UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000
Document: 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)
Date: 22 October 2002
Document codes: WT/DS217/8; WT/DS234/16
Complainant: Canada, Mexico
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, EU, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Thailand
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 5.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI  GATT 1994Art. 8, 18  Anti-dumpingArt. 11.4, 18, 32  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. XVI  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 10  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. X  GATT 1994Art. 1  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND
SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000
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 18 October 2002, sent by the United States to the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. This notification also constitutes the Notice of
Appeal, filed on the same day with th e Appellate Body, pursuant to the Working Procedures for
Appellate Review.
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 appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law
covered in the report of the single panel established in response to the requests of Australia, Brazil,
Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand in
the disputes (" CDSOA")
( and ) and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 ("CDSOA") is inconsistent with Articles VI:2
and VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 18.1 of the
Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("Antidumping Agreement") and Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures ("SCM Agreement"). These findings are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on
issues of law and related legal interpretations with respect to Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of GATT 1994,
Article 18.1 of the Antidumping Agreement and Artic le 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, including, for
example:
(a) the Panel's legal conclusions that the CDSOA acts specifically in response to
dumping, the CDSOA has an adverse bearing on dumping, the CDSOA operates
against dumping, actions objectively capable of offsetting or preventing dumping or
subsidization constitute action against dumping or subsidization, and Article 18.1 of
the Antidumping Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement apply to the
CDSOA or to specific actions that have an adverse bearing on the practice of
dumping or the practice of subsidization;
(b) the Panel's legal conclusion that Article 18.1 of the Antidumping Agreement and
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement include a conditions of competition or
competitive advantage test;

(c) the Panel's legal conclusions that the Appellate Body's interpretation of GATT
Article VI:2 and the Antidumping Agreement in US – 1916 Act applies equally to
GATT Article VI:3 and the SCM Agreement, and that Part III and Part V of the SCM
Agreement contain the only permissible remedies for subsidization;
(d) the Panel's legal conclusion that the CDSOA constitutes specific action against the
practice of dumping and specific action against the practice of subsidization;
(e) the Panel's legal conclusion that the CDSOA acts "against" dumping and/or a subsidy
because of a claimed adverse impact on the competitive relationship between
dumped/subsidized imports and the goods produced by "affected domestic
producers," and the improper shifting of the burden of proof to the United States to
prove that the CDSOA does not have an adverse bearing on the competitive
relationship between dumped/subsidized imports and the goods produced by "affected
domestic producers;"
(f) the Panel's legal conclusion that it need not examine footnote 24 of the Antidumping
Agreement and footnote 56 of the SCM Agreement because it had already concluded
that the CDSOA constitutes "specific action" against dumping and subsidization;
(g) the Panel's legal conclusion that the legislative intent of the CDSOA is relevant to
determining whether the CDSOA is consistent with WTO obligations; and
(h) the Panel's legal conclusion that the CDSOA creates a "financial incentive" to file or
support dumping/countervail petitions and therefore acts "against" dumping and/or a
subsidy.
2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the
CDSOA is inconsistent with Article 5.4 of th e Antidumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the
SCM Agreement. These findings are in error, and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law
and on related legal interpretations with respect to Article 5.4 of the Antidumping Agreement and
Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement, including, for example:
(a) the Panel's legal conclusion that the CDSOA violates Article 5.4 of the Antidumping
Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement despite its findings that the U.S.
has implemented these obligations under various provisions of U.S. law, that the
CDSOA does not amend these laws and that U.S. investigating authorities observe
the quantitative thresholds;
(b) the Panel's legal conclusion that the CDSOA renders the quantitative thresholds in
Article 5.4 of Antidumping Agreement and 11.4 of the SCM Agreement meaningless;
(c) the Panel's legal conclusion that the CDSOA violates Article 5.4 of the Antidumping
Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement because it " in effect mandates"
domestic producers to support the initiation of dumping/countervail investigations
and/or creates a financial incentive for domestic producers to support the initiation of
dumping/countervail investigations; and
(d) the Panel's legal conclusion that the United States has not acted in good faith in
enacting the CDSOA.

3. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the
CDSOA violates Article 18.4 of Antidumping Agr eement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement, and
Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
4. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the
benefits accruing to the Complaining Parties under the WTO Agreement have been nullified or
impaired.
5. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's legal conclusion that the
Panel has the discretion under Article 9.2 to reject a party's request for the Panel to submit separate
reports.