* WTO ruling upheld parts of U.S. complaint on restrictions
* China working within rules to defend trade interests
(Adds U.S. comment paragraphs 8-9)
By Jonathan Lynn
GENEVA, Sept 22 (Reuters) - China appealed at the last minute on Tuesday against a World Trade Organisation ruling upholding parts of a U.S. complaint about Chinese restrictions on imports of films, books and other audio-visual material.
The move showed that China was continuing to pursue litigation against the United States on a range of trade issues, where relations have been soured by President Barack Obama's imposition on Sept. 11 of tariffs on imports of cheap Chinese tyres.
But it also showed that China was keen to play within the rules of the international trading system rather than pursuing a damaging trade war.
"China is appealing the panel ruling," an official at China's WTO mission told Reuters in answer to an inquiry.
A WTO dispute panel found on Aug. 12 that China's regime for importing and distributing audio-visual material broke international trade rules.
Beijing made clear from the start that it was considering challenging the finding, and Tuesday's move also demonstrated its interest in building up experience in using international trade law to defend its interests.
The WTO cancelled a session of its dispute settlement body scheduled for 1300 GMT, at which the sole item on the agenda was the adoption of the panel report.
"The United States did not appeal, but we received China's notice of appeal this morning, so we will be going through the appeals process," Debbie Mesloh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office said.
"We anticipate results of the appeal at the end of the year," she said in a statement.
Washington had argued that China's controls on cultural products robbed U.S. publishers, Hollywood and entertainment multinationals of the chance to make substantial sales, leaving the way open for local pirates to sell counterfeit copies.
The ruling did not challenge the right of China's communist authorities to censor material they found objectionable, but said they could not use censorship to justify illegal trade barriers. (Additional reporting by Doug Palmer in Washington) (Editing by Stephanie Nebehay and Tim Pearce)