. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS350/12 
21 November 2008 
 (08-5691) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION  
OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY 
 
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 under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
   The following notification, dated 18 November 2008, 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 Worki ng 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 – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing 
Methodology (WT/DS350/R) (“Panel Report”) 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 finding that Members 
need not consult on a measure prior to requesting a pa nel to review that measure.  In particular the 
United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s finding that the 14 periodic reviews 
and sunset reviews that were identified in the EC’s  panel request, but not in the EC’s consultations 
request, were within the Panel’s terms of reference.
1  This finding is in error and is based on erroneous 
findings on issues of law and related legal interpre tations, including an incorrect interpretation of 
Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the DSU and Articles 17.3, 17.4, and 17.5 of the Agreement on Implementation 
of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (“AD Agreement”). 
 2. The United States seeks review of the Pa nel’s conclusion that the United States acted 
inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and Article 9.3 of the AD Agreem ent by applying simple zeroing in the 
29 periodic reviews at issue in this dispute.
2  This conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous 
findings on issues of law and related legal interpre tations, including the improper interpretation and 
application of Article 17.6(ii) of the AD Agre ement, Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement, and 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. 
 
3. The United States requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel failed to make “an 
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case 
and the applicability of and conformity with th e relevant covered agreements” as required by 
Article 11 of the DSU with respect to the EC’s clai ms that the United States acted inconsistently with 
                                                      
1See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.17-7.28; 8.1(a). 
2See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.162-7.169; 7.178-7.183; 8.1(e). WT/DS350/12 
Page 2  
 
its obligations under Article 11.3 of the AD Agre ement in the eight sunset reviews at issue.
3  The 
Panel’s failure to undertake an obj ective assessment includes the err oneous finding that the EC made 
a prima facie case that the margins in the underlying prior investigations were obtained through so-
called model zeroing. 
 
 
__________ 
 
                                                      
3See, e.g. , Panel Report, paras. 7.192-7.202; 8.1(f).