The European Union argued before the original panel that China had dropped its Article 6.5 claim with respect to XXX’s questionnaire response because China had not developed arguments in this regard in its first written submission. China clarified in its second written submission that it had not dropped this claim and provided its supporting arguments with respect to the claim. In response to questioning from the panel, the European Union stated that the way in which China had developed this claim violated the European Union’s due process rights and the panel’s working procedures. The panel expressed concern over the way in which China had developed this claim but decided that, overall, the European Union had not been deprived of its due process rights; accordingly, it addressed the claim on its merits. However, in terms of the scope of the claim, the panel noted that China’s claim concerned all the information submitted in XXX’s questionnaire response and that China had only presented evidence and arguments with respect to information concerning “product types”. For this reason, the panel limited its substantive assessment of the claim under Article 6.5 to the information on product types. The panel then noted that the Commission had treated the information about XXX’s product types as confidential without a showing of good cause and found this to be in violation of Article 6.5. Having found a violation of Article 6.5, the panel refrained from making a finding under Article 6.5.1. On appeal, the Appellate Body found that China had not substantiated its claim under Article 6.5 with respect to the “product type”information in the questionnaire because it had asserted it late in the proceedings and had failed to provide supporting arguments and evidence. Therefore, the Appellate Body concluded that the European Union was not called upon to respond to this claim. On this basis, the Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that the European Union had acted inconsistently with Article 6.5.

7.29. 欧盟在向原专家组提出的抗辩中指出，中国放弃了就XXX公司调查问卷答卷根据第6.5条提出的主张，因为中国在第一次书面陈述中，并未提出与之有关的抗辩。中国在其第二次书面陈述中澄清，其并未放弃该主张，并提供了与该主张有关的支持证据。欧盟在回复专家组询问时指出，中国提出该主张的方式侵犯了欧盟的正当程序权，违反了专家组的工作程序。专家组对中国提出该主张的方式表示关注，但专家组认定，总体而言，中国的做法并未剥夺欧盟的正当程序权；并根据法律理据审核了该条主张。但对于该主张的范围，专家组指出，中国的主张涉及XXX公司调查问卷答卷中提交的所有信息，但中国仅提交了与“产品类别”信息相关的证据与抗辩。因此，对于中国根据第6.5条提出的主张，专家组将对该主张的实质评估限制为产品类别信息。专家组又指出，欧盟委员会将XXX公司的产品类别信息进行保密处理，并未说明正当理由，因此裁定该做法违反第6.5条。做出违反第6.5条的裁定之后，专家组并未根据第6.5.1条做出其他裁定。在上诉时，上诉机构认定中国并未证实其根据第6.5条提出的与调查问卷答卷中“产品类别”信息有关的主张，因为中国在诉讼后期提出该主张，且未提供支持抗辩与证据。因此，上诉机构裁定，欧盟不需要对该主张做出回应。在此基础上，上诉机构驳回了专家组提出的欧盟的做法不符合第6.5条的裁定。