Common use of The Panel in China Clause in Contracts

The Panel in China. Autos (US) made a distinction between an a priori exclusion of producers from the domestic industry and data collection problems in the context of the injury determination. The Panel also added that an investigating authority did not necessarily have to include in the domestic industry a particular proportion of producers that opposed the complaint: 1. We recall in this regard that Articles 4.1 and 16.1 do not establish any particular procedure or methodology for MOFCOM to follow in defining the domestic industry. Nothing in these provisions thus precludes MOFCOM from establishing deadlines for producers to come forward to be considered for inclusion in the domestic industry, despite that such deadlines may ultimately prevent producers from participating in the investigations, where they fail to make themselves known in a timely manner. In our view, further, the mere fact that the domestic industry as defined does not include a particular proportion of producers opposing the complaint, does not demonstrate that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 4.1 and 16. 1. With this in mind, we turn to the specific arguments with respect to this claim."23 18 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 419. 20 Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners (China), para. 425.