WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS429/1 
G/L/980 
G/ADP/D91/1 
27 February 2012 
 
 (12-1096) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON  
CERTAIN SHRIMP FROM VIET NAM 
 
Request for Consultations by Viet Nam 
  
 The following communication, received on 22 February 2012, from the delegation of Viet Nam to the delegation of the United States and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement 
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby request consultations with the Government of 
the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII: 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
("GATT 1994"), and Articles 17.2 and I7 .3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of 
GATT 1994  ("Anti-Dumping Agreement").  This request is made with respect to: 
 (1) The imposition of anti-dumping  duties and cash deposit requirements pursuant to the 
final results of the United States Department of Commerce's (hereafter , "USDOC") 
fourth administrative review for the period from 1 Februar y 2008 to 31 January 2009 , 
in Certain Fro zen Warmwat er Shrimp From th e Sociali st Republic of Vietnam : Final 
Result s and Partial Rescis sion of Antidump ing Duty Administrative Review , 75 Fed . 
Reg. 4771 (August 9 ,2010) ; 
(2) The fourth administrative review of Certain Fro zen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist R epublic of Vietnam insofar as it d id not revoke the anti-dumping  duty 
order with respect to certain respondents requesting such revocation ; 
(3) The imposition of anti-dumping duties and cash deposit requirements pursuant to the 
final results of the USDOC 's fifth admini strative review for the period from 
1 February 2009 through 31 January 2010 , in Certain Fr ozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from the Socialist Republic of Vi etnam: Final R esult
s and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Dut y Admini strativ e Review , 76 Fed.Reg . 56158 (September 12 ,2011) ; 
(4) The fifth administrative review of Certain Froz en Warm water Shrimp fro m the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam insofar as it did not revoke the anti-dumping  dut y 
order with respect to certain responde nts eligible for such revocation; 
(5) Any other ongoing or future anti-dumping  administrative review s, and th e 
preliminary and final results thereof , related to the imports o f certain fro zen 
warmwater shrimp from Viet Nam (D OC Case A-552-802), as well as any WT/DS429/1 
G/L/980 G/ADP/D91/1 
Page 2 
  
  assessment instructions, cash deposit requirements, and revocation determinations issued pursuant to such reviews; 
(6) The final results Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Final Results of the First Five-ye ar "Sunset" Review of the Antidumping 
Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 75965 (Dec. 7,2010), in which the USDOC determined that 
revocation of the anti-dumping duty order would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping; and 
(7) Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA"), 19 U.S.C. §3538, as 
elaborated upon in the Statement of Ad ministrative Action accompanying the URAA 
and as implemented by the relevant United States authorities. 
 With regard to these measures, Viet Nam w ould like to consult with the United States 
regarding application of certain laws, regula tions and practices, incl uding the following: 
 
(1) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in pa rticular Sections 731, 751, 752, 771(7), 
771(35)(A), 771(35)(B), and 777A(d); 
(2) Section 129 of the URAA, codified as 19 U.S.C. §3538;  
(3) the United States Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No.1 03-316, vol. I; 
(4) the implementing regulations of the United States Department of Commerce 
("USDOC"), 19 C.F.R. Section 351, in particular 19 C.F.R. § 351.218 and 19 C.F.R. 
§ 351.414; 
(5) the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (2009 edition), including the 
computer programs to which it refers; 
(6) the USDOC's Policy Bulletin 98.3, "Polic ies Governing the Conduct of Five-Year 
("Sunset") Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders" (April 16, 
1998),63 Fed. Reg. 18871 (April 16, 1998); 
(7) the methodology of the United States for determining margins of dumping in 
administrative reviews; 
(8) the practice of requiring submission of a separate rate application or certification in 
original investigations and periodic re views concerning Vietnamese producers in 
order to qualify for the all others - or "separate" - rate; 
(9) the practice of limiting the number of respondents selected for individual examination 
to only a small fraction of the total numbe r of companies seeking individual review 
and the accompanying failure by the United States to provide alternative methods for 
non-investigated respondents to demonstrates that they are no longer dumping; 
(10) the application of a so-called Vietnam-wi de entity rate based on adverse facts 
available to respondents not individually inv estigated who fail to provide a separate 
rate application or certification to demo nstrate the absence of government control;  WT/DS429/1 
 G/L/980 
 G/ADP/D91/1 
 Page 3 
  
  (11) the practice of denying individually ex amined and non-individually examined 
respondents of the opportunity to demonstrate the absence of dumping, which would allow for the dumping order to be revoke d as to individual respondents that cease 
dumping behaviour; 
(12) the practice and methodology of the United States in five-year ("sunset") reviews for 
determining whether revocation of anti-dumpi ng  orders would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of dumping; and 
(13) the practice of implementing adverse Dispute Settlement Body rulings, pursuant to 
Section 129 of the DRAA, such that unliquidated entries entered or withdrawn from 
the warehouse for consumption prior to th e date of a Section 129 determination 
remain subject to assessment of duties pur suant to the .original anti-dumping  duty 
determination. 
 Viet Nam would like to consult with the Unite d States not only with regard to actions taken 
by the USDOC in the determinations listed at (1)-(4 ) above on an "as applied" basis, but would also 
like to consult with the United States' regarding its  practice, as such, of (1) improper use of the 
zeroing methodology in administrative reviews and s unset reviews, (2) improper application of an 
assessment rate to a country-wide en tity in periodic reviews that is distinct from the all others rate, by 
way of USDOC's "separate rate" practice, (3) re quiring non-individually investigated respondents to 
respond to a questionnaire regarding independence from government control to qualify for the all 
others rate; and (4) improper implementation of ad verse Dispute Settlement Body rulings relating to 
US anti-dumping  practices, actions, and measure s, pursuant to Section 129 of the URAA.  
  The matters that the Government of Viet Nam would like to raise in the course of consultations include, but are not limited to, the following: 
 
(1) In the fourth and fifth administrative reviews, the zeroing of dumping margins when 
comparing export prices and normal value; 
(2) in the fourth and fifth administrative revi ews, the determination of dumping margins, 
both for investigated respondents and so-ca lled separate rate respondents, above de 
minimis levels as a result of zeroing negative dumping margins for investigated 
respondents, and the consequent impositi on, continuation, or collection of 
anti-dumping duties; 
(3) in the fourth and fifth administrative re views, the limited selection of respondents 
individually investigated, such that non-  investigated companies are denied the 
opportunity to demonstrate the absence of dumping necessary to qualify for 
revocation of the anti-dumping duty order; 
(4) in the fourth and fifth administrative reviews, the treatment of the so-called Vietnam-
wide entity, including the designation of the entity as a "single" entity and the 
anti-dumping duty assigned to the entity, wh ich was based on application of total 
adverse facts available; 
(5) the continued use of the practices described in paragraphs (1)-(4) above in subsequent 
reviews; WT/DS429/1 
G/L/980 G/ADP/D91/1 
Page 4 
  
  (6) in the fourth and fifth administrative re views, the USDOC's determination to not 
revoke the anti-dumping duty order with respect to three respondents: Minh Phu Group, CAMIMEX, and Grobest, despite evidence demonstrating the absence of 
dumping in the fourth administrative revi ew and the absence of any evidence of 
dumping by these respondents in any of the prior reviews conducted by the USDOC; 
(7) the use of zeroing to calculate dumping ma rgins and determine duty assessment in the 
final results of the original investigation and first, second, third, fourth, and fifth 
administrative reviews, to the extent that the USDOC's use of the zeroing 
methodology in those determinations impermissibly inflated assessed anti-dumping 
duties and consequentially impacted the USDOC's revocation and five-year "sunset" 
review determinations in the measures at issue; 
(8) the use of zeroing to calculate dumping ma rgins and determine duty assessment in the 
final results of the original investigation and first, second, third, fourth, and fifth 
administrative reviews, to the extent that  the USDOC's consiste nt use of the zeroing 
methodology in those determinations de monstrates the USDOC's continued and 
ongoing use of the methodology throughout the full course of the shrimp anti-dumping  proceeding; 
(9) the use of limited respondent selection in the original investigation and first, second, 
third, fourth, and fifth administrative reviews,  to the extent that this practice denied 
respondents not selected for individual review the opportunity to obtain revocation of 
the anti-dumping  duty order in the meas ures at issue and impacted the USDOC's 
five-year "sunset" review determination; 
(10) the use of limited respondent selection in the original investigation and first, second, 
third, fourth, and fifth administrative review s, to the extent that these determinations 
demonstrate the USDOC's continued and ongoing use of this practice throughout the 
full course of the shrimp anti-dumping  proceeding; 
(11) the treatment of the so-called Vietnam-wide  entity in the original investigation and 
the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth admi nistrative reviews, to the extent that this 
practice impacted the USDOC's revocation and five-year "sunset" review determinations in the measures at issue; 
(12) the treatment of the so-called Vietnam-wide  entity in the original investigation and 
the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth administrative reviews, to the extent that these determinations demonstrate the USDOC's c ontinued and ongoing use of this practice 
throughout the full course of the shrimp anti-dumping  proceeding; 
(13) in all of the anti-dumping  proceedings of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam , the absence of any mechanism to provide 
individually investigated or non-individually investigated respondents the opportunity to establish the absence of dumping that is required for revocation of the anti-dumping  duty order; 
(14) in the final sunset review determination, the use of dumping margins calculated in the 
original anti-dumping investigation and/or subsequent administrative reviews, in 
which negative dumping margins had been zeroe d, resulting in the determination that  WT/DS429/1 
 G/L/980 
 G/ADP/D91/1 
 Page 5 
  
  revocation of the anti-dumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of dumping; 
(15) in the final sunset review determination, th e failure to otherwise evaluate the facts in 
an unbiased and objective manner in determini ng the likelihood of the continuation or 
recurrence of dumping; and  
(16) the use of WTO-inconsistent anti-dum ping duty assessment rates applied to 
unliquidated entries that are assessed fo llowing a Section 129 determination that 
implements an adverse Dispute Settlement Body ruling.  
 Viet Nam believes that the laws, regulations, administrative procedures, practices and 
methodologies described above are as such and/or as applied in the determin ations listed above, and 
on the basis of continued use with respect to select practices, inconsistent with the obligations of the 
United States under the Marrakesh Agreement Esta blishing the World Trade Organization (the 
"WTO Agreement") and the Agreements annexed ther eto.  The provisions with which these measures 
appear to be inconsistent include, but are not limited to, the following: 
 
(1) Articles 1:1, VI: 1, VI:2, and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994; 
(2) Articles 1,2.1,2.4,2.4.2,6,9, 11, 17.6(i), and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement; 
(3) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; 
(4) Articles 3.7, 19.1,21.1,21.3, and 21.5 of the DSU; and 
(5) Viet Nam's Protocol of Accession to the WTO. 
 Viet Nam reserves the right to raise additiona l claims and legal matters during the course of 
the consultations.  
 To avoid the apparent confusion that our inclus ion of the original investigation caused the US 
in Vietnam's previous request for consultations and a panel involving Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, we would like to clarify that while practices and 
determinations in the original investigation and th e first, second, and third administrative reviews are 
referenced because they have had an effect on  the fourth administrative review, the fifth 
administrative review, the five year "sunset review",  and ongoing or future reviews, the practices and 
determinations are included in this request for consultations only to th e extent that they have had or 
will have an effect on the fourth admin istrative review, the fift h admini strative review , the five year 
sunset review , and s ubsequent re
views. The underl ying determin ations, decision memoranda, and 
other memoranda and reco rd evidence in th e original investigation and t he three review s are thu s 
necessary an d relevant to the procee ding for w hich these cons ultations are requested . 
 
 We look forwar d to rece iving your reply to this request and , in accordance with Article 4 .3 of 
the DSU , to selecting a mutu ally acce ptable date for holding co nsultation s. Viet Nam wel comes 
suggestions that the United States may have co ncerning the date and ve nue for the consultations.  
 
__________