WT/DS464/7  
 
22 April 2016  
(16-2262)  Page: 1/2  
  Original: English  
 
 UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON LARGE 
RESIDENTIAL WASHERS FROM KOREA 
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL  BY THE UNITED STATES 
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SE TTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW 
The following communication, dated 19 April 2016, from the delegation of the United States, 
is being circulated to Members.  
_______________ 
 
Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the United States 
files this notice of appeal to the Appellate Body on certain issues of law covered in the Report of 
the Panel on United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Large Residential 
Washers from Korea  (WT/DS464/R & WT/DS464/R/Add.1) and certain legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel in this dispute. 
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal interpretation of 
the "pattern" for purposes of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the 
"AD Agreement").
1 The Panel found that the relevant "pattern" for the purpose of the 
second sentence of Article 2.4.2 comprises only low-priced export transactions to a particular "target" (be that a purchaser, or a region, or a time period) while other export transactions to 
other purchasers, regions, or time periods are "non-pattern" transactions. This finding is in error 
and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations.
2 The United States 
respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse or modify the Panel's findings. 
2. The United States seeks review of the Panel's findings relating to the "scope of application"3 
of the alternative, average-to-transaction comparison methodology. The Panel found that the alternative, average-to-transaction comparison me thodology set forth in the second sentence of 
Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement "should only be applied to transactions that constitute the 
'pattern of export prices which differ significan tly among different purchasers, regions or time 
periods'."
4 Consequently, the Panel found that the U. S. Department of Commerce ("USDOC") acted 
inconsistently with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement by applying the 
alternative, average-to-transaction comparison methodology to all export transactions in the 
washers anti-dumping investigation.5 The Panel also found that the USDOC's differential pricing 
analysis is inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement, "as such," 
because it applies the alternative, average-to-transaction comparison methodology to all export 
transactions under certain circumstances.6 These findings by the Panel are in error and are based 
                                               
1 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.23-24, 7.27-29, 7.45-46, 7.119.c, 7.141-142, 7.144, 7.154-157, 
7.160-163, 7.187-191, 8.1.a.i, 8.1.a.vi, 8.1.a.ix, and 8.1.a.xii-xvi. As with other findings reflected throughout the Panel Report, this list of the pa ragraphs in the Panel Report reflecti ng this legal error is indicative. 
2 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.23-24, 7.27-29, 7.45-46, 7.119.c, 7.141-142, 7.144, 7.154-157, 
7.160-163, 7.187-191. 
3 Panel Report, para. 7.11. 
4 See, e.g., Panel Report, para. 7.29. 
5 See, e.g., Panel Report , paras. 7.29, 8.1.a.i. 
6 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.119, 8.1.a.vi. WT/DS464/7 
 
- 2 - 
 
  on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations.7 The United States respectfully 
requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings. 
3. The United States seeks review of the Panel's findings relating to the use of zeroing in 
connection with the application of the alternative,  average-to-transaction comparison methodology 
set forth in the second sentence of  Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.8 The Panel found that "the 
USDOC's use of zeroing when applying the [average-to-transaction] comparison methodology is 'as such' inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 2.4.2," and that "the USDOC acted 
inconsistently with the second sentence of Ar ticle 2.4.2 by using zeroing when applying the 
[average-to-transaction] comparison methodology in the Washers  anti-dumping investigation."
9 
Consequently, the Panel also found that "the use of zeroing in the context of the [average-to-transaction] comparison methodology is 'as such' inconsistent with Article 2.4" of the 
AD Agreement, "the USDOC acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 by using zeroing in the Washers  
anti-dumping investigation,"
10 and "the use of zeroing by the USDOC when applying the 
[average-to-transaction] comparison methodology in administrative reviews is inconsistent 'as 
such' with Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994."11 These 
findings by the Panel are in error and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including an erroneous interpretation and application of the phrase 
"individual export transactions" in the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.
12 The 
United States respectfully requests that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings. 
4. The United States seeks review of the Panel's finding that the USDOC's differential pricing 
analysis "is inconsistent 'as such' with the se cond sentence of Article 2.4.2 because, by 
aggregating random and unrelated price variations, it does not properly establish 'a pattern of 
export prices which differ signif icantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods'."13 
These findings by the Panel are in error and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and 
legal interpretations, including an erroneous in terpretation of the "pattern clause" of the 
second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.14 The United States respectfully requests 
that the Appellate Body reverse the Panel's findings. 
__________  
                                               
7 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.21-7.29. 
8 See Panel Report, paras. 7.172-7.209. 
9 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.192, 8.1.a.xii, 8.1.a.xiv. 
10 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.206, 8.1.a.xiii, 8.1.a.xv. 
11 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.208, 8.1.a.xvi. 
12 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.187-7.193, 7.206-7.208. 
13 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.143, 7.147, 8.1.a.ix. 
14 See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.138-7.147.