WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS99/RW
7 November 2000
(00-4687)
Original:  English
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTY ON DYNAMIC
RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY SEMICONDUCTORS (DRAMS)
OF ONE MEGABIT OR ABOVE FROM KOREA
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea
Report of the Panel
This report of the Panel is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU.  The
report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 7 November 2000
pursuant to the procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents
(WT/L/160/Rev.1)WT/DS99/RW
Page 3
1. This dispute concerns the United States' implementation of the 19 March 1999 Dispute
Settlement Body ("DSB") recommendation on United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) of One Megabit or Above from Korea(WT/DS99/R) (" United States - DRAMs" ), whereby the United States was requested to bring section
353.25(a)(2)(ii) of the United States Department  of Commerce ("DOC") regulations, and the Final
Results Third Review , into conformity with its obligations under Article 11.2 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD
Agreement").
2. The original panel found that section 353.25(a)(2)(ii) of the DOC regulations violated Article
11.2 of the AD Agreement, because the "not likely" criterion did not "provide[] any demonstrable
basis on which to reliably conclude that the continued imposition of the duty is necessary to offset
dumping".
1  The original panel also found that the Final Results Third Review  was inconsistent with
Article 11.2, "[s]ince the Final Results Third Review  is itself based on and determined by section
353.25(a)(2)(ii)".2
3. On 17 January 2000, the United States submitted a status report to the DSB.3  I n its sta tus
report, the United States informed the DSB that it had sought to implement the DSB recommendation
in two stages.  First, the DOC amended section 351.222(b) of its regulations, the provision which had
replaced section 353.22(a)(ii).  In short, the DOC deleted the "not likely" criterion, and replaced it
with a requirement that the Secretary of Commerce consider "whether the continued application of the
antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping".  Second, the DOC issued aRedetermination on DRAMs , in which it applied the new "otherwise necessary" provision.  In its
Redetermination on DRAMs , the DOC found that "the continued application of the dumping order is
necessary to offset dumping".
4  Accordingly, the DOC determined not to revoke the anti-dumping
duty order on DRAMs from Korea.
4. At the meeting of the DSB held on 25 April 2000, Korea asserted that the United States had
failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations a nd rulings.  First, instead of adopting a standard
conforming to the Panel's findings and rulings, the United States had adopted a very general standard
that could be, and in fact had been, misapplied.  Second, in applying the modified standard for
revocation, the United States had continued to apply the anti-dumping order to Korean DRAMs
without demonstrating by substantial, positive evidence that the anti-dumping duty order needed to bemaintained in order to offset dumping, as required by the Panel.  Third, by failing to publish the Final
Results Third Review  in the Federal Register, the United States had failed to meet its obligations
under Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 12.3 of the AD Agreement.
5. Following a request by Korea pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), the DSB referred the matter to the originalpanel.  Accordingly, the Article 21.5 Panel was composed of:
Chairman: Mr. Crawford Falconer
Members: Mr. Meinhard Hilf
Ms. Marta Calmon Lemme
6. The Panel had standard terms of reference as follows:
                                                     
1 United States - DRAMS , para. 6.50.
2 United States - DRAMS , para. 6.55.
3 See WT/DS99/6, para. 4.
4 Redetermination on DRAMS , page 13.WT/DS99/RW
Page 4
“To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by Korea in document WT/DS99/8, the matter referred to the DSB by Korea in that
document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making therecommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.”
7. The European Communities reserved its rights as third party to the dispute.
8. The Panel met with the parties on 2 July 2000.  There was no third party session, since the
European Communities declined to make any oral representations to the Panel.
9. On 19 September 2000, Korea asked the Panel to suspend its work, in accordance with Article
12.12 of the DSU.
10. On 20 October 2000, pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU, the parties notified the DSB of a
mutually agreed solution to the matter under review  by the Panel.  The parties' notification was
circulated as document WT/DS99/12.
11. The Panel takes note of this mutually agreed solution between the parties to the dispute and of
Article 12.7 of the DSU, which provides in relevant part that "where a settlement of the matter among
the parties to the dispute has been found, the report of the panel shall be confined to a briefdescription of the case and to reporting that a so lution has been reached".  Accordingly, the Panel
concludes its work by reporting that a mutually agreed solution to this dispute has been reached
between the parties.
__________