. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS322/32 
22 May 2009 
 (09-2489) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS  
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan
 
 
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 20 May 2009 , 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 in United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews; Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan (WT/DS322/RW) (“Panel Report”) and 
certain legal interpretations  developed by the panel. 
 
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the panel’s finding that Review 9 
was within the panel’s terms of reference.  In pa rticular, the United States seeks review of the panel’s 
findings that Japan’s panel request identified Revi ew 9 as a specific measure at issue as required by 
DSU Article 6.2 and that Review 9 was within the panel’s terms of reference even though Review 9 
was not in existence at the time of Japan’s panel request.
1  These findings are in error and are based 
on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations.  
2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the panel’s finding that the United 
States has failed to comply with  the DSB’s recommendations and rulings regarding importer-specific 
assessment rates determined in Reviews 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 that apply to entries covered by those 
reviews that were, or will be, liquidated after th e expiry of the reasonable period of time (“RPT”).2  
The United States also seeks review of the panel’s re lated legal conclusion that the United States is in 
continued violation of its obligations  under Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Agreement on Implementation 
of Article VI of the Genera l Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“AD Agreement”) and Article 
VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”).3  These conclusions are in 
error and are based on erroneous findings on issu es of law and related legal interpretations.  
3. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the panel’s legal conclusion that the 
United States is in violation of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 with respect to certain 
                                                      
1See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.100-7.116, 8.1(b). 
2See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.139-7.155, 8.1(a). 
3See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.154, 8.1(a)(i). WT/DS322/32 
Page 2  
 
liquidation actions taken after the expiry of the RPT, namely with respect to liquidation instructions of 
the U.S. Department of Commerce set forth in Ex hibits JPN-40A and JPN-77 to JPN-80 and the U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection liquidation notices set forth in Exhibits JPN-81 to JPN-87.
4  T h i s  
conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous  findings on issues of law and related legal 
interpretations. 
4. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the panel’s legal conclusions with 
respect to Reviews 4, 5, and 6, as found at paras. 7.74 -7.83, 7.160-7.168, and 8.1(b) of the Panel Report.  These conclusions are in error and ar e based on erroneous findings on issues of law and 
related legal interpretations.
5  
__________ 
 
                                                      
4See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.204-7.208, 8.1(d). 
5Aside from the fact that Review 9 is not within th e terms of reference, the panel’s conclusions of law 
in paragraphs  7.160-7.168, and 8.1(b) with respect to Review 9 are also in error and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations.