Also the Chinese domestic market will be able to have a better stability of the prices and this would give them enough advantage over other nations that were vying to export some of these materials. The context for fair trade and exports is hence reduced here. In the context of the Protocol of Accession it was seen that China had eliminated all export taxes which was not consistent with the agreed commitments. The export quotas that China had agreed upon with the WTO rules and the export quotas that it was enforcing domestically were seen to be inconsistent also. The Panel in its summary findings was also able to ascertain that China was not subject to the exemptions as was cited under the Article XX of the GATT 1994. In it the Panel also stated that even if China was to be considered to have used the exemptions (which it could not have) it would still be seen that it had not complied with the necessary requirements of the stated WTO exceptions. Some exemptions are allowed if the nations were able to show that there was a need to conserve resources and hence restraints were necessary, however China was also not able to show this need and that even if China framework towards adopting some quotas under the WTO rule could be considered correct in the future, it was noted that it was still not WTO consistent. The Panel furthermore noted that there were issues in the export licensing regime of China, these issues were spread across many products, raw materials and more.
While the panel based on the complaint of the United States was able to provide a summary of the findings, the Appellate body reviewed and produced a report on the on 30 January, 2012 that was to be distributed to the members. 1 January 2012. The original complaint was made challenging the restraints that China has imposed on export duties of raw materials, export quotas, minimum export price requirements, and export licensing requirements.