WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS282/13 
24 August 2006 
 
 (06-4000) 
 Original:   Spanish 
  
 
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY 
TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO 
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico
 
 
Request for Consultations 
 
  The following communication, dated 21 August 2006, from the delegation of Mexico to the 
delegation of the United States and to the Chairman  of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
   Mexico hereby requests the United States to en ter into consultations under Articles 4 and 21.5 
of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  and 
paragraph 1 of the  Agreement between Mexico and the Un ited States Regarding Procedures under 
Articles 21 and 22 of the Dis pute Settlement Understanding
1 with respect to the disagreement as to the 
existence or consistency with the covered agreem ents of the measures taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in United States – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico  (WT/DS282). 
 
1. Background 
 On 28 November 2005, the DSB adopted the Appe llate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body, in this dispute.  The resulting DSB rulings related to the "likelihood 
of dumping" determination by the US Department of  Commerce (USDOC) in the sunset review of the 
anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico.  The Panel found that the USDOC's likelihood of 
dumping determination in the sunset review fo r OCTG from Mexico was inconsistent with 
Article 11.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (the Anti-Dumping Agreement).2  The Panel's findings in this regard were not 
appealed by the United States. 
 
 The United States and Mexico mutually agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, that 
the reasonable period of time (RPT) for the Un ited States to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB would be six months, expiring on 28 May 2006.3  
 
                                                      
1 WT/DS282/12. 
2 Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from 
Mexico , WT/DS282/R, adopted on 28 November 2005, paragraph 8.2. 
3 United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico, 
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, 17 February 2006, WT/DS282/11. WT/DS282/13 
Page 2  
 
   On 9 June 2006, subsequent to the expiration of the RPT, the USDOC issued a Determination 
under Section 129(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act that purported to bring the United States into compliance with the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB and with the WTO obligations of 
the United States.
4 
 
 Mexico considers that the United States h as failed to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB, and is in breach of its WTO obligations, for the following reasons: 
 
2. The United States did not implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
 The USDOC issued the Section 129 Determination on 9 June 2006, i.e. subsequent to 
28 May 2006, the agreed expiration date of the RPT. Besides the fact that th e USDOC failed to issue 
its implementation decision within the RPT a nd unduly maintained an anti-dumping order, in 
Mexico's view, the USDOC's Section 129 Determ ination and the continued existence of the 
anti-dumping duty order on OCTG from Mexico are inconsistent with the obligations of the 
United States under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.5  The USDOC did not properly establish a factual 
basis or objectively assess the facts that were befo re it as to whether dumping would be likely to 
continue or recur.  USDOC's conclusions are not based on positive eviden ce, and the evidence 
developed does not support a WTO-consistent de termination that dumping would be likely to 
continue or recur consistent with the requirem ents of Article 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: 
 
• The United States failed to comply with the strict conditions for the maintenance of the 
anti-dumping duty order beyond five years, in violation of its obligations under 
Article 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; 
 • The USDOC's inference of likely dumping based on the decline of Mexican OCTG 
imports subsequent to the entry into fo rce of the anti-dumping duty order, and the 
USDOC's reliance on the Mexican OCTG vol ume decline to support the Section 129 
Determination, are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 11.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement; 
 • The USDOC failed to rely on positive evid ence and did not objectively assess the facts 
in making findings and reachi ng conclusions regarding the Mexican exporte rs Tubos de 
Acero de Mexico S.A. (TAMSA) and Hylsa S.A. de C.V. (Hylsa), in violation of US 
obligations under Article 11.3.   These violations included: 
 
o The USDOC's failure to ascribe probativ e value to TAMSA's three consecutive 
zero dumping margins for the purposes of th e Section 129 determination, which 
is inconsistent with US obligations under Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement; 
 
                                                     
 
4 Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assist ant Secretary for Import Administration from 
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistan t Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Section 129 Determination:  Final 
Results of Sunset Review, Oil Co untry Tubular Goods from Mexico , A-201-817, 9 June 2006. 
5 Mexico notes that nearly iden tical arguments and reasoning that USDOC has used to support the 
Section 129 Determination have so far been rejected  three times by a NAFTA panel reviewing successive 
remand determinations issued by US DOC in the context of a NAFTA pr oceeding with respect to USDOC's 
sunset determination.  See Panel Decision and Remand Order, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico , 
USA-MEX-2001-1904-03, 11 February 2005, ("First NAFTA Panel Decision and Remand Order");  Panel 
Decision and Remand Order, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Mexico , USA-MEX-2001-1904-03, 
3 February 2006 ("Second NAFTA Panel Decision and Remand Order");  Panel Decision and Remand Order, Oil Country Tubula r Goods from Mexico , USA-MEX-2001-1904-03, 28 July 2006 ("Third NAFTA Panel 
Decision and Remand Order").  WT/DS282/13 
 Page 3 
 
 
  o The USDOC's findings regarding the "other factors" identified by TAMSA 
concerning the impact that the 1994 pe so devaluation and TAMSA's long-term 
US dollar denominated debt had on the margin of dumping during the original investigation, and hence whether the original dumping margin and these two 
factors could be probative of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, which are 
inconsistent with US obligations un der Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement; 
 
Other violations of the WTO obligations of the United States include:  
 
• The USDOC's reliance as purported "evi dence of continued dumping" on the 
preliminary determination that Hylsa was dumping at 1.47 per cent from the fourth administrative review of the anti-dumping or der on OCTG from Mexico.  The 1.47 per 
cent margin was calculated by the USDOC using the practice known as "zeroing,"
6 
which is inconsistent with the United States ' WTO obligations. In relying on a margin 
calculated through a "zeroing" methodology, and by relying on a finding of "dumping" 
by Hylsa after USDOC had already issued a determination that Hylsa was not dumping, the USDOC acted inconsistently with US oblig ations under Articles 2, 9, and 11 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Additionally, in  relation to the pending NAFTA litigation 
to which the USDOC makes reference, the Section 129 Determination does not reflect 
the fact that USDOC has calculated a zero dumping margin in its redetermination on 
remand in connection with that NAFTA litigation.
7 
 • The decision of the US Trade Representativ e not to direct the USDOC to "implement" 
the Section 129 Determination, pursuant to Section 129(b)(4) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, which is inconsistent w ith US obligations under Article 13 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In failing to impl ement the Section 129 Determination, the 
United States has denied the Mexican respondents an opportunity for judicial review in US courts of the determination purportedly providing the basis for the United States to continue the imposition of anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Mexico. 
 
 As a consequence of the violations enumerated  above, the United States has failed to bring its 
measures into conformity with its WTO obligatio ns within the meaning of Article 18.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of th e Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  
The United States has also breached Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
  Mexico reserves all of its WTO rights in r espect of the purported compliance by the United 
States with its obligations in this dispute.  It al so reserves the right to raise additional claims during 
the course of consultations and to take any other action under the DSU. 
  Mexico looks forward to receiving the reply of the United States to this request and to fixing a mutually convenient date for consultations.  
__________ 
                                                     
 
6 This rate was then lowered to 0.79 per cent tw elve days after the sunset determination, and 
subsequently determined to be zero  per cent following the remand proceeding conducted pursuant to a NAFTA 
panel ruling.  See  NAFTA Panel Decision and Remand Order, Oil Country Tubula r Goods from Mexico , 
USA-MEX-2001-1904-05, 27 January 2006. 
7 See U.S. Department of Commerce, Redetermination on Remand, In the Matter of: Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumpi ng Duty Review and Determination Not to Revoke , 
27 April 2006.