. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS294/13 
1 February 2006 
 (06-0441) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY 
FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING") 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States
 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)  
and Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review   
   
 The following notification, dated 30 January 20 06, 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 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the 
United States hereby notifies its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Report of the Panel in United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing")  (WT/DS294/R) ("Panel Report") and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel in this dispute. 
 
 The United States seeks review of the Panel's legal conclusion that the United States maintains a "zeroing methodology" that, as it relates to  original investigations, is a norm which, as 
such, is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement").
1  This conclusion is in error and is 
based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interp retations, including the following: 
 
1. The standard used by the Panel to identif y "zeroing methodology" as a purported measure for 
purposes of determining whether there was a breach of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement is erroneous as a matter of law.
2   
 
2. The Panel's finding that "zeroing methodology"  constituted a "measure" because it is a norm 
is erroneous, as is its subsequent finding that  this "measure" breaches Article 2.4.2 of the AD 
Agreement.3 
  
 
                                                     
 
1The Panel's conclusion and the articulation of the reasons therefore are set forth in Panel Report, 
paragraphs 7.91-7.106 and 8.1(c). 
2The standard used by the Panel is set forth largely in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.98-7.100. 
3The Panel's finding is set forth largely in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.101-7.104. WT/DS294/13 
Page 2  
 
3. The Panel failed to apply a correct analysis in  finding that a measure allegedly taken by the 
United States – the so-called "zeroing methodology" – is "as such" inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of 
the AD Agreement, and, in any event, failed to ma ke an objective assessment under Article 11 of the 
DSU.
4 
 
4. The Panel relieved the European Communities of its burden of proving the existence of a 
measure that is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.5 
   
 
__________ 
 
 
 
                                                     
 
4The Panel's "as such" analysis appears to be set forth in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.104-7.105. 
5This error is reflected in the Panel's overall analysis  set forth in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.91-7.106.