WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS322/27 
8 April 2008 
 
 (08-1604) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING 
AND SUNSET REVIEWS 
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan
 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel 
 
  The following communication, dated 7 April 2008, from the delegation of Japan to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  My authorities have instructed me to requ est the establishment of a panel pursuant to 
Articles 6 and 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  ("DSU"), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
("GATT 1994") and Article 17.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of Ar ticle VI of the GATT 
1994 (" Anti-Dumping Agreement ") in connection with the United States' failure to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) in this dispute. 
 The documentation for the panel establishment request is attached and we would like to ask 
you to circulate the attached document to the members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND TO THIS REQUEST 
1. On 23 January 2007, the DSB adopted the Appe llate Body Report, and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.  The DSB ruled that: 
(i) by maintaining zeroing procedures
1 in original investigations when calculating 
margins of dumping on the basis of we ighted average-to-weighted average 
comparisons, the United States acts inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement ;2 
 
(ii) by maintaining zeroing procedures in original investigations when calculating 
margins of dumping on the basis of transaction-to-transaction comparisons, the 
                                                      
1 The term "zeroing procedures" refers to the methodology under which the United States Department 
of Commerce ("USDOC") disregards intermediate negative comparison results in the process of establishing the 
overall dumping margin for the product as a whole for a foreign producer or exporter.  See Appellate Body 
Report, footnote 3. 
2 Panel Report, para. 7.258(a). WT/DS322/27 
Page 2  
 
  United States acts inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement ;
3 
 
(iii) by applying zeroing procedures in the anti-dumping investigation regarding imports 
of cut-to-length carbon quality steel products from Japan, the United States acted 
inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;4 
 
(iv) by maintaining zeroing procedures in periodic reviews, the United States acts 
inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994;5 
 
(v) by maintaining zeroing procedures in ne w shipper reviews, the United States acts 
inconsistently with Articles 2.4 and 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ;6 
 
(vi) by applying zeroing procedures in the 11 periodic reviews identified in Japan's 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel7, the United States acted inconsistently with 
Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994;8 and 
 
(vii) by relying on margins of dumping calculated in previous proceedings using the 
zeroing procedures in the two sunset review s identified in Japan 's Request for the 
Establishment of a Panel9, the United States acted inconsis tently with Article 11.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement .10 
 2. At the DSB meeting on 20 February 2007, the United States informed the DSB that it 
intended to implement the recommendations and ruli ngs of the DSB.  The United States and Japan 
thereafter agreed, under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time ("RPT") for the 
United States to implement the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings would expire on 24 December 
2007. 
3. On 10 March 2008, Japan and the United Stat es decided on procedures that would apply 
between them under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU for purposes of this dispute.
11  Paragraph 1(a) of 
that decision provides that Japan need not hold cons ultations with the United States prior to requesting 
the establishment of a panel; paragraph 1(b) states that the United States will accept the establishment 
of a panel at the first DSB meeting at which Japan's panel request appears on the agenda. 
II. DECLARED IMPLEMENTATION ACTION AND INACTION 
4. In its status report to the DSB of 8 November 2007, the United States informed the DSB that: 
"On 6 March 2006, the US Department of Commerce published a notice requesting 
comments on its intention to no longer perfo rm average-to-average comparisons in 
anti-dumping investigations without offsets.  On 26 January 2007, the Department published a notice that the date after wh ich it would no longer perform such 
                                                     
 
3 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(b). 
4 Panel Report, para. 7.258(a). 
5 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(c). 
6 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(d). 
7 WT/DS322/8. 
8 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(e). 
9 WT/DS322/8. 
10 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(f). 
11 WT/DS322/26.  WT/DS322/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
  comparisons would be 22 February 2007.  Accordingly, as of 22 February 2007, the 
United States is no longer performing av erage-to-average comparisons in 
anti-dumping investigations without offsets."12 
In the same report, the United States added that it wa s "continuing to consult internally on steps to be 
taken with respect to the other DSB recommendations and rulings." 
5. On 6 December 2007, the United States provided an identical report to the DSB, with no 
additional information.13 
6. On 27 December 2007, the United States Depa rtment of Commerce ("USDOC") announced 
publicly that it had taken steps to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to 
the anti-dumping investigation regarding imports of  cut-to-length carbon quality steel products.  In 
particular, the USDOC recalculated the margin of dumping without zeroing.14 
7. On 10 January 2008, the United States informed the DSB that: 
"With respect to the assessment reviews at issue in this dispute, in each case the 
results were superseded by subsequent review s.  Because of this, no further action is 
necessary for the United States to bring these challenged measures into compliance 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB."15 
8. At the DSB meeting on 21 January 2008, the Unite d States informed the DSB of its view that 
the elimination of zeroing in average-to-avera ge comparisons in anti-dumping investigations, as 
described in paragraph 4 above, also implemen ted the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the maintenance of zeroing procedures in transaction-to-transaction comparisons in anti-
dumping investigations, and in peri odic and new shipper reviews. 
III. MEASURES AT ISSUE AND CLAIMS MADE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS 
A. ZEROING PROCEDURES  
9. The DSB made four separate recommendations an d rulings that the United States bring the 
zeroing procedures into conformity with its WTO obligations.  These recommendations and rulings 
related to the maintenance of zeroing procedures as a general rule:  (1) in weighted average-to-
weighted average ("W-to-W") comparisons in original investigations;16 (2) in transaction-to-
transaction ("T-to-T") comparisons in original investigations;17 (3) in any comparison methodology in 
periodic reviews;18 and (4) in any comparison methodology in new shipper reviews.19 
10. Although, as noted in paragraph 4, the United Stat es informed the DSB that, with effect from 
22 February 2007, it withdrew the zeroing proce dures in W-to-W comparisons in original 
investigations, Japan is unaware of the adoption by the United States of any measures to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding th e maintenance of zeroing procedures:  (1) in 
                                                      
12 WT/DS322/22. 
13 WT/DS322/22/Add.1. 
14 See Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results, Investigation A-588-847, Section 129 
Proceeding (Dec.  27, 2007), available at  http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ia-news-2007.html . 
15 WT/DS322/22/Add.2. 
16 Panel Report, para. 7.258(a). 
17 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(b). 
18 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(c). 
19 Appellate Body Report, para. 190(d). WT/DS322/27 
Page 4  
 
  T-to-T comparisons in original investigations ; (2) in any comparison methodology in periodic 
reviews; and (3) in any comparison methodology in new shipper reviews. 
11. By continuing to maintain zeroing procedures in these contexts, and failing to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings, the United Stat es acts inconsistently with Articles 17.14, 21.1 
and 21.3 of the DSU and, as set forth in the DSB' s recommendations and rulings, Article 2.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  Additionally, as also set 
forth in the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in connection with T-to-T comparisons in original 
investigations, the United States violates Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ; in connection 
with periodic reviews, it violates Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ; and, in connection with 
new shipper reviews, it violates Article 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
B. P
ERIODIC REVIEWS  
12. This request concerns five of the 11 periodic re views mentioned in paragraph 1(vi), plus three 
closely connected periodic reviews that the United States argues "superseded" the original reviews.  
The United States used zeroing in each of these revi ews and, despite the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings, has omitted to eliminate zeroing from any of them.  These eight periodic reviews are 
identified in Annex 1 of this Request, and stem from anti-dumping duty orders on "Ball Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From Japan", "Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan", and 
"Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Ja pan".  This request also concerns United States 
Government instructions and notices, issued since th e end of the RPT, to liquidate entries covered by 
these eight reviews.  Further, the request concerns  any amendments to the eight periodic reviews and 
the closely connected instructions and notices, as we ll as any subsequent closely connected measures. 
13. Since the end of the RPT, through the eight periodic reviews at issue, and the United States 
Government instructions and notices, the United St ates has improperly continued to impose, collect, 
and/or assess anti-dumping duties in excess of the proper  margin of dumping, and will continue to do 
so.  The United States thereby improperly impo ses duties on the importation of Japanese goods in 
excess of the duties permitted under the United States' Schedule of Concessions. 
14. The United States' failure to take measures to eliminate zeroing and, thereby, to bring itself 
into conformity with its WTO obligations, is incons istent with Articles 17.14, 21.1 and 21.3 of the 
DSU.  As a result of this omission, the United States  continues to act inconsistently with Articles 2.4 
and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, as set forth in the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  Further, the United St ates' measures taken to comply, if and to the 
extent they exist, are inconsistent with Articles 2.4, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and 
Articles II:1(a), II:1(b), VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 for the reasons given in the previous 
paragraph. 
C. SUNSET REVIEWS  
15. The United States has failed to take any action to  bring the sunset review determination of 4 
November 1999 regarding the anti-dumping duty orde r on Anti-Friction Bearings from Japan, covered 
by paragraph 1(vii) above, as well as the sunset revi ew determination of the same order, of 4 May 
2006, into conformity with its WTO obligations.  Both measures are identified in Annex 2.  As a 
result, the United States acts inconsistently with Articles 17.14, 21.1 and 21.3 of the DSU and, as set 
forth in the DSB's recommendations and rulings, Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  WT/DS322/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
  IV. CONCLUSION 
16. Japan requests that a panel be established under Article 21.5 of the DSU with standard terms 
of reference, as set forth in Article 7.1 of the DSU,  and asks that this request be placed on the agenda 
of the DSB meeting scheduled for 18 April 2008. WT/DS322/27 
Page 6  
 
  ANNEX I:  PERIODIC REVIEWS 
 
 
ORDER 
(CASE NUMBER) NO. PERIODIC REVIEW 
(MEASURES AT ISSUE) COMPANIES 
1 1 May 1999 – 30 April 2000 
(66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001) 
(As amended: 72 Fed. Reg. 67892, 
3 December 2007) (NTN)) JTEKT20 and NTN 
2 1 May 2000 – 30 April 2001 
(67 Fed. Reg. 55780, 30 August 2002) 
(As amended: 73 Fed. Reg. 15481, 24 March 2008) NTN 
3 1 May 2002 – 30 April 2003 
(69 Fed. Reg. 55574, 15 September 2004) JTEKT, NSK and 
NTN 
4 1 May 2003 – 30 April 2004 
(70 Fed. Reg. 54711, 16 September 2005) 
(As amended: 70 Fed. Reg. 61252, 21 October 2005 (NSK)) 
(As amended: 70 Fed. Reg. 69316, 
15 November 2005 (Nippon Pillow Block)) JTEKT, Nippon 
Pillow Block, NSK 
and NTN 
5 1 May 2004 – 30 April 2005 
(71 Fed. Reg. 40064, 14 July 2006) JTEKT, NSK, 
Nippon Pillow Block 
and NTN Ball Bearings and 
Parts Thereof From 
Japan (A-588-804) 
6 1 May 2005 – 30 April 2006 
(72 Fed. Reg. 58053, 12 October 2007) Asahi Seiko, 
JTEKT, NSK, 
Nippon Pillow Block 
and NTN 
Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts 
Thereof From Japan 
(A-588-804) 7 1 May 1999 – 31 December 1999 
(66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001) JTEKT and NTN 
Spherical Plain 
Bearings and Parts 
Thereof From Japan 
(A-588-804) 8 1 May 1999 – 31 December 1999 
(66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001) NTN 
 
                                                      
20 JTEKT is formerly known as Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd.  WT/DS322/27 
 Page 7 
 
 
  ANNEX 2:  SUNSET REVIEWS 
 
 
ORDER 
(CASE NUMBER) NO. SUNSET REVIEWS 
(MEASURES AT ISSUE) 
9 1994 – 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 60275, 
4 November 1999) Antifriction Bearings from Japan (A-588-804) 
10 2000 – 2005 (71 Fed. Reg. 26321, 
4 May 2006) 
 
 
__________