. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS294/29 
26 February 2009 
 
 (09-1001) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY 
FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING") 
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities
 
 
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 25 February  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 23(1) of the Worki ng Procedures for Appellate Review, the 
United States hereby notifies its decision to appeal  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"): Recou rse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities (WT/DS294/RW) and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the Panel in this 
dispute.  1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's conclusion that the 
United States failed to comply with the recommenda tions and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body 
("DSB") in the original dispute and has acted  inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the Ge neral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement") 
and Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Ta riffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") by publishing 
determinations, after the end of the reasonable period of time, of the amount of antidumping duty to 
be assessed based on zeroing in the 2004-2005 administrative reviews in Hot-Rolled Steel from the 
Netherlands  and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden  and issuing assessment instructions pursuant 
to the results of those administrative reviews.  This conclusion is in error and based on erroneous 
findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations of DSU Articles 21 and 22. 
 2. Specifically, the United States requests the Appellate Body to reverse: 
 
(a) the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.126 of its report
1 that these two administrative 
reviews of entries that were made in 2004 a nd 2005 fell within its terms of reference; 
 
                                                      
1 The paragraphs on which the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.126 is based include, for example, 
paragraphs 8.87-8.125 of the Panel's report. WT/DS294/29 
Page 2  
 
  (b) (i) the Panel's finding in  paragraph 8.208 of its report
2 that, in issuing the final 
results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Hot-Rolled Steel from the 
Netherlands  and assessment instructions pursu ant to those results, the United 
States acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because this review did not fall within the 
Panel's terms of reference; and 
 
(ii) the Panel's further finding in paragraph 8.208 of its report that, in issuing the 
final results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Hot-Rolled Steel from 
the Netherlands  and assessment instructions pursuant to those results, the 
United States failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
to bring the original investigation in Hot-Rolled Steel from the Netherlands  
into conformity with the covered agreements, because those assessment 
reviews were of entries that were made prior to the end of the reasonable period of time, and indeed prior to the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
the original dispute; 
 
(c) (i) the Panel's finding in  paragraph 8.213 of its report
3 that, in issuing the final 
results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Stainless Steel Wire Rod 
from Sweden  and assessment instructions pursu ant to those results, the United 
States acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because this review did not fall within the 
Panel's terms of reference; and 
 
(ii) the Panel's further finding in paragraph 8.213 of its report that, in issuing the 
final results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Stainless Steel Wire 
Rod from Sweden  and assessment instructions pu rsuant to those results, the 
United States failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
to bring the original investigation in Stainless Steel Wire Rod  from Sweden  
into conformity with the covered agreements, because those assessment 
reviews were of entries that were made prior to the end of the reasonable period of time, and indeed prior to the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
the original dispute; and 
 
(d) the Panel's conclusions in paragraph 9.1(b)(i) of its report, which are based on the 
erroneous findings referenced above. 
 
__________ 
 
 
                                                     
 
2 The paragraphs on which the Panel's findings in paragraph 8.208 are based include, for example, 
paragraphs 8.87-8.125 and 8.203-8.208 of the Panel's report. 
3 The paragraphs on which the Panel's findings in paragraph 8.213 are based include, for example, 
paragraphs 8.87-8.125 and 8.210-8.213 of the Panel's report.