. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS268/19 
16 January 2007 
 (07-0180) 
 Original:   English 
  
UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEWS OF ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES  
ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA  
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina
 
 
Notification of an 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 under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
  
 The following notification, dated 12 January 20 07, 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 hereby notifies its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Report of the Panel on United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina: Rec ourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina 
(WT/DS268/RW) 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 conclusion that the 
provisions of section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Tariff Ac t of 1930, operating in conjunction with section 
751(c)(4)(A) of the Tariff Act and section 351.218(d) (2) of Title 19 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, are inconsistent  with Article 11.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("Antidumping Agreement") .
1  This finding is in 
error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal inte rpretations, such as the 
finding that U.S. law, including section 751(c)(4)(B)  of the Tariff Act and section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) 
of the Department of Commerce's regulations, precludes the Department of Commerce from making 
an order-wide determination of likelihood of continuation or recu rrence of dumping, supported by 
reasoned and adequate conclusions based on the fact s before the agency, wher e an interested party 
elects not to participate in the sunset re view at the Department of Commerce.   
 
Other errors include, for example, reversi ng the burden of proof by failing to require 
Argentina to prove its claim and instead requiring the United States to disprove it; in addition, the 
Panel applied the wrong legal standard by ev aluating whether the statute "may" breach the 
Antidumping Agreement, rather than whether the st atute mandates a breach of that Agreement .  
Further, the Panel failed to make an objective assessme nt of the matter before it, including a failure to 
make an objective assessment of the facts of  the case, contrary to Article 11 of DSU .  For example, 
the Panel based its conclusion not on the evidence contained in the panel record – indeed, this 
provision of U.S. law had never been used – but rath er on the basis of pure speculation by the Panel as 
to what the United States would do if the law were to be invoked.  For example, the Panel moves from 
                                                      
1See, e.g. , paras. 7.32-7.41, 8.1(a). WT/DS268/19 
Page 2  
 
speculating that evidence would "necessarily" have a "s ignificant impact" on the U.S. determination at 
issue to concluding that the United States would be  unable to consider any additional evidence.  
 
2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the 
"volume analysis" incorporated by reference in th e Section 129 determination forms part of the 
measure taken to comply within the meaning of  Article 21.5 of the DSU for purposes of these 
proceedings.
2  This conclusion is in error and is ba sed on erroneous findings on issues of law and 
related legal interpretations of DSU Article 21.5.  Fo r example, in the original proceeding, there were 
no recommendations or rulings pertaining to the volu me analysis, and, in the redetermination, the 
volume analysis was an unchanged asp ect of the original determination that was simply incorporated 
by reference, as was the case in EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) .3 
_______________ 
 
                                                      
2See, e.g. , paras. 7.88-7.96.  Paragraphs 7.98-7.101 and 8.1(c)(2) would be rendered moot if the United 
States were to prevail with respect to this claim. 
3Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type 
Bed Linen from India: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India , WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 
2003 (" EC – Bed Linen (Article 21.5 – India) ").