is misplaced. Ukraine considers highly relevant the fact that, pursuant to Article 12.3, the consultations must be based on "the information provided under paragraph 2" and not on the notification under Article 12.1 itself. In Ukraine's view, if an interested Member has received information that is subsequently also provided in a notification under Article 12.1, then that is sufficient to allow for proper consultations under Article 12.3. Ukraine asserts that it provided Japan with the relevant information regarding its proposed measure prior to both the decision of 28 April 2012 to impose a safeguard measure and the decision of 21 March 2013 to publish the safeguard measure.567 In particular, Ukraine refers to its consultations with Japan of 19 April 2012, which in its view satisfied its obligation under Article 12.3.568
7.530.
The Panel notes that Japan and Ukraine disagree over how the pertinent information required by Article 12.2 is to be provided for purposes of prior consultations under Article 12.3, and whether prior consultations were held that allowed a review of relevant information. What is not in dispute, however, is that as concerns the safeguard measure at issue Japan can be considered a "Member having a substantial interest as [an exporter] of the product concerned" within the meaning of Article 12.3. We note that Japan's share of Ukraine's total imports of passenger cars was 15% in 2010 according to the Notice of Imposition of 14 March 2013.
7.531.
Before addressing the issues raised by Japan's claim, we recall the sequence of relevant events:

DateEvent
11 April 2012 Ukraine sent a letter, with Key Findings attached, to the Embassy of Japan in Ukraine inviting Japan to consultations under Article 12.3.569
19 April 2012 Consultations were held between Ukraine and Japan in Kiev.570
28 April 2012 Safeguard investigation on passenger cars completed.571 Decision on the Imposition of Safeguard Measures adopted.572
14 March 2013 Notice of Imposition - published in the Uryadovyi Kuryer No. 48.573
21 March 2013 Ukraine notified the WTO Committee on Safeguards pursuant to Articles 12.1(b) and (c).
27 March 2013 A meeting was held between representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine and Embassy of Japan in Ukraine.574
4 April 2013 Japan requested consultations pursuant to Article 12.3.575
9 April 2013 A meeting was held between representatives of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan.576
13 April 2013 Safeguard measure at issue entered into effect.
15 April 2013 Ukraine communicated to the WTO Committee on Safeguards that "the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine proposes that the consultations take place at the Ministry's premises in Kiev/Ukraine during April 2013."577
20 April 2013 Japan requested that the consultations take place in Geneva.578
23 April 2013 Japan reiterated its concerns about the lack of adequate opportunity for consultation during the regular meeting of the WTO Committee on Safeguards.579 At the same meeting of the WTO Committee on Safeguards, Ukraine stated that it had held consultations with Japan to discuss the results of the investigation on 19 April 2012 and fully complied with the Agreement on Safeguards.580
4 June 2013 Ukraine sent a letter to the Permanent Mission of Japan in Geneva stating that it "has provided the adequate opportunity for prior consultations with Japan as stated in Article 12.3 of the Agreement".581
Thereafter Japan reiterated on several occasions, in letters to Ukraine, and in communications to and statements before the WTO Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee on Safeguards, its position that the consultations held in Ukraine failed to provide an adequate opportunity for prior consultations under Article 12.3.582

7.532.
It is clear from the above that the only consultations between Ukraine and Japan on the proposed safeguard measure before its entry into force were those held on 19 April 2012. In advance of those consultations, information was made available to Japan on the proposed safeguard measure only in the Key Findings communicated to it on 11 April 2012. The notification pursuant to Articles 12.1(b) and (c) was not made by Ukraine until 21 March 2013, almost one year later. No further consultations took place between Japan and Ukraine prior to the entry into force of the safeguard measure on 13 April 2013.
7.533.
With respect to the requirements of Article 12.3, the Appellate Body observed in US – Wheat Gluten that:

Article 12.3 states that an "adequate opportunity" for consultations is to be provided "with a view to": reviewing the information furnished pursuant to Article 12.2; exchanging views on the measure; and reaching an understanding with exporting Members on an equivalent level of concessions. In view of these objectives, we consider that Article 12.3 requires a Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure to provide exporting Members with sufficient information and time to allow for the possibility, through consultations, for meaningful exchange on the issues identified. To us, it follows from the text of Article 12.3 itself that information on the proposed measure must be provided in advance of the consultations, so that the consultations can adequately address that measure. Moreover, the reference, in Article 12.3, to "the information provided under" Article 12.2, indicates that Article 12.2 identifies the information that is needed to enable meaningful consultations to occur under Article 12.3.583

7.535.
Japan takes the view that the "pertinent information" referred to in Article 12.2 must be provided through a notification under Article 12.1 and that there is a link between the "pertinent information provided" by means of a notification under Article 12.1 and the obligation to provide "an adequate opportunity for consultations" under Article 12.3.585 In contrast, Ukraine considers that the requirements of Article 12.3 are satisfied if an interested Member has actually received the information to be included in a notification under Article 12.1, whether through a notification under Article 12.1 or otherwise. Ukraine's interpretation is not the most natural reading of the text of the relevant provisions. Article 12.3 refers to information "provided" under Article 12.2, not information "referred to", or "identified", in Article 12.2. For us, this suggests that if the information is not "provided" as per Article 12.2, that is, in the notifications referred to in Articles 12.1(b) and (c), a Member cannot be found to have complied with the relevant requirement. Moreover, the past participle "provided" tracks the language used in Article 12.2, which requires the Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure to "provide" the Committee on Safeguards with all pertinent information. Thus, a Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure must first "provide" the information to the Committee so that the information thus "provided" can be used by interested exporting Members for purposes of the prior consultations required by Article 12.3. Thus, the immediate context of Article 12.3 supports an interpretation of Article 12.3 as referring to the pertinent information provided to the Committee on Safeguards in notifications under Articles 12.1(b) and (c).
7.536.
Nevertheless, we accept that this interpretation alone might not be fully dispositive of all issues presented in a case where the complaining party has been provided with all pertinent information otherwise than through a notification. However, in the dispute before us we need to address this point only if Japan was, in fact, provided with all pertinent information.
7.537.
With these considerations in mind, the Panel now examines whether, in the present dispute, Ukraine provided Japan with adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view to, inter alia, reviewing the information provided under Article 12.2. As mentioned earlier, the only consultations on the proposed safeguard measure that were held prior to the entry into force of that measure were those held on 19 April 2012. Ukraine had provided no notification to the WTO under Article 12.1(b) or (c) at the time. While Ukraine provided the Key Findings to Japan prior to the consultations, on 11 April 2012, those findings do not include information concerning a timetable for progressive liberalization, which is one of the mandatory elements of information to be provided under Article 12.2.Thus, it is clear that Japan was not provided with the information required under Article 12.2 before the consultations were held. Moreover, the Articles 12.1(b) and 12.1(c) notification made on 21 March 2013 similarly failed to provide information regarding a timetable for progressive liberalization586 Since Japan was not provided with all pertinent information identified in Article 12.2, it is clear to us that, even assuming Ukraine's interpretation of the relevant provisions were correct, an issue we need not decide, by failing to provide Japan with all pertinent information identified in Article 12.2 prior to the consultations, Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 12.3.
7.538.
For the reasons set out above, we therefore conclude that, although consultations took place in April 2012 prior to the application of the measure at issue, Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.3 because it failed to provide Japan, a Member with a substantial export interest in the product subject to the proposed safeguard measure, with adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view to reviewing all pertinent information within the meaning of Article 12.2, which includes the proposed timetable for progressive liberalization.

7.9.4 Claim under Article 12.5

7.539.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim under Article 12.5, which provides that:

The results of the consultations referred to in this Article, as well as the results of mid-term reviews referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 7, any form of compensation referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 8, and proposed suspensions of concessions and other obligations referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 8, shall be notified immediately to the Council for Trade in Goods by the Members concerned.

7.540.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 12.5 because, even if the Panel were to find that Ukraine and Japan held consultations pursuant to Article 12.3, the results of such consultations were not notified, and a fortiori not notified "immediately", to the Council for Trade in Goods.587
7.541.
Ukraine responds that Japan cannot complain about any failure to notify, in view of its own failure to notify the results of the consultations. Ukraine asserts in this connection that Article 12.5 sets forth a shared obligation for the "Members" concerned, in the plural, in the consultations, to notify the results.588 In Ukraine's view the lack of a notification to the Council for Trade in Goods could not have caused any harm to Japan given that this provision aims to protect the interests of Members other than Japan and Ukraine.589 Ukraine submits that the alleged lack of notification is in any case a harmless error.590
7.542.
The Panel notes that Japan in its response to one of its questions at the second substantive meeting confirmed that if the Panel were to find that no consultations were held under Article 12.3, as asserted by Japan, the Panel need not make a finding on its Article 12.5 claim.591
7.543.
We have found above that Ukraine failed to provide Japan with an adequate opportunity for prior consultations contrary to Article 12.3. Therefore, the condition on which Japan's claim under Article 12.5 rests is not fulfilled. Given Japan's position, we consequently refrain from addressing this conditional claim further and make no findings on its merits.

7.9.5 Claim under Article 8.1

7.544.
The Panel now turns to Japan's claim under Article 8.1, which provides that:

A Member proposing to apply a safeguard measure or seeking an extension of a safeguard measure shall endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing under GATT 1994 between it and the exporting Members which would be affected by such a measure, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 12. To achieve this objective, the Members concerned may agree on any adequate means of trade compensation for the adverse effects of the measure on their trade.

7.545.
Japan claims that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 8.1 because it did not endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing between Ukraine and Japan under the GATT 1994 in accordance with Article 12.3.592 Japan argues that Ukraine's failure to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations within the meaning of Article 12.3 is in itself a reason for the Panel to find that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1.593
7.546.
Ukraine argues that the consultations that took place in April 2012 demonstrate that it has always endeavoured to maintain an equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between it and Japan as well as with other exporting Members that would be affected by the safeguard measure at issue.594 Ukraine adds that Article 8 should be read in a holistic manner in the sense that there is no violation of a legal provision requirement if that legal provision itself provides for a balancing mechanism, as does Article 8.595 Ukraine notes that according to Article 8.2, if there is no agreement following consultations, or a fortiori when no consultations take place, the affected exporting Member is free, no later than 90 days after the safeguard measure is applied, to suspend the application of substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations under the GATT 1994 to the trade of the Member applying the safeguard measure. In Ukraine's view, as Japan was free to resort to this form of approved self-help under Article 8.2, its claim under Article 8.1 is without merit.596
7.547.
Japan responds that Article 8.2 allows temporary relief for the harm caused by the application of a safeguard measure, but does not address the breach of Article 8.1, which sets out a clear legal obligation to be complied with by a Member proposing to apply safeguard measure.597
7.548.
The Panel recalls that the Appellate Body stated in US – Wheat Gluten that:

Article 8.1 imposes an obligation on Members to "endeavour to maintain" equivalent concessions with affected exporting Members. The efforts made by a Member to this end must be "in accordance with the provisions of" Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

In view of the explicit link between Articles 8.1 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, a Member cannot …] "endeavour to maintain" an adequate balance of concessions unless it has, as a first step, provided an adequate opportunity for prior consultations on a proposed measure".598

7.549.
In that dispute, the Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that, contrary to Article 12.3, the United States did not provide an adequate opportunity for consultations because the form of the proposed measure was not clear enough to enable meaningful consultations. The Appellate Body elaborated as follows:

[A]n exporting Member will not have an "adequate opportunity" under Article 12.3 to negotiate overall equivalent concessions through consultations unless, prior to those consultations, it has obtained, inter alia, sufficiently detailed information on the form of the proposed measure, including the nature of the remedy.599

7.550.
The Appellate Body in the same dispute also upheld, "for the same reasons" as those it cited when upholding the panel's finding under Article 12.3, the panel's additional finding that the United States had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1.600 This confirms to us that the lack of pertinent information at the time consultations are held under Article 12.3 leads to a breach of Article 8.1. Compliance with Article 8.1 must be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.3.
7.551.
In the present dispute, we have found above that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.3 because it failed to provide Japan with adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view to reviewing all pertinent information, which includes the proposed timetable for progressive liberalization. We note that the information that was missing in US – Wheat Gluten was different in nature and related to the form of the proposed measure and the nature of the remedy. Nevertheless, in our view, the proposed timetable for progressive liberalization is equally relevant to achieving the objective of endeavouring to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations that would be affected by a safeguard measure. The timetable for progressive liberalization is an important element in determining, per Article 8.1, "any adequate means of trade compensation for the adverse effects" of the proposed safeguard measure on the trade of exporting Members. Absent a timetable for progressive liberalization, an affected exporting Member cannot accurately assess the adverse effects caused by the safeguard measure as the level and duration of the adverse effects will depend on whether and when any liberalization of the safeguard measure will be introduced, and thus, an adequate level of compensation cannot be calculated.
7.552.
Consequently, we conclude that, to the extent that Ukraine failed to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations to review a proposed timetable for progressive liberalization, Ukraine cannot be said to have "endeavoured to maintain" a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations, because without a proposed timetable for progressive liberalization, exporting Members such as Japan were unable to form an accurate understanding as to what might constitute a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations.
7.553.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel therefore concludes that Ukraine acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1 because it has failed to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations.

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1.
For the reasons set forth in this Report, we conclude that Ukraine acted inconsistently with:

a. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, by failing to make a proper determination regarding (i) the existence of unforeseen developments and (ii) the effect of GATT 1994 obligations;

b. Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to make a proper determination regarding increased imports;

c. Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to make a proper determination regarding threat of serious injury to the domestic industry;

d. Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to demonstrate the existence of a causal link and to conduct a proper non-attribution analysis;

e. Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to publish promptly its analysis of the case under investigation and its demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined;

f. Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to endeavour to maintain an adequate balance of concessions and other obligations.

g. Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards immediately after initiating a safeguard investigation;

h. Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards immediately after making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports;

i. Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to provide, in its notification of 21 March 2013, "all pertinent information" as required by that provision; and

j. Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to provide Japan with adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view to reviewing all pertinent information.

8.2.
Further, and also for the reasons set forth in this Report, we conclude that Japan failed to establish that Ukraine acted inconsistently with:

a. Article 3.1, second sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to provide reasonable public notice to all interested parties and public hearings or other appropriate means for interested parties to present evidence, views, and responses to presentations of other parties;

b. Article 3.1, last sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to publish its report "promptly";

c. Article 3.1, last sentence, or Article 4.2(c), of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to provide a timetable for progressive liberalization in its Notice of 14 March 2013;

d. Articles 5.1 and 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to apply the safeguard measure as necessary to facilitate adjustment;

e. Article 7.4, first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to progressively liberalize the safeguard measure at regular intervals; or

f. Article 12.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, by failing to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards immediately after taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure.

8.3.
In the light of the conditional nature of Japan's claim under Article 12.5 regarding notification of the results of consultations under Article 12.3 and our finding that the condition was not fulfilled, we reached no conclusion on this claim.
8.4.
With respect to the remainder of Japan's claims under Articles 2.1601; 3.1, first sentence602; 3.1, last sentence, and 4.2(c)603; 4.1(a) and 4.1(b)604; 4.2(a)605; 5.1606; and 11.1(a)607 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles II:1(b) and XIX:1(a)608 of the GATT 1994, we exercised judicial economy and reached no conclusions.
8.5.
Pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases of failure to comply with obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the measure is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing from that agreement. Consequently, we find that, to the extent that it acted inconsistently with certain provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994, Ukraine nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Japan under those Agreements.
8.6.