WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS344/7 
4 February 2008 
 
 (08-0497) 
 Original:   Spanish 
  
 
UNITED STATES – FINAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
ON STAINLESS STEEL FROM MEXICO 
 
Notification of an Appeal by Mexico under Ar ticle 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding
 
on Rules and Procedures Governing th e Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and  
Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
   The following notification dated 31 January 20 08, from the delegation of Mexico, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU) and Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
Mexico hereby notifies its decision to appeal to th e Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in 
the Panel Report on United States – Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico  
(WT/DS344/R) (Panel Report), and certain legal in terpretations developed by the Panel in this 
dispute.  
 At issue is "simple zeroing," whereby the Unite d States investigating authorities, in a periodic 
review, compare individual export transactions agai nst average normal values and do not fully take 
into account the results of comparisons where the export price exceeds the average normal value when 
such results are aggregated in order to calculate the exporter's or producer's margin of dumping for the 
product under consideration.
1 
 
 In making its findings and conclusions regardi ng simple zeroing, the Panel failed to interpret 
the relevant provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (GATT 1994) and the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of  the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
(Anti-Dumping Agreement ) in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation of public 
international law as required by Articles 3.2 an d 11 of the DSU and Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement .  In particular, the relevant interpretati ons set out in the Panel Report are at odds 
with the rules of treaty interpretation in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of 
Treaties . 
  Mexico seeks review by the Appellate Body of the following: 
 
1. The Panel's findings and conclusions that "sim ple zeroing" in periodic reviews is "as such" 
not inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2  of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 9.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement .
2  These findings and conclusions are based on an erroneous 
                                                      
1 See Panel Report, paragraphs 7.7 and 7.84-7.97. 
2 See Panel Report, paragraphs 7.145, 7.149, and 8.1(c). WT/DS344/7 
Page 2  
 
  interpretation and application of these provisions.  In particular, the Panel erred in finding 
that: 
  (i) Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement  do not require, for purposes of periodic reviews, that "dumping" 
and "margins of dumping" be  determined for the "product" under investigation as a 
whole and, instead, permit a determin ation of dumping for individual export 
transactions
3; 
  (ii) Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement , do not require, for the purposes of periodic reviews, that 
"dumping" and "margins of dumping" be determined for each exporter and producer 
subject to the proceeding and, instead, permit a determination of dumping for individual importers or import transactions
4;  and 
 
 (iii) Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement , do not prohibit simple zeroing in periodic reviews.5 
 2. The Panel's findings and conclusions that "sim ple zeroing" in periodic reviews is "as such" 
not inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .
6  This conclusion is based 
on an erroneous interpretation and application of Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 
and Articles 2.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , as described in paragraph 1.7 
 3. The Panel's findings and conclusions that by  applying simple zeroing in the five periodic 
reviews on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Mexico  identified by Mexico in its 
request for establishment of a panel, the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), did not act 
inconsistently with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of  the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 9.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement .
8  This conclusion is based on an erroneous interpretation and 
application of these provisions, as d escribed in the above paragraphs. 
 4. The Panel's findings and conclu sions that directly contradict those in adopted Appellate Body 
reports and force a WTO Member to appeal findings and conclusions that have already been 
specifically overturned on appeal.  In the par ticular circumstances of this dispute, such 
findings and conclusions are inconsistent w ith the function of the Panel which, under 
Article 11 of the DSU, is to assist the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in discharging its responsibilities under the DSU.  Underlying tho se responsibilities are Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of 
the DSU which establish that the WTO dispute se ttlement system is a "central element in 
providing security and predictability" and that the "prompt settlement of situations" is 
"essential to the effective functioning of the WTO". 
 5. The Panel's failure to consider in their entiret y the claims presented by Mexico relating to the 
inconsistency of zeroing with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  By failing to fully 
address these claims the Panel failed to make an  objective assessment of the matter before it 
as required by Article 11 of the DSU. 
 
                                                     
 
3 See, for example , Panel Report, paragraphs 7.117 to 7.123. 
4 See, for example , Panel Report, paragraphs 7.124 to 7.128. 
5 See Panel Report, paragraphs 7.129-7.143 and 7.146-7.148. 
6 See Panel Report, paragraphs 7.145 and 8.1(c). 
7 See Panel Report, paragraph 7.145. 
8 See, for example , Panel Report, paragraphs 7.149 and 8.1(d).  WT/DS344/7 
 Page 3 
 
 
   Mexico considers that the Panel erred in law in the interpretation and application of 
Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.4, and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  and acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU.  Mexico requests that, upon reversal 
of the Panel's erroneous findings and conclusions id entified above, the Appellate Body resolve this 
dispute promptly by finding that simple zeroing is "as such" inconsistent with Articles VI:1 and VI:2 
of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.4, and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and that the United 
States violated these provisions by applying simple ze roing in the five periodic reviews identified by 
Mexico.  
__________