WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS350/6 
11 May 2007 
 
 (07-1999) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION 
OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY 
 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
 
 
  The following communication, dated 10 May 2007, from the delegation of the European Communities to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement  Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of 
the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  The European Communities hereby requests th at a panel be established by DSB action 
pursuant to Articles 2.1 and 6.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU");  Article XXII:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994 (the "GATT 1994");  and Articles 17.4 and 17.5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article 
VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (the " AD Agreement ") with regard to an "as 
such" measure or measures providing for the practice or methodologies for calculating dumping margins involving the use of zeroing, and the application of zeroing in certain specified anti-dumping 
measures maintained by the United States of Americ a (the "United States").  On 2 October 2006, the 
European Communities requested consultations with  the United States with a view to reaching a 
mutually satisfactory solution of the matter.  The request was circulated in document WT/DS350/1 dated 3 October 2006.  The consu ltations were held on 14 Novemb er 2006 and 28 February 2007 by 
video-conference on the above-mentioned measures.  Th ey have not led to a satisfactory resolution of 
the matter. 
 
1. The facts 
 
 (a) When carrying out assessment and review  proceedings of anti-dumping measures (so-
called annual "administrative reviews"),  the United States re-investigates and 
determines the margin of dumping on the basis of a comparison of a weighted 
average "normal value" for each "averaging group" and the prices of individual export transactions.  When aggregating the results of these comparisons to determine 
the total amount or margin of dumping of  the product under investigation, the 
United States puts at zero any negative amounts of "dumping".  As a result, the 
United States calculates a margin of dumping and collects an amount of anti-dumping 
duty in excess of the actual margin of dumping practised by the exporters concerned. The United States uses this methodology systematically in all its annual 
administrative reviews of anti-dumping orders, and indeed in all types of review proceedings (including new shipper and changed circumstances review proceedings) in which it calculates a dumping margin. 
 WT/DS350/6 
Page 2  
 
    The Appellate Body, in the case United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology 
for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing ") (WT/DS294/AB/R), found that the 
United States' use of zeroing in its "adminis trative reviews" was inconsistent with 
Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Article  VI:2 of GATT 1994.  In the same case 
and in the subsequent case of United States – Measures relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews  (DS 322) it was also confirmed that the United States Department of 
Commerce (the "DOC") employed a "zeroi ng methodology" in calculating the margin 
of dumping in its "administrative reviews" as described above and that that this was 
inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement.. 
 
This zeroing practice or methodology is applied pursuant, in particular, to: 
 
− DOC's interpretation of Sections  771(35)(A) and (B), Section 731, 
Section 777A(d), and Section 751(a)(2)(A)(i ) and (ii) of the United States Tariff 
Act of 1930, as interpreted by the United States Statement of Administrative Action, which accompanied the adoption of the United States Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, giving effect in the United States to the WTO Agreements, and 
as upheld by US municipal courts;
1  
− the implementing regulation2 of the DOC, in particular section 351.414(c)(2); 
− the Import Administration Antidumpi ng Manual (1997 edition) (the "IA AD 
Manual") including the computer program(s) to which it refers; 
− DOC's consistent and established practice;  and 
− DOC's zeroing methodology. 
Since the WTO inconsistency of this practice or methodology is already established 
(notably in DS322) the European Communiti es does not ask the Panel to rule on the 
WTO inconsistency of this practice. 
 
(b) The United States uses this practice or methodology in calculating dumping amounts 
or dumping margins, and in setting and coll ecting anti-dumping duties.  The level of 
such anti-dumping duties is set in origin al proceedings, revised in administrative 
review proceedings or changed circumst ances proceedings, and the need for the 
continued application of anti-dumping duties is  decided in sunset review proceedings.  
In the latter DOC may determine that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the 
anti-dumping order were revoked, notably because dumping has continued at levels 
above de minimis after the issuance of the order.  To find that dumping has continued 
after the issuance of the order, DOC re lies on dumping margins calculated in the 
original proceeding and in administrative  review proceedings using  zeroing3. The 
                                                      
1 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (04-1107) Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel 
USA INC. v Department of Commerce and Others, 21 December 2005, applying a US municipal law doctrine of judicial deference to executive interpretations of statute (the so-called "Chevron doctrine"), to the exclusion 
of a US municipal law doctrine which states that US courts should interpret US law whenever possible in a 
manner consistent with international obligations (the so-called "Charming Betsy doctrine"). 
2 19 CFR Section 351. 
3 These dumping margins will normally have been established in original proceedings, in which the 
zeroing methodology condemned in DS 2 94 will usually have been used; Sec tion 752(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, Section 315.218(e)(2)(i) of the DOC implementing regulation and paragraphs II.B of the Sunset Policy 
Bulletin.  WT/DS350/6 
 Page 3 
 
 
  EC has identified in the annex to this request a number of anti-dumping orders where 
duties are set and/or maintained on the basis of the above-mentioned zeroing practice or methodology with the result that duties are paid by importers either in excess of the 
dumping margin which would have been  calculated using a WTO consistent 
methodology or are paid when no such duty would have resulted from the use of a 
WTO-consistent methodology.   
 
2.  The measures at issue and the legal basis of the complaint  
 
The measures at issue and the legal basis of the complaint include, but are not limited to, the following:
4 
 
The continued application of, or the application of the specific anti-dumping duties resulting from the anti-dumping orders enumer ated from I to XVIII in the Annex to 
the present request as calculated or mainta ined in place pursuant to the most recent 
administrative review or, as the case may be, original proceeding or changed 
circumstances or sunset review proceedi ng at a level in excess of the anti-dumping 
margin which would result from the correct application of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (whether duties or cash deposit rates or other form of measure).  
 
In addition to these measures, the administ rative reviews, or, as the case may be, 
original proceedings or changed circumstan ces or sunset review proceedings listed in 
the Annex (numbered 1 to 52) with the specific anti-dumping orders and are also 
considered by the EC to be measures subj ect to the current request for establishment 
of the panel in addition to the anti-dumping orders.  
 
This includes the determinations in re lation to all companies and includes any 
assessment instructions, whether automatic or  otherwise, issued at any time pursuant 
to any of the measures listed in the Anne x.  The anti-dumping duties maintained (in 
whatever form) pursuant to these orders, a nd the administrative reviews, or, as the 
case may be, original proceedings and changed circumstances or sunset review proceedings listed in the Annex are incons istent with the following provisions:  
 
• Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because 
the US did not determine a dumping margin for the product as a whole ; 
 
• Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement , whether considered in isolation or together 
with the obligations referred to in the firs t bullet point, insofar as the comparison made 
by the United States is unfair, uses an unjustified comparison method, employs zeroing, 
fails to calculate a margin of dumping for the product, and is otherwise inconsistent with 
those provisions; 
 
• Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement insofar as a de minimis dumping margin is erroneously 
determined not to be de minimis ; 
 
• Articles 9.1 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement , whether considered in isolation or together 
with the obligations referred to in the firs t and second bullet points, insofar as there the 
imposition and collection of an anti-dumping duty in excess of the margin of dumping 
determined pursuant to Article 2 of the AD Agreement ; 
                                                     
 
4 The measures at issue include all Issues and D ecision Memorandums, and any similar documents; any 
computer programmes; any calculation memorandums; any other document that is part of the measure or record; 
and any assessment instructions. WT/DS350/6 
Page 4  
 
   
• Articles 9.5 and 11 (including Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3) of the AD Agreement , 
whether considered in isolation or together w ith the obligations referred to in the first and 
second bullet points,  insofar as the determ inations of dumping made or relied upon by 
the United States in review investigations ar e not made in compliance with Article 2 of 
the AD Agreement ;  
 
• Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement insofar as the United States relied on a 
dumping margin which was not established for the product as a whole and not in conformity with Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement ; 
 
• Articles 1 and 2.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 
insofar as there is the imposition and collection of an anti-dumping duty which is 
inconsistent with the AD Agreement ; and 
 
• Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreemen t establishing the World Trade Organization 
and Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement insofar as the United States has not taken all 
necessary steps, of a general or particular char acter, to ensure the conformity of its laws, 
regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of GATT 1994 and the AD 
Agreement . 
 
 The European Communities asks that this request  be placed on the agenda for the meeting of 
the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 22 May 2007.   
  
   WT/DS350/6
 Page 5ANNEX 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 September 2004 –
31 August 2005 71 FR 74900, 13 
December 2006  Liepajas Metalurgs 5,94% 1 
1 September 2003–
31 August 2004 71 FR 7016, 
February 10, 2006  Liepajas Metalurgs 5,24% 2 
1 September 2002–
31 August 2003 69 FR 74498, 
December 14, 2004  Liepajas Metalurgs 3,01% 3 
SUNSET REVIEWS  
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determinati on Continuation order   CASE I.  
 S
TEEL CONCRETE 
REINFORCING BARS – 
LATVIA  
 
US  DOC  NO A-449-8041 
 
 
 
 
72 FR 16767, April 
5, 2007 731-TA-878    4 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 May 2004–30 
April 2005 71 FR 40064, July 
14, 2006  FAG Italy 
SKF Italy 2,52% 
7,65% 5 
1 May 2003–30 
April 2004 70 FR 54711, 
September 16, 2005  FAG Italy 
SKF Italy 5,88% 
2,59% 6 
1 May 2002–30 
April 2003 69 FR 55574, 
September 15, 2004 69 FR 62023, 
October 22, 2004 Numerous 68,29% to less 
than 5% 7 
1 May 2001–30 
April 2002 68 FR 35623, 
June 16, 2003  FAG 
SKF 2,87% 
5,08% 8 
SUNSET REVIEWS  
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determinati on Continuation order   CASE II.  
 B
ALL BEARINGS AND 
PARTS THEREOF – ITALY  
 
US DOC  NO A-475-8012 
  
70 FR 58383, 
October 6, 2005 731-TA-393 71 FR 51850, August 
31, 2006 71 FR 54469, 
September 15, 2006  9 
                                                      
1 Original Order: 66 FR 46777, 7 September 2001. 
2 Original Order: 15 May 1989; Continuation Order: 71 FR 54469, 15 September 2006.  
  WT/DS350/6 
Page 6  
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 May 2004–30 
April 2005 71 FR 40064, July 
14, 2006  FAG/INA 
GRW 
SKF Germany 4,04% 
1,14% 
7,35% 10 
1 May 2003–30 
April 2004 70 FR 54711, 
September 16, 2005  FAG/INA 
GRW 
SKF Germany 5,65% 
4,58% 
16,06% 11 
1 May 2002–30 
April 2003 69 FR 55574, 
September 15, 2004 
 69 FR 63507, 
November 2, 2004 Numerous 70,41% to less 
than 1% 12 
1 May 2001–30 
April 2002 68 FR 35623, 
June 16, 2003  FAG 
Torrington 
Paul Mueller 
SKF 1,45% 
70,41% 
0,19% 
3,38% 13 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order   CASE III. 
 
BALL BEARINGS AND 
PARTS THEREOF – 
GERMANY  
 
US DOC  NO A-428-8012 
 
 
70 FR 58383, 
October 6, 2005 731-TA-392 
 71 FR 51850, August 
31, 2006 71 FR 54469, 
September 15, 2006  14 
  
   WT/DS350/6
 Page 7 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS 
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 May 2004–30 
April 2005 71 FR 40064, July 
14, 2006  SKF France 
SNR 12,57% 
11,75% 15 
1 May 2003–30 
April 2004 70 FR 54711, 
September 16, 2005  SKF 
SNR 8,41% 
11,93% 16 
1 May 2002–30 
April 2003 69 FR 55574, 
September 15, 2004 69 FR 62023, 
October 22, 2004 Numerous 66,42% to less 
than 7% 17 
1 May 2001–30 
April 2002 68 FR 35623, June 
16, 2003 68 FR 43712, 
July 24, 2003 France SNR 
Roulements 
SKF 3,52% 
6,70% 18 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order   CASE IV.  
 B
ALL BEARINGS AND 
PARTS THEREOF – 
FRANCE  
 
US DOC  NO A-427-8012 
  
 
70 FR 58383, 
October 6, 2005 731-TA-391 
 71 FR 51850, August 
31, 2006 71 FR 54469, 
September 15, 2006  19 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 March 2004–28 
February 2005 71 FR 30873, May 
31 2006  Ugitech S.A. 9,68% 20 CASE V. 
 S
TAINLESS STEEL BAR – 
FRANCE  
 US
 DOC  NO A-427-8203 
 
 1 March 2003–29 
February 2004 70 FR 46482, 
August 10, 2005  Ugitech S.A. 14,98% 21 
 
                                                      
3 Original Order: 67 FR 10385, 7 March 2002.  
  WT/DS350/6 
Page 8  
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 July 2004 – 30 
June 2005 71 FR 74897, 
December 13, 2006  Thyssen Krupp 
Nirosta Gmbh 2,45% 22 
1 July 2003–30 June 
2004 70 FR 73729 
December 13, 2005  TKN 9,5% 23 
1 July 2002–30 June 
2003 69 FR 75930, 
December 20, 2004  Thyssen Krupp 
Nirosta 7,03% 24 
1 July 2001–30 June 
2002 69 FR 6262, 
February 10, 2004  TKN 3,72% 25 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order   CASE VI. 
 
STAINLESS STEEL SHEET 
AND STRIP IN COILS – 
GERMANY  
 US
 DOC  NO A-428-8254 
 
 
69 FR 67896, 
November 22,2004 
 731-TA-798 
 70 FR 41236, July 
18, 2005 70 FR 44886, August 
4, 2005  26 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS 
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 May 2003–30 
April 2004 70 FR 72789, 
December 7 2005  Ugine & ALZ 
Belgium NV 2,96% 27 
1 May 2002–30 
April 2003 69 FR 74495, 
December 14, 2004 70 FR 2999, January 
19, 2005 U&A Belgium 2,71% 28 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order   CASE VII. 
 S
TAINLESS STEEL PLATE 
IN COILS – BELGIUM  
 US
 DOC  NO A-423-8085 
 
 
 
69 FR 61798, 
October 21 2004 731-TA-788 70 FR 38710, July 5, 
2005 70 FR 41202, July 18 
2005  29 
 
                                                      
4 Original Order : 64 FR 40557, 27 July 1999;  Continuation Order:  70 FR 44886, 4 August 2005. 
5 Original Order : 64 FR 25288, 11 May 1999;  Continuation Order: 70 FR 41202, 18 July 2005.  
   WT/DS350/6
 Page 9 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 May 2003–30 
April 2004 70 FR 54711, 
September 16, 2005  Barden/FAG 
SKF IK 2,78% 
61,14% 30 
1 May 2002–30 
April 2003 69 FR 55574, 
September 15, 2004 69 FR 62023, 
October 22, 2004 Aeroengine Bearings
Barden/FAG 61,14% 
4,10% 31 
SUNSET REVIEWS  
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order   CASE  VIII. 
 
BALL BEARINGS AND 
PARTS THEREOF – UK 
 
US DOC  NO A-412-8012 
 
 
70 FR 58383, 
October 6, 2005 731-TA-399 
 71 FR 51850, August 
31, 2006 71 FR 54469, 
September 15, 2006  32 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 March 2004–28 
February 2005 71 FR 42802, July 
28, 2006 71 FR 52063, 
September 1, 2006 BGH Group 0,73% 33 CASE  IX. 
 
STAINLESS STEEL BAR – 
GERMANY  
 
US DOC  A-428-8306 
2 August 2001–28 
February 2003 69 FR 113, June 14, 
2004  BGH 0,52% 34 
 
                                                      
 
6 Original Order: 67 FR 10382, 7 March 2002.  
  WT/DS350/6 
Page 10  
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 November 2004–
31 October 2005 70 FR 71523, 
December 11, 2006 
(Preliminary results)  Corus 2.52% 35 
1 November 2002–
31 October 2003 70 FR 18366, April 
11, 2005  Corus 4,42% 36 
3 May 2001–31 
October 2002 69 FR 115, June 16, 
2004 69 FR 43801, 
July 22, 2004 Corus 4,80% 37 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final 
determination ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order   CASE  X.  
 
CERTAIN HOT ROLLED 
CARBON STEEL FLAT 
PRODUCTS – 
NETHERLANDS  
 
US DOC  NO A-421-8077 
72 FR 7604, 
February 16, 2007 
(Preliminary Results) 731-TA-903    38 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by 
the review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. CASE  XI. 
 S
TAINLESS STEEL BAR – 
ITALY  
 US
 DOC  NO A- 475-8298 2 August 2001–28 
February 2003 69 FR 113, June 14, 
2004  Foroni 
Ugine-Savoie-Imphy 
SA 4,03% 
33,00% 39 
 
                                                      
7 Original Order: 66  FR 55637, 2 November 2001. 
8 Original Order: 67 FR 10384, 7 March 2002. 
  
   WT/DS350/6
 Page 11 
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS 
Period covered by the 
review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003 70 FR 7472, 
February 14, 2005 70 FR 13009, 
March 17, 2005 Thyssen Krupp Acciai 
Speciali Terni SpA 3,73% 40 
1 July 2001–30 June 2002 68 FR 69382 
December 12, 2003  Thyssenkrupp Acciai 
Terni SpA 1,62% 41 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final determination  ITC Case number ITC 
Determination Continuation order   CASE XII. 
 
STAINLESS STEEL SHEET 
& STRIP IN COILS – ITALY  
 
US DOC  NO 
A-475-8249 
69 FR 67896, November 
22,2004 
 731-TA-799 70 FR 41236, July 
18, 2005 70 FR 44886, August 
4, 2005  42 
 
                                                      
9 Original Order: 64 FR 40567, 27 July 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 44886, 4 August 2005. 
  
  WT/DS350/6 
Page 12  
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS  
Period covered by the 
review  Final Results 
(unless otherwise 
specified) Amended Final 
Results Company Dumping 
margin No. 
1 July 2004 – 30 June 2005 72 FR 7011, 
February 14, 2007  Atar 
Corticella/Combattenti 18,18% 
1,95% 43 
1 July 2003–30 June 2004 70 FR 71464, 
November 29, 
2005  Barilla 
Corticella/Combattenti
Indalco 
Pagani 
Riscossa 20,68% 
3,41% 
2,59% 
2,76% 
2,03% 44 
1 July 2002–30 June 2003 70 FR 6832, 
February 9, 2005  Barilla 
Corticella/Combattenti
Indalco 
PAM 
Riscossa 
Russo 7,25% 
4% 
6,03% 
4,78% 1,05% 
7,36% 45 
1 July 2001–30 June 2002 69 FR 6255, 
February 10, 2004 69 FR 81, April 
27, 2004 Garofalo 
Indalco 
PAM 
Tomasello 
Zaffiri 2,57% 
2,85% 
45,49% 
4,59% 
7,23% 46 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final determination  ITC Case number ITC 
Determination Continuation order   CASE  XIII. 
 
CERTAIN PASTA – ITALY  
   
US DOC  NO  A-475-81810 
  
 
 
72 FR 5266, February 5, 
2007 731-TA-734    47 
 
                                                      
10 Original Order 61 FR 143, 24 July 1996; Continuation Order 66 FR 55160, 1 November 2001.  
   WT/DS350/6
 Page 13 
SUNSET REVIEWS 
DOC Final determination ITC Case number ITC Determination  Continuation order No. CASE XIV. 
 
BRASS SHEET & STRIP – 
GERMANY  
 
US DOC  NO A-428-60211 71 FR 4348, January 26, 2006 731-TA-317 71 FR 14719, March 23, 
2006 71 FR 16552, April 3, 
2006 48 
 
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS 
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No. CASE XV. 
 
PURIFIED 
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE 
– SWEDEN  
 
US DOC  NO A-401-808 70 FR 28278, May 17, 2005 731-TA-1087 70 FR 39334, July 7, 
2005 70 FR 39734, July 11, 
2005 49 
 
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS  
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No. CASE  XVI. 
 
 PURIFIED 
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLUL
OSE – NETHERLANDS  
 
US DOC  NO A-421-811 70 FR 28275, May 17, 2005 731-TA-1086 70 FR 39334, July 7, 
2005 70 FR 39734, July 11, 
2005 50 
 
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS  
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No. CASE  XVII. 
 P
URIFIED 
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLUL
OSE – FINLAND  
 
US DOC  NO A-405-803 70 FR 28279, May 17, 2005 731-TA-1084 70 FR 39334, July 7, 
2005 70 FR 39734, July 11, 
2005 51 
 
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS  
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No. CASE  XVIII. 
 
CHLORINATED 
ISOCYANURATES – SPAIN  
 
US DOC  NO A-469-814 70 FR 24506, May 10, 2005 731-TA-1083 70 FR 36205, June 22, 
2005 70 FR 36562, June 24, 
2005 52 
__________ 
 
                                                      
11 Original Order: 6 March 1987