WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS162/R
29 May 2000
(00-2118)
Original:  English
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Complaint by Japan
Report of the Panel
The report of the Panel on United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is being circulated to all
Members, pursuant to the DSU.  The report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from
29 May 2000 pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents(WT/L/160/Rev.1).  Members are reminded that in accordance with the DSU only parties to the
dispute may appeal a panel report.  An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel
report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  There shall be no ex parte  communications
with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matte rs under consideration by the Panel or Appellate
Body.
Note by the Secretariat:  This Panel Report shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the date  of its
circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report.  If the Pa nel Report is
appealed to the Appellate Body, it shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after the completion of the appeal.  I nformation on
the current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat.WT/DS162/R
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRO DUCTION ................................................................................................................. ...1
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS ............................................................................................................. .2
A. DESCRIPTION OF  THE 1916 ACT..........................................................................................2
B. DESCRIPTION OF OTHE R RELEVANT US  ACTS...............................................................3
1. Antidumping Act of 1921 and Tariff Act of 1930 ..................................................................3
2. Robinson-Patman Act.......................................................................................................... .....3
C. INSTANCES OF APPLICAT ION OF THE 1916 ACT ............................................................4
III. CLAIMS AND MAIN  ARGUMEN TS....................................................................................6
IV. THIRD PARTY SU BMISSIONS ............................................................................................7
V. INTERIM REVI EW............................................................................................................... ..8
A. I NTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................8
B. C OMMENTS BY JAPAN .................................................................................................................8
C. C OMMENTS BY THE UNITED  STATES ..........................................................................................9
VI. FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... .............9
A. I SSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE PANEL ...................................................................................9
1. Facts at the origin  of the dispute ........................................................................................... ..9
2. Issues to be addressed by the Panel.......................................................................................11
(a) Summary of issues before the Panel .........................................................................................1 1
(b) General approach of the Panel ............................................................................................... ...13
(c) Burden of proof............................................................................................................. ............14
3. Relationship of this case with the EC complaint..................................................................15
B. P RELIMINARY ISSUES ................................................................................................................15
1. Request for enhanced third party ri ghts by the European Communities .........................15
2. Context in which the 1916 Act should  be examined by the Panel ......................................17
(a) Issue before  the Panel ...................................................................................................... .........17
(b) How should the Panel consider the text of  the 1916 Act, the context of its enactment,
the case-law relating to it and othe r relevant pieces of  information? .......................................17
(i) Arguments of the parties and approach of the Panel................................................................17
(ii) Consideration by panels of  domestic law in general ................................................................19
(iii) Consideration of the case-l aw relating to the 1916 Act............................................................20
(iv) Consideration of the historical context and other evidence of the meaning of the
1916 Act ....................................................................................................................... .............22
3. Relationship between, on the one hand, Ar ticle III of the GATT 1994 and, on the
other hand, Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................24
(a) Issue before  the Panel ...................................................................................................... .........24WT/DS162/R
Page ii
(b) Approach to be followed by the Panel......................................................................................25
4. Relationship between Article VI of  the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement...................................................................................................................... ..........27
(a) Issues before  the Panel..................................................................................................... .........27
(b) Jurisdiction of the Panel under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement...................................................................................................................... ...........28
(c) Relationship between Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement...................................................................................................................... ...........31
C. A PPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE VI OF THE GATT 1994 AND OF THE ANTI-DUMPING
AGREEMENT TO THE 1916 A CT.................................................................................................32
1. Preliminary remarks on the possibility of interpreting the 1916 Act in a
WTO-compatible manner and on its "mandatory/non-mandatory" nature ....................32
(a) Issue before  the Panel ...................................................................................................... .........32
(b) The possibility of interpreting the 1916 Act in a WTO-compatible manner ............................33
(c) Mandatory/non-mandatory na ture of the 1916 Act...................................................................34
2. Does the 1916 Act fall within the scope of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the
Anti-Dumping Agreement?....................................................................................................35
(a) Preliminary  remarks......................................................................................................... .........35
(i) Scope of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and scope of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .................35
(ii) Approach of the Panel to the question of  the definition of the scope of Article VI of
GATT 1994 in relation to the 1916 Act.....................................................................................36
(b) Analysis of the text of the 1916 Act in light of Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 .....................37
(i) Does the 1916 Act address the same type of price discrimination as Article VI of the
GATT 1994?..................................................................................................................... .........37
(ii) Is the type of "effects" targeted by the 1916 Act relevant to determining whether the
1916 Act falls within the scope of Article VI of the GATT 1994?.............................................41
(iii) Is the type of measures imposed under the 1916 Act relevant to determining whether
the 1916 Act falls within the scope  of Article VI of GATT 1994?.............................................43
(iv) Conclusion ................................................................................................................. ...............44
(c) Impact of the historical context and of  the legislative hist ory of the 1916 Act ........................44
(i) Approach of the Panel ....................................................................................................... .......44
(ii) Review of the historical co ntext and legislative history............................................................45
(iii) Conc lusion ................................................................................................................ ................47
(d) Impact of the US case-law relating to the 1916 Act .................................................................48
(i) Approach of the Panel ....................................................................................................... .......48
(ii) The Supreme Court and the 1916 Act.......................................................................................49
(iii) The interpretation of the transnational price discrimination test of the 1916 Act at the
circuit co urt le vel............................................................................................................ ..........49
"Dumping" as an international trade con cept applied in an anti-trust context......................................... 49
The Brooke Group  recoupment test......................................................................................................... 52WT/DS162/R
Page iii
The interlocutory decisions relied upon by Japan ............................................................................... .... 54
(iv) Conclusion ................................................................................................................. ...............55
3. Conclusions on the applicability of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement to the 1916 Act ...........................................................................55
(a) The 1916 Act falls within the scope of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement ........................................................................................................5 5
(b) The 1916 Act is a mandatory law within the meaning of GATT 1947/WTO practice.............56
(c) Concluding remarks on the applicability of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the
Anti-Dumping Agreement to the price di scrimination test of the 1916 Act.............................58
D. V IOLATION OF ARTICLE  VI:2 OF THE GATT 1994 AND OF ARTICLE  18.1 OF THE
ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT ....................................................................................................60
1. Approach of the Panel ........................................................................................................ ....60
2. Analysis of the terms of Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.....................................................62
(a) Arguments of  the parties.................................................................................................... .......62
(b) Ordinary meaning of Article VI:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994......................................63
(c) Context of Article VI :2 of the GATT 1994 ..............................................................................63
(d) Object a nd purpose .......................................................................................................... .........65
(e) Preparato ry work............................................................................................................ ...........66
3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... ............68
(a) Conclusion on the violation of Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement ........................................................................................................6 8
(b) Remarks on the burden of proof with respect to the violation of Article VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 and of Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ..........................................68
E. V IOLATION OF ARTICLE  VI OF THE GATT 1994 AND OF ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11,
AND 18.1 OF THE  ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT .......................................................................68
1. Preliminar y remarks .......................................................................................................... ....68
2. Review of the additional claims of  Japan under Article VI of the GATT 1994
and the Anti-Dumpi ng Agreem ent ........................................................................................70
(a) Violation of Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement...................................................................................................................... ...........70
(b) Violation of Article VI:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement ........................................................................................................7 0
(c) Violation of Article VI.1 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement ........................................................................................................7 2
(d) Violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ...............................................73
(e) Violation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement...................................................................................................................... ...........75
3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... ............77
F. V IOLATION OF ARTICLE  III:4 OF THE GATT 1994...................................................................78
G. V IOLATION OF ARTICLE  XI OF THE GATT 1994......................................................................79WT/DS162/R
Page iv
H. V IOLATION OF ARTICLE  XVI:4 OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE WTO AND
OF ARTICLE  18.4 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT ...........................................................81
I. S UMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................82
J. R EQUEST OF JAPAN FOR A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL ..................................83
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAT IONS................................................................84WT/DS162/R
Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 10 February 1999, Japan requested consultations with the United States pursuant to
Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Proc edures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(hereinafter the "DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(hereinafter the "GATT 1994") and Article 17.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI ofthe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter the "Anti-Dumping Agreement")
regarding Title VIII of the US Revenue Act of 1916, also known as the US Anti-Dumping Act of
1916 (hereinafter the "1916 Act").
1
1.2 Consultations were held on 17 March 1999, but did not lead to a mutually satisfactory
resolution of the matter.
1.3 On 3 June 1999, Japan requested the Dispute Se ttlement Body (hereinafter the "DSB") to
establish a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and
Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.2  Japan claimed that the 1916 Act was inconsistent with
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in
particular Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well asArticles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Article XI of the GATT 1994; and
Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (hereinafter
the "WTO Agreement") and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
1.4 On 26 July 1999, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request made by Japan, in
accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.  In document WT/DS162/4, the Secretariat reported that the
parties had agreed that the panel would have the standard terms of reference.  The terms of reference
are the following:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by Japan in document WT/DS162/3, the matter  referred to the DSB by Japan in that
document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
1.5 Document WT/DS162/4 also reported that, on 11 August 1999, the Panel was constituted as
follows:
Chairman: Mr. Johann Human
Members: Mr. Dimitrij Gr čar
Professor Eugeniusz Piontek
1.6 The European Communities and India reserved their rights to participate in the Panel
proceedings as third parties.  Both of them presented arguments to the Panel.
1.7 The Panel met with the parties on 3 and 4 November 1999 as well as 8 and 9 December 1999.
It met with third parties on 4 November 1999.  The Panel issued its interim report to the parties on
28 February 1999.  The Panel issued its final report to the parties on 31 March 2000.
                                                     
1 See WT/DS162/1.
2 See WT/DS162/3.WT/DS162/R
Page 2
II. FACTUAL ASPECTS
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE 1916 ACT
2.1 The 1916 Act at issue in the present dispute was enacted by the US Congress under the
heading of "Unfair Competition" in Title VIII of the Revenue Act of 1916.3  It provides as follows:
"It shall be unlawful for any person impor ting or assisting in importing any articles
from any foreign country into the United States, commonly and systematically to
import, sell or cause to be imported or sold such articles within the United States at a
price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such
articles, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the
country of their production, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonlyexported after adding to such market value or wholesale price, freight, duty, and other
charges and expenses necessarily incident to the importation and sale thereof in the
United States: Provided , That such act or acts be done with the intent of destroying or
injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an
industry in the United States, or of restraining or monopolizing any part of trade andcommerce in such articles in the United States.
Any person who violates or combines or conspires with any other person to violate
this section is guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonme nt not exceeding one year, or both, in
the discretion of the court.
Any person injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of, or
combination or conspiracy to violate, this section, may sue therefor in the districtcourt of the United States for the district in which the defendant resides or is found or
has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover
threefold the damages sustained, and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable
attorney's fee.
The foregoing provisions shall not be construed to deprive the proper State courts of
jurisdiction in actions for damages thereunder."
 4
2.2 Thus, the business activity which the 1916 Act prohibits is a form of international price
discrimination, which has two basic components:
(a) An importer5 must have sold a foreign-produced product6  within the United States at
a price which is "substantially less" than the price at which the same product is sold inthe country of the foreign producer.
(b) The importer must have undertaken this price discrimination "commonly and
systematically."
2.3 It is a condition for criminal or civil liability under the 1916 Act that the importer must have
undertaken this price discrimination with "an intent of destroying or injuring an industry in theUnited States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States, or of restraining
or monopolizing any part of trade and commerce in such articles in the United States."
                                                     
3 Act of 8 September 1916.  The Revenue Act of 1916 can be found at 39 Stat. 756 (1916).
4 15 U.S.C. § 72.
5 The importer may be a domestic US company.
6 The 1916 Act does not apply to sales of domestic goods.WT/DS162/R
Page 3
2.4 Another characteristic of the 1916 Act is that it provides for a private right of action in a
federal district court and the remedy of treble da mages for a private complainant, based on the injury
sustained by that complainant in its business or property, as well as for criminal penalties in an action
brought by the US government.
2.5 The 1916 Act is codified in Title 15 of the United States Code, entitled "Commerce and
Trade".7
B. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RELEVANT US ACTS
1. Antidumping Act of 1921 and Tariff Act of 1930
2.6 In 1921, the United States enacted the "Antidumping Act of 1921".8  It empowered the
Secretary of the Treasury to impose duties on dumped goods without regard to the dumper's intent.Whereas the Antidumping Act of 1921 was later repealed, it is on this Act that the United States'
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (hereinafter the "Tariff Act of 1930"), is built.
9  The Tariff Act of
1930 is implemented through proceedings governed by regulations promulgated by the US
Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission10.
2.7 The 1921 Antidumping Act was, and the 1930 Tariff Act, as amended, is, codified in Title 19
of the United States Code, entitled "Customs Duties".
2.8 The United States has notified Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and its
implementing regulations to the WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices in accordance with
Articles 18.4 and 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
2. Robinson-Patman Act
2.9 Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936, provides
in pertinent part:
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such
commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different
purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the
purchasers involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such
commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States […]
and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen
competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure,
destroy, or prevent competition with an y person who either grants or knowingly
receives the benefit of such discrimination or with customers of either of them."11
2.10 Section 2(f) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, applies the same
principles to the conduct of a buyer, by maki ng it unlawful for a buyer "knowingly to induce or
receive discrimination in price" prohibited by other parts of the Act.12
                                                     
7 See 15 U.S.C. §§ 71-74.
8 The Antidumping Act of 1921 was codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 160-71 (repealed).
9 The Tariff Act of 1930 is codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1671 et seq.
10 See 19 C.F.R. Part 200.
11 15 U.S.C.  13(a).
12 See 15 U.S.C.  13(f).WT/DS162/R
Page 4
2.11 A violation of either of these provisions is subject to criminal penalties and also is actionable
in a private right of action, where treble damages and injunctive relief are available, and in
administrative or federal court actions initiated by the Federal Trade Commission.
2.12 To establish price discrimination in an action under the Robinson-Patman Act, there first must
be evidence of two actual sales at different prices, with each sale occurring in interstate commerce.13
Thus, the Robinson-Patman Act does not apply to cross-border price discrimination.14  In addition, a
successful price discrimination claim requires a showing of an anti-competitive effect.  Case law has
established that, if the claim is directed at so-calle d "primary line injury", m eaning injury to the price
discriminator's rivals, which corresponds to the situation addressed by the 1916 Act, the requisite
anti-competitive effect can be demonstrated through a showing of (i) pricing below an appropriatemeasure of cost and (ii) the likelihood that the predator will recoup its losses in the future.
15  If the
claim is directed at "secondary line injury", meaning injury to disfavoured buyers from the price
discriminator, the requisite anti-competitive effect can be inferred, subject to rebuttal, from substantial
price differences between competing purchasers over time.16
2.13 The Robinson-Patman Act is codified in Title 15 of the United States Code, entitled
"Commerce and Trade".17
C. INSTANCES OF APPLICATION OF THE 1916 ACT
2.14 The 1916 Act has been invoked infrequently.  Accordingly, there is a limited number of
judicial interpretations of its specific provisions.18  In this regard, it should be noted that, under the
                                                     
13 See International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. et al. , 104 F.T.C. 280, 417, citing E. Kinter, A
Robinson-Patman Primer, 3rd ed. (1979), p. 35.
14 However, imported goods that have become a part of domestic commerce may be subject to the
Robinson-Patman Act.  Accordingly, the Robinson-Patman Act applies in a situation where a foreign producermakes two sales of the same imported product within the United States at a different price, assuming that all
other requirements under the Act are met.
15 See Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp ., 509 U.S. 209, 222-23 (1993)
(hereinafter " Brooke Group ").
16 See, e.g., Falls City Industries v. Vanco Beverage, Inc ., 460 U.S. 428, 436 (1983);  FTC v. Morton
Salt, 334 U.S. 37, 50-51 (1948); Chroma Lighting v. GTE Products Corp ., 111 F.3d 653, 657 (1997).
17 Also located in Title 15 are the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, to be found at 26 Stat. 209 (1890)),
the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 12-27, to be found at 38 Stat. 730 (1914)) and the Federal Trade Commission Act
(15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, to be found at 38 Stat. 717 (1914)).
18 Most of those interpretations can be found in the following - final or interlocutory - court decisions
referenced by the parties: In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation , 388 F.Supp. 565 (Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 1975) (hereinafter " In re Japanese Electronic Products I ");  Zenith Radio
Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. , 402 F.Supp. 244 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (hereinafter " Zenith I ");
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. , 402 F.Supp. 251 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (hereinafter
"Zenith II ");  Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel , 461 F. Supp. 384 (D. Del. 1978);  Schwimmer v. Sony Corp. of
America , 471 F. Supp. 793 (E.D.N.Y. 1979);  Schwimmer v. Sony Corp. of America , 637 F.2d 41 (2nd Cir.
1980);  Jewel Foliage Co. v. Uniflora Overseas Florida , 497 F. Supp. 513 (M.D. Fla. 1980); Zenith Radio Corp.
v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. , 494 F.Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (hereinafter " Zenith III "), affirmed
in part and reversed in part, 723 F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1983), reversed and remanded, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348
(1986), District Court decision affirmed on remand, 807 F. 2d 44 (3d Cir. 1986) ;  In re Japanese Electronic
Products Antitrust Litigation (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.) , 723 F.2d 319 (3d
Cir. 1983) (hereinafter " In re Japanese Electronic Products II ");  Western Concrete Structures Co. v. Mitsui &
Co., 760 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1985);   Isra Fruit Ltd. v. Agrexco Agr. Export Co. , 631 F. Supp. 984 (S.D.N.Y.
1986);  In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litiga tion (Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric
Industrial Co., Ltd.) , 807 F.2d 44 (3d Cir. 1986) (hereinafter " In re Japanese Electronic Products III ")  Helmac
Products Corp. v. Roth (Plastics) Corp. , 814 F. Supp. 560 (E.D. Mich. 1992) (hereinafter " Helmac I ");  Helmac
Products Corp. v. Roth (Plastics) Corp ., 814 F.Supp. 581 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (hereinafter " Helmac II ");  Geneva
Steel Company v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp. , 980 F.Supp. 1209 (D. Utah 1997) (hereinafter " Geneva Steel ");WT/DS162/R
Page 5
US legal system, the judicial branch of the govern ment is the final authority regarding the meaning of
federal laws, such as statutes passed by the legislative branch, i.e. the US Congress.  It should also be
noted, however, that no claims under the 1916 Act ha ve ever been reviewed by the US Supreme
Court, which is the highest federal court in the United States.19  All court decisions so far have been
rendered by US circuit courts of appeals or US district courts.20
2.15 All of the court decisions addressing the meaning of the 1916 Act and its various provisions
to date also have involved private civil complaints rather than criminal prosecutions.  No complainant
in a civil suit has yet recovered treble damages and the cost of the suit.  However, in one recent civil
case involving a 1916 Act claim, Wheeling-Pittsburgh , some defendants have elected to settle rather
than proceed to trial.21
2.16 The US Department of Justice, the agency responsible for prosecuting criminal violations of
the 1916 Act, has never successfully prosecuted a criminal case under the 1916 Act.22  Accordingly,
no criminal sanctions have ever been imposed pursuant to the 1916 Act.
                                                                                                                                                                    
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation v. Mitsui Co. , 35 F.Supp.2d. 597 (S.D. Ohio 1999) (hereinafter
"Wheeling-Pittsburgh ").
19 The only reported case in which the US Supreme Court has considered the 1916 Act was
United States v. Cooper Corp ., 312 U.S. 600 (1941), although the issue in that case was whether the
United States is a "person" within the meaning of Section 7 of the US Sherman Act entitled to sue for trebledamages thereunder.
20 In the United States, the judicial branch is established on three levels. Generally, the lowest level is
the trial court level, consisting of the various US district courts.  At least one district court can be found in eachof the 50 States.  The next level consists of the US circuit courts of appeals, which are intermediate appellatecourts responsible for reviewing district court decisions.  There are 12 federal court circuits.  At the highest level
of the federal court system is the US Supreme Court, whic h, at its discretion, hears appeals from decisions of the
circuit courts.
21 Up until the Panel's second substantive meeting with the parties, the case was still pending while the
remaining litigants conducted discovery.  Since the Panel's second substantive meeting with the parties therehave, according to the United States, been further developments in the Wheeling-Pittsburgh  case.  According to
the United States,  the plaintiff in that case, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, has voluntarily dismissed itsclaims against the remaining defendants at the trial court level so that all that remains is an appeal of an
interlocutory opinion regarding injunctive relief currently pending before the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.
22 The United States notes that, to its knowledge, the US Department of Justice has never prosecuted a
criminal case under the 1916 Act.  In Zenith III , Op. Cit., p. 1212, the following is stated regarding enforcement
of the 1916 Act's criminal provisions until the early 1970s:
"Apparently there have been four attempts to enforce the criminal provisions of the Act, but
none of them has been successful and none ha s given rise to a reported judicial decision.
Marks, United States Antidumping Laws – A Government Overview  43 Antitrust L.J. 580, 581
(1974)."WT/DS162/R
Page 6
III. CLAIMS AND MAIN ARGUMENTS
[The text of this section will be circulated to Members at a later stage.  In order to be consistent with
the complete text of this report, footnotes are numbered accordingly and references in the findings to
paragraphs of this section have been left unchanged.]WT/DS162/R
Page 7
IV. THIRD PARTY SUBMISSIONS
[The text of this section will be circulated to Members at a later stage.  In order to be consistent with
the complete text of this report, footnotes are numbered accordingly and references in the findings to
paragraphs of this section have been left unchanged.]