WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS322/8 
7 February 2005 
 
 (05-0498) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING 
AND SUNSET REVIEWS 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 4 February  2005, from the delegation of Japan to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is ci rculated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby wish to convey the request of the Government of Japan for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994"), Articles 4 and 6 of the Understanding on 
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), and Article 17 of the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement") 
regarding certain measures imposed by the United States.   
A. Consultations  
  On 24 November 2004, the Government of Japan requested consultations with the 
Government of the United States under Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, and Article 17.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
1  Consultations were held  on 20 December 2004, which 
allowed a better understanding of the po sitions of the parties, but faile d to achieve a mutually agreed 
solution of the dispute.  B. Measures and Claims 
 
 Pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Japan considers that the specific measures identified in this  request are inconsistent with the United States' 
obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Esta blishing the World Trade Organization (the 
"Marrakesh Agreement"), including the agreements a nnexed thereto. By infringing those obligations, 
the United States' measures nullify or  impair benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly under 
such agreements, as set forth in Article 3.8 of the DSU.  Specifically, the Un ited States has acted in a 
manner inconsistent with the provisions of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the 
Marrakesh Agreement that are identified below. 
 
1. The Government of Japan considers that the United States measures including laws, regulations and administrative procedures, as such, are inconsistent with certain provisions of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Marra kesh Agreement, for the following reasons.  
 
                                                     
 
1 WT/DS322/1 (24 November 2004). WT/DS322/8 
Page 2  
 
 (a) In original investigations, periodic reviews,  new shipper reviews, sunset reviews and 
changed circumstances reviews where the redetermination of margins of dumping 
occurs, the United States Department of Commerce ("USDOC") disregards intermediate negative dumping margins cal culated by comparing normal value and 
export price, including on a weighted-avera ge-to-weighted-average basis, weighted-
average-to-transaction basis, and transac tion-to-transaction basis, through the 
USDOC's AD Margin Calculation computer program and other related procedures, in 
the process of establishing the overall dumping margin for the product as a whole (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Zeroing"). As a result, the USDOC artificially inflates the dumping margins.  Zeroing is inconsistent with:  
(i) Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the 
comparison of normal value and export price is not in conformity with those provisions;  
(ii) Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement through the 
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties in excess of the margin or 
amount of dumping as properly determined pursuant to Article 2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;  
(iii) as to original investigations, Article  5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
insofar as de minimis  dumping margins are determined to be greater than 
de minimis as a result of the impermissible use of the Zeroing procedure, and 
the Zeroing procedure results in the failure to immediately terminate an 
investigation;  
(iv) as to original investigations, Article  3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
insofar as the Zeroing procedure result s in the cumulative assessment of the 
effect of imports for which dumping ma rgins are erroneously determined to 
be greater than de minimis ;  
(v) as to new shipper reviews, changed circumstances reviews and sunset 
reviews, Articles 9.5, 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to the extent that dumping margins calculated by using the impermissible Zeroing procedure results in erroneous determ ination; and 
(vi) Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 to the extent that the Zeroing procedure and the resulting 
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are inconsistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 
(b) Injury investigations by the United Stat es International Trade Commission ("USITC") 
are inconsistent with:  
(i) Article 3, including Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement insofar as the injury and causation determinations are based on 
the examination of the inflated dumping margin and volume of "dumped imports" that include imports from companies which would have been 
excluded as non-dumped imports (due to the calculation of de minimis  or 
zero margins) had the margins been ca lculated without using the Zeroing 
procedure;  WT/DS322/8 
 Page 3 
 
 
 (ii) Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent insofar as the Zeroing procedure 
allows the cumulative assessment of th e effect of imports for which dumping 
margins are erroneously determined to be greater than de minimis ;  
(iii) Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement insofar as the volume of dumped 
imports or injury is determined not to be negligible as a result of the 
impermissible use of the Zeroing procedure, and the USITC consequently 
fails to immediately terminate the investigation; and  
(iv) Articles 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 to the extent that the injury investigation and the resulting imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are inconsistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
(c) In sunset reviews, the USDOC and the US ITC base their determinations that the 
expiry of an anti-dumping duty would be likel y to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of dumping and injury on margins previously  calculated using the Zeroing procedure. 
Thus, the sunset reviews by the US authorities are inconsistent with:  
(i) Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, insofar as the 
likelihood determinations in the sunset reviews are based on dumping margins determined using the Zeroing pr ocedure that is inconsistent with 
Article 2 including Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and   
(ii) Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 to the extent that the sunset reviews and the resulting continued 
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are inconsistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
(d) Changed circumstances reviews are inconsistent with:  
(i) Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement insofar as the 
determinations in the changed circumstances reviews are based on dumping 
margins determined using the Zeroing pr ocedure that is  inconsistent with 
Article 2, including Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; 
and 
(ii) Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 to the extent that the changed circumstances reviews and the 
resulting continued imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are 
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
(e) By adopting and maintaining the WTO-inc onsistent measures identified above, the 
United States has violated its obligations under Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement, because the United 
States has failed to take all necessary steps,  of a general or particular character, to 
ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
2. The Government of Japan also considers that the United States laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures described above were applied in the specific original investigation, periodic 
reviews and sunset reviews identified in the Annex to this panel request.  As a result of the application WT/DS322/8 
Page 4  
 
 of the Zeroing procedure, the anti-dumping orders and determinations adopted in the proceedings 
identified in the Annex are inconsistent with  the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Marrakesh Agreem ent for the same reasons as set out in point 
B.1.(a)–(e) above:  
(a) in the original investigation: 
(i) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.8, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994; and 
(ii) Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement and Article XVI:4 of the 
Marrakesh Agreement ; and 
 
(b) in the periodic and sunset reviews: 
(i) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994; and 
(ii) Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement and Article XVI:4 of the 
Marrakesh Agreement. 
3. The foregoing measures include, and/or are a dopted or applied pursuant to, the following 
United States laws, regulations, and administrative procedures:     (1) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (in particular, by the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act of 1994 (the "URAA")), in particular, sec tions 731, 751, 752, 771(7), 771(35)(A), 
771(35)(B) and 777A(d); 
 
(2) the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 
103-316, vol. I; 
 
(3) the implementing regulations of the USDOC, 19 C.F.R. section 351; and  (4) the USDOC Import Administration's Antidumping Manual (1997 edition), including 
the AD Margin Calculation computer program(s) to which it refers. 
 
 The foregoing text identifies the specific meas ures at issue and describes in brief the legal 
bases for the Government of Japan's claims, and is without prejudice to any arguments that the 
Government of Japan may develop and present to th e Panel regarding the WT O-inconsistency of the 
measures at issue.  
* * * * * 
  Accordingly, the Government of Japan requ ests the establishment of a panel pursuant to 
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of  the DSU, and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  The terms of reference shall be the te rms set out in Article 7 of the DSU and Article 17 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The Government of  Japan requests that the establishment of a panel 
in this matter be placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on 
17 February 2005.  WT/DS322/8 
 Page 5 
 
 
 United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Cut-To-Length 
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 1  
 
 
The measure  
  This case concerns the imposition of anti -dumping duties on Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate Products ("CTL Plate") from Japan (USDOC case number A-588-847, 64 FR 
73215, 13 December 1999).  The rate of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty was 10.78% for Kawasaki 
Steel Corporation and all others.  Use of Zeroing
 
 
In the United States Department of Commerce's ("USDOC's") original investigation of CTL 
Plate from Japan, the USDOC utilized the Zeroi ng procedure by which the USDOC disregards 
negative dumping margins calculated for averaging gr oups in the process of establishing the dumping 
margin for the product as a whole.     This procedure is functionally identical to the pr ocedure that was held to be inconsistent with 
the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India  (Panel Report, WT/DS141/R, and Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001), and also in United States – Final Dumping 
Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada  (Panel Report, WT/DS264/R, and Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004). 
 
 In addition, in the United States Internati onal Trade Commission's ("USITC's") affirmative 
determination in Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plat e from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-820, the 
USITC, pursuant to Section 771(7) of the Act, relied on a "magnitude of dumping" and "volume of 
dumped imports," that were inflated by the use of the Zeroing procedure.   
Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using the above procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 10.58% for 
Kawasaki Steel Corporation, while without the Zero ing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins 
included), the dumping margin would have been [lower]. 
 
 
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings, 
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan 
 
Specific Case No. 2
 
 
 The measure
 
  This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings, Four 
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Compone nts Thereof, From Japan  (USDOC case number A-
588-054, 66 Fed. Reg. 15078, 15 March 2001).  Th e period of review is 1 October 1998 through 30 
September 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty was 14.86% for Koyo Seiko Co., 
Ltd.  WT/DS322/8 
Page 6  
 
 Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Tapered Roller B earings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, 
and Components Thereof, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the Zeroing procedure by which the 
USDOC disregards negative dumping margins calculated for the export transactions under review in 
the process of establishing the dumping margin for the product as a whole.   
 Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 14.86% for Koyo Seiko 
Co., Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i .e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.   
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan 
 
Specific Case No. 3
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Jap an (USDOC case number A-588-604, 65 Fed. Reg. 
11767, 6 March 2000).  The period of review is 1 October 1997 through 30 September 1998, and the 
rate of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty was 17.58% for NTN Corporation. 
 
Use of Zeroing  
  In this periodic review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the sa me zZeroing procedure as that used in Specific 
Case No. 2. 
 
Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 17.58% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected. 
   
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings 
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan 
 
Specific Case No. 4
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Jap an (USDOC case number A-588-604, 66 Fed. Reg. 
15078, 15 March 2001).  The period of review is 1 October 1998 through 30 September 1999, and the 
rate of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty was 17.94% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.  WT/DS322/8 
 Page 7 
 
 
  
Use of Zeroing  
  In this periodic review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific 
Case No. 2. 
 Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 17.94% for Koyo Seiko 
Co., Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i .e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [lower].  
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 5
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed.  Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).  The period of 
review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty was 
6.14% for NTN Corporation.  
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized 
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.  Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
 
 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 6.14% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.  
 
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Cylindrical 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 6
 
 
 
The measure  
  This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Cylindrical Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).  
The period of review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem  
anti-dumping duty was 3.49% for NTN Corporation.  Use of Zeroing
 
 WT/DS322/8 
Page 8  
 
  In this periodic review of Cylindrical Rolle r Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the 
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2. 
 Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
 
 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.49% for NTN 
Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.   
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Spherical Plain 
Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 7
 
 
 
The measure  
  This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).  
The period of review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem  
anti-dumping duty was 2.78% for NTN Corporation. 
 Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the 
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2. 
 Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 2.78% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected. 
  
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 8
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed.  Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001).  The period of 
review is 1 May 1999 through 30 April 2000, and the rates of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty were 
10.10% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 9.16% for NTN Corporation, and 4.22% for NSK Ltd.  
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized 
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.   WT/DS322/8 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Dumping margin without Zeroing  
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 10.10% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 9.16% for NTN Corporation, and 4.22% for NSK Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been [negative] for 
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., [negative] for NTN Corpor ation, and [negative] for NSK Ltd., and no 
anti-dumping duties would have been collected.   
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Cylindrical 
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 9
 
  
The measure
 
  This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Cylindrical Roller Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A- 588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001).  The 
period of review is 1 May 1999 through 31 December 1999, and the rates of the ad valorem  
anti-dumping duty were 5.28% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and 16.26% for NTN Corporation. 
 
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Cylindrical Rolle r Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the 
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2. 
 
Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calcul ated dumping margins of 5.28% for Koyo Seiko 
Co., Ltd. and 16.26% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the 
negative unit margins included), the dumping margin s would have been [negative] for Koyo Seiko 
Co., Ltd. and [negative] for NTN Corporation, a nd no anti-dumping duties would have been collected. 
  
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Spherical 
Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 10
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Spherical Plain Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A- 588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001).  The 
period of review is 1 May 1999 through 31 December 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem  
anti-dumping duty was 3.60% for NTN Corporation.  
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2. 
 WT/DS322/8 
Page 10  
 
 Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.60% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected. 
 
 
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 11
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 67 Fed. Reg. 55780, 30 August 2002, as amended by 
67 Fed. Reg. 63608, 15 October 2002).  The period of review is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001, 
and the rates of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty were 6.07% for NSK Ltd., 2.51% for Asahi Seiko 
Co., Ltd., and 9.34% for NTN Corporation.  
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized 
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.  
Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 6.07% for NSK Ltd., 2.51% for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and 9.34% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins in cluded), the dumping margins would have been 
[negative] for NSK Ltd., [negativ e] for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and [negative] for NTN Corporation, 
and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected. 
  
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 12
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 68 Fe d. Reg. 35623, 16 June 2003).  The period of 
review is 1 May 2001 through 30 April 2002, and the rates of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty were 
4.51% for NTN Corporation and 2.68% for NSK Ltd.  
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized 
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.   WT/DS322/8 
 Page 11 
 
 
 Dumping margin without Zeroing  
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 4.51% for NTN Corporation and 2.68% for NSK Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit 
margins included), the dumping margins would ha ve been [negative] for NTN Corporation and 
[negative] for NSK Ltd., and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected. 
  
United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings 
and Parts Thereof From Japan  
 
Specific Case No. 13
 
  The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof 
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 69 Fed. Reg. 55574, 15 September 2004).  The period 
of review is 1 May 2002 through 30 April 2003, and the rates of the ad valorem  anti-dumping duty 
were 5.56% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 2.74% for NTN Corporation, 2.46% for NSK Ltd., and 3.37% for Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd. 
 
Use of Zeroing
 
  In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized 
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2. 
 
Dumping margin without Zeroing
 
  By using this procedure, the USDOC calcul ated dumping margins of 5.56% for Koyo Seiko 
Co., Ltd., 2.74% for NTN Corporation, 2.46% for NSK Ltd., and 3.37%   for Nippon Pillow Block 
Co., Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i .e. with the negative unit margins included), the 
dumping margins would have been [negative] for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., [negative] for NTN 
Corporation, [negative] for NSK Ltd., and [negative] for Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd., and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.   
United States – Sunset Review of Antifriction Bearings From Japan 
 
Specific Case No. 14
 
 The measure
 
 
 This case concerns the Final Results of th e USDOC in the Expedited Sunset Review of 
Antifriction Bearings from Japan, in which the USDOC found that revocation of the anti-dumping order on Ball Bearings from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping 
(USDOC case number A-588-804, 64 Fed. Reg. 60275, 4 November 1999); and the Determination of 
the USITC in Certain Bearings from China, Fran ce, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania, 
Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Inv estigations Nos. AA-1921-143, 731-TA-341, 731-
TA-343-345, 731-TA-391-397, and 731-TA-399 (Revie w), that revocation of the anti-dumping order 
on Ball Bearings from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.     WT/DS322/8 
Page 12  
 
 Use of Zeroing
 
  In making this determination, the USDOC speci fically relied on the "margins determined in 
the original investigation and s ubsequent periodic reviews," and c oncluded that because "dumping has 
continued over the life of the orde rs, the [USDOC] determines that dumping is likely to continue if 
the orders were revoked."  (64 Fed. Reg. at 60278.)  Japan submits th at because the USDOC's 
likelihood determination was based on margins in both the original investigation and subsequent 
periodic reviews that were calculated using the Zero ing procedure, which is inconsistent with the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the USDOC's decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Ball 
Bearings from Japan is equally inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 
 In addition, Japan submits that because the USITC relied on a "magnitude of dumping" and 
"volume of dumped imports" that were inflated by the use of the Zeroing procedure,, the USITC's likelihood determination and the decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Ball Bearings from 
Japan are also inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.    
 
 
United States – Sunset Review of Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan 
 
Specific Case No. 15
 
 
 The measure
 
  This case concerns the Final Results of the USDOC in the Full Sunset Review of Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, in which the USDOC concluded that revocation of 
the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan would be likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (USDOC case number A-588-826, 65 Fed. Reg. 47380, 2 August 2000); and the Dete rmination of the USITC in Certain Carbon Steel Products from 
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, Fran ce, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom, Investigations Nos. AA-1921-197, 
701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587, 
604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review), that re vocation of the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence 
of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.   
Use of Zeroing
 
  In making this determination, the USDOC spec ifically relied on the margins determined in 
the investigation, and concluded that because "dum ping has continued to occur throughout the life of 
the order," dumping was likely to conti nue if the order was revoked.  USDOC, Issues and Decision 
Memo for the Full Sunset Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan; 
Final Results  at Comment 1 (2 August 2000).  Japan submits that because the USDOC's likelihood 
determination was based on margins in the original  investigation that were calculated using the 
Zeroing procedure, which is inc onsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the USDOC's decision 
not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan is equally inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
  WT/DS322/8 
 Page 13 
 
 
  In addition, Japan submits that because the USITC relied on a "magnitude of dumping" and 
"volume of dumped imports" that were inflated by the use of the Zeroing procedure, the USITC's likelihood determination and the decision not  to revoke the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan are also inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. 
 
__________