WT/DS282/R 
 Page F-1 
 
 
  
 
ANNEX F 
  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF A PANEL 
 
  
Contents Page 
Annex F Request for the Establishment of  a Panel – Document WT/DS282/2 F-2 
 WT/DS282/R 
Page F-2  
 
  
 
ANNEX F 
  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT 
OF A PANEL 
 
 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS282/2 
8 August 2003 
 (03-4171) 
 Original:   Spanish 
   
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY 
TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Mexico
 
  
 The following communication, dated 29 July 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Mexico to 
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 On 18 February 2003, the Government  of Mexico requested consultations
1 with the 
Government of the United States of America (U nited States) pursuant to Article 4 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Proce dures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII.1 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Tr ade 1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 17.3 of the 
Agreement on Implementation of Ar ticle VI of the General Agreem ent on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement) regarding the final dete rminations of the United States Department of 
Commerce (the Department) and the United States International Trade Commission (the Commission) 
in the sunset and fourth administrative reviews of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from Mexico, as 
well as certain United States laws, regulations, proc edures, administrative provisions and practice as 
described below:   Mexico and the United States held consultations on 4 April 2003, but they failed to settle the 
dispute. 
  Mexico therefore requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, that  a panel be established at the next meeting of 
the Dispute Settlement Body, to be held on 18 Augu st 2003.  Mexico further requests that the panel 
have the standard terms of reference, as provided for in Article 7 of the DSU. 
                                                     
 
1 WT/DS282/1; G/L/605; G/ADP/D47/1.  WT/DS282/R 
 Page F-3 
 
 
  
 Mexico considers that the measures set forth be low are inconsistent with the obligations of 
the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement Es tablishing the World Trade Organization (the 
WTO Agreement) and the Agreements annexed thereto, and that they have resulted in the nullification 
or impairment of benefits accruing directly or indirectly to Mexico under those Agreements: 
 
• Oil Country Tubular Goods ("OCTG") From Mexico:  Final Results of Sunset 
Review of Antidumping Duty Order, Federal Register, Vol. 66, page 14131 (9 March 2001) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ("Department's Sunset Review Determination"); 
 
• Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentin a, Italy, Japan, Korea, and Mexico, 
Inventory Nos. 701-TA-364 (Review), 731-TA-711, and 713-716 (Review), USITC 
Publication 3434 (June 2001);  and Fede ral Register, Vol. 66, page 35997 
(10 July 2001) ("Commission's Sunset Review Determination"); 
 
• Continuation of Countervailing and Anti dumping Duty Orders on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea and Mexico, and Partial 
Revocation of Those Orders from Argentina and Mexico With Respect to Drill Pipe, 
Federal Register, Vol. 66, page 38630 (25 July 2001); 
 
• Oil Country Tubular Goods From Mexico;  Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination No t To Revoke in Part, Federal Register, 
Vol. 66, page 15832 (21 March 2001) a nd the accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum ("Fourth Administrative Review  Determination Not To Terminate"); 
 
• Sections 751 and 752 of the Tariff Act of 193 0, as amended, codified at Title 19 of 
The United States Code §§ 1675 and 1675a, and the United States Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the "SAA"), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1; 
 
• the Department's Policies Regarding the C onduct of Five-year ("Sunset") Reviews of 
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders ;  Policy Bulletin, Federal Register, 
Vol. 63, page 18871 (16 April 1998) (" Department's Sunset Policy Bulletin"); 
 
• the Department's sunset review regulations, codified at Title 19 of the United States 
Code of Federal Regulations § 351.218,  and the Commission's sunset review 
regulations, codified at Title 19 of the Un ited States Code of Federal Regulations 
§§ 207.60-69;  and 
 
• the Department's administrative review re gulations, including those codified at 
Title 19 of the United States Code of Fede ral Regulations §§ 351 .213, 351.221, and 
351.222. 
 
 These United States anti-dumping measures are inco nsistent with the following provisions of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the WTO Agreement: 
 
• Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; 
 
• Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994;  and 
 
• Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement. WT/DS282/R 
Page F-4  
 
  
Mexico's claims are described in detail below: 
A. With respect to the Department's Sunset Review Determination: 1. The Department's "likely" standard for de termining whether termination of the anti-dumping 
duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recu rrence of dumping, the De partment's determination 
in this regard, and the Department's calculation of  the "likely" margin of dumping reported to the 
Commission, are inconsistent, both as such and as applied, with Articles 11.1, 11.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
2. The Department's standard for determining whether termination of the anti-dumping duties 
would be likely to lead to continuation or recu rrence of dumping is based on a presumption in favour 
of maintaining the anti-dumping duties, in viol ation of Articles 2 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
B. With respect to the Commission' s Sunset Review Determination: 
1. The Commission's "likely" standard for determ ining whether termination of the anti-dumping 
duties would be likely to lead to continuation or r ecurrence of injury is inconsistent, both as such and 
as applied, with Articles 11.1, 11.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and 3.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
2. The United States statutory requirements that the Commission determine whether termination 
of the anti-dumping duties would be likely to lead to  continuation or recurrence of the injury "within a 
reasonably foreseeable time" (19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1 )) and that the Commission "shall consider that 
the effects of revocation or termination may not be  imminent, but may manifest themselves only over 
a longer period of time" (19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5)), ar e inconsistent, both as such and as applied, with 
Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 11.1, and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
3. The Commission's determination that termina tion of the anti-dumping duties would be likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of the injury is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 
3.8, 11.1, and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t inasmuch as the Commission did not conduct an 
"objective examination" of the record and did not base its determination on "positive evidence." 
4. The Commission's Sunset Review Determination is  inconsistent with Ar ticles 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 
3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 11.1, and 11.3 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement inasmuch as the Commission: 
(a) Failed to base its determination on a proper analysis of the volume of dumped 
imports, their effect on prices in the domestic market, and the consequent impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry; 
(b) failed to evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the 
state of the domestic industry, including a ll the factors enumerated in Article 3.4; 
(c) failed to base its determination on the "eff ects of dumping" on the domestic industry; 
(d) failed to consider, in making its determin ation, "any known factors other than the 
dumped imports";  and 
(e) in making its determination, improperly c onsidered the WTO-inconsistent margin 
reported by the Department.  WT/DS282/R 
 Page F-5 
 
 
 5. The Commission's Sunset Review Determination is  inconsistent with Ar ticles 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 
3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 11.1, and 11.3 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement because the Commission used a 
"cumulative" injury analysis in determining whet her termination of the anti-dumping duty would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury.  
C. With respect to the Fourth Administrative Review Determination Not to Terminate: 
1. The Department's determination not to term inate the anti-dumping duty immediately when it 
was demonstrated that the continued application of  the duty was not necessary to "offset dumping," is 
inconsistent with Articles 11.1, 11.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4,  6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
2. The Department applied conditions for termin ation of the anti-dumping duty on Tubos de 
Acero de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. ("TAMSA"), where such conditions are not part of the standard under 
Article 11.2, and had not been published in advance of  their application, in violation of Article 11.1 
and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X.2 of the GATT 1994. 
3. The Department used a "zeroing" methodology  for negative dumping margins in calculating 
the dumping margin of Hylsa, S.A. de C.V. ("Hy lsa") and, as a result, failed to make a fair 
comparison in calculating the dumping margin, which is  inconsistent with Articles 11.1, 11.2, and 2.4 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
D. The Department and the Commission faile d to apply United States anti-dumping laws, 
regulations, decisions and rulings in a uniform, im partial, and reasonable manner, as required by 
Article X.3(a) of the GATT 1994.  The facts and claims set forth above reveal a lack of uniformity, impartiality and objectivity on the part of the United States in administering laws, regulations, 
procedures, and practice in relation to the anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Mexico. 
E. The Department and the Commission acted incons istently with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, inasmuch as the anti-dumping duty on OCTG from Mexico was not applied under the 
circumstances provided  in Article VI of the GA TT 1994.  The Department and the Commission acted 
inconsistently with Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dump ing Agreement, inasmuch as the anti-dumping duty 
measure on OCTG from Mexico was not imposed in  accordance with the provisions of the GATT 
1994, as interpreted by the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
F. Insofar as the aforementioned United States la ws, regulations and administrative procedures 
do not comply with the United States WTO obligations , they are inconsistent with Article XVI.4 of 
the WTO Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 Mexico respectfully requests that the pane l recommend that the United States bring its 
measures into conformity with its WTO obligations .  Pursuant to Article 19 of the DSU, Mexico 
requests that the panel suggest that the United St ates implement the recommendation by terminating 
the anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Mexico, and repealing or amending WT O-inconsistent laws, 
regulations, procedures, and administrative provisions.  
__________