. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS268/5 
31 August 2004  
 (04-3624) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEWS OF ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES 
ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA 
 
Notification of an Appeal by the United States  
under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU")  
 
  The following notification, dated 31 August 2004, from the Delegation of the United States, is being circulated to Members.    
_______________ 
 
 Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the 
United States hereby notifies its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Report of the Panel on United States – Sunset Reviews of  Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina  (WT/DS268R) and certain legal interpretations developed by 
the Panel in this dispute.  1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the 
provisions of section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Tariff Act re lating to "affirmative" waivers are inconsistent 
with Article 11.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement  
on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") .  This finding is in error and is based on 
erroneous findings on issues of law a nd related legal interpretations, in cluding, for example, that U.S. 
law, including section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Tariff Ac t and section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Department 
of Commerce's regulations, precludes the Depart ment of Commerce from making an order-wide 
determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of du mping, supported by reasoned and 
adequate conclusions based on the facts before th e agency, where an inter ested party elects not to 
participate in the sunset review at the Department of Commerce;
1 
 2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the 
provisions of section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Depa rtment of Commerce's regulations relating to 
"deemed" waivers are inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  This finding is 
in error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and relate d legal interpretations, 
including, for example, that U.S. law, including section 751(c)(4)(B) of the Tariff Act and section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Department of Co mmerce's regulations, precludes the Department of 
Commerce from making an order-wid e determination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping, supported by reasoned and adequate conclusions based on the facts before the agency, 
where an interested party elects not to participat e in the sunset review at the Department of 
Commerce;
2 
 
                                                      
1See Panel Report, paras. 7.80-7.103, 8.1(a)(i)-(ii). 
2See id.  WT/DS268/5 
Page 2  
 
3. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that 
provisions of section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Depa rtment of Commerce's regulations relating to 
"deemed" waivers are inconsistent with Articles 6. 1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  These 
findings are in error and are based on erroneou s findings on issues of law and related legal 
interpretations, including, for example, that unde r U.S. law, including section 751(c)(4)(B) of the 
Tariff Act and section 351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the Depa rtment of Commerce's regulations, an exporter 
that fails to file a complete response to the notice of initiation has been deprived of ample opportunity 
to submit information in accordance with Article 6. 1 or to confront parties with adverse interests 
under Article 6.2, and which also renders the orde r-wide likelihood determina tion inconsistent with 
Articles 6.1 and 6.2;
3 
 
4. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that 
provisions of section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin  are inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and, to the extent that the Panel's conclusion is premised on an erroneous 
assessment of the facts, the United States seeks review  of that assessment pursuant to Article 11 of the 
DSU.  This finding is in error and is based on e rroneous findings on issues of law and related legal 
interpretations, including, for example:   the Panel's conclusion that the Sunset Policy Bulletin  is a 
measure, based solely on its conclusion that the Ap pellate Body found this in  another dispute;  the 
Panel's failure to rely on the meaning of the Sunset Policy Bulletin under U.S. municipal law in 
assessing whether the Sunset Policy Bulletin mandates a breach;  and the Panel's reliance on the 
"consistent application" of the Sunset Policy Bulletin  to conclude that the Sunset Policy Bulletin 
mandates a breach;4 
 5. The United States seeks review by the Appe llate Body of the Panel's factual findings 
regarding U.S. law.  These findings are in error and do not represent an obj ective assessment of the 
facts as required by Article 11 of the DSU;
5 
 
6. The United States seeks review by the Appellate  Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that 
Argentina's Panel Request was not inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the DSU.  This finding is in error 
and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interpre tations, including, for 
example: the Panel's conclusion that Argentina's pa nel request was sufficiently clear and presented the 
problem clearly,6 the Panel's conclusion that certain claims were within the terms of reference,7 and 
the Panel's conclusion that the United States did not establish prejudice.8 
_______________ 
 
                                                      
3See id., paras. 7.107-7.128, 8.1(a)(iii). 
4See id. , paras. 7.134-7.144, 7.152-7.173, 8.1(b). 
5See id., paras. 7.80-7.128. 
6See id.,  paras. 7.10-7.48. 
7See id. , paras. 7.49-7.70. 
8See id., para. 7.71.